Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected Miami Herald My African-American professor merely laughed when I suggested that I was wrong for the job, making it clear he would be there every step of the way. The court readily agreed free speech does not permit content to be regulated by the government, forcing ... |
See the article here:
Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected - Miami Herald
It appears that the only person who is endorsing free speech is President Donald Trump. Politicians should be saying that they don't agree with the message of the KKK and other hate groups but that they support their right to express their views. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right. By not denouncing the violence on both sides, the leftists feel encouraged to use violence to oppose those with whom they disagree such as the Tea Party and other Republican groups. Marco Rubio, John McCain and others have given tacit approval to leftist violence. The media was not reporting what I saw on television. Many people with clubs and flaming aerosol cans were attacking those who had come to Charlottesville to protest the removal of Confederate statutes. All violence should be denounced. Both sides have blame for violence in Charlottesville. Saying this does not show approval for the KKK. That is how the media is trying to spin this.
Ronald Kuhns, Nottingham
Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.
See more here:
BOSTON (CBS) The city of Boston has approved a permit for a controversialFree Speech Rally scheduled to take place on Boston Common Saturday.
After a meeting with Boston Police and city officials Wednesday morning, event organizer and Boston Free Speech Coalition spokesman John Medlar told WBZ-TV the city gave them the green light for the event to take place.
READ: Permit For Boston Free Speech Coalition Rally
According to Medlar, the two parties agreed in the meeting that the rally will be barricaded by police.
The police are going to be there in full force, Medlar told WBZ-TVs Beth Germano. Theyre going to have physical barriers around the Parkman Bandstand separating the rallygoers from counter-protesters to make sure that everyone stays safe. Theyre going to be escorting people in and escorting people out. If things get out of hand, they will evacuate people.
Boston Free Speech Coalition spokesperson John Medlar. (WBZ-TV)
Medlar said no weapons will be permitted, and anyone can be searched.
They will not be allowing people to bring weapons of any kind, anything that could be used as a weapon, so blunt instruments like flagpoles, he said. They will be allowing people to bring flags, just not attached to any pole or stick.
At a prayer service outside City Hall Wednesday afternoon, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh addressed the tension surrounding the rally.
In our city, weve been dealing with anticipation of whats going to happen on Saturday, Walsh said. I ask everyone who comes to Boston Common on Saturday, you can have your free speech all day long, but lets not speak about hate. Lets not speak about bigotry, racism.
He stood with faith leaders from around the city and asked protesters and rally-goers to refrain from hateful or violent behavior.
We are a better people than what were seeing on TV, Walsh said. And Im asking people, when you come into Boston, respect this city, because we respect your right to come in and speak. If were gonna respect your right to come in, we expect you to respect our city, our people, the people that live here. Dont pass hate, dont pass judgement on people, and thats what were asking for.
Earlier Wednesday, Medlar told WBZ NewsRadio 1030s Carl Stevens that people have the wrong impression about the eventand that he and his group absolutely disavow white supremacy.
Contrary to a lot of the rumors out there, the purpose of the rally is to denounce the kind of political violence that we have seen, a sort of rising tide throughout the country, Medlar said. And particularly most recently in Charlottesville.
A post on the Boston Free Speech Facebook pageTuesday night disavowed last weekendswhite nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which led to the death of a woman protesting white supremacy and left 19 others injured.
This Free Speech Movement is dedicated to peaceful rallies and are in no way affiliated with the Charlottesville rally on 8/12/17, the post read. While we maintain that every individual is entitled to their freedom of speech and defend that basic human right, we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry.
Medlar said most of those involved are local volunteers and activists who want to de-escalate what they see as a rising tide of political violence across the country.
We want to get people talking and listening to each other again, to exchange words rather than to exchange fists on the streets, Medlar said.
Medlar said his group opposes groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis because they use free speech and the First Amendment as a shield while rejecting the same rights for the people they disagree with. He said some of those groups were among those inaccurately equating the Boston Free Speech Coalition with the events in Charlottesville.
In all the confusion out there, there do seem to be legitimate white supremacist groups on social media that are attempting to hijack the rally, Medlar said. It is very troublesome to us.
He said his group carefully vetted speakers, and said the list included people with varied backgroundsincluding supporters of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein as well as more right-leaning figures.
Though the Boston Free Speech Coalition is not affiliated with the organizers of the Unite The Right rally in Virginia, they did invite at least one of the speakers from that rally in Charlottesville. Listed on a flyer for the event was a speaker going by the name Augustus Invictus who, according to the Orlando Sentinel, had prominent billing in Charlottesville.
Poster for the August 19, Free Speech Rally. (Photo credit: WBZ-TV)
Medlar described Invictus as a fringe figure and a very out-there person but said that regardless of the other stuff, hes ultimately a libertarian.
There was actually a mistake made, Medlar said. In all the confusion that happened, one of our other organizers told Augustus that he was being disinvited.
He said that mistake created a breach in trust that led to other speakers dropping out.
On Tuesday, speaker Brandon Navomtold WBZ-TV he was dropping out because hes been receiving death threatsand thinks the rally should be cancelled.
The environment has just become so hostile and so toxic that I am completely concerned for the city of Boston, Navom said.
Medlar said the group considered cancelling the rally after Charlottesville, but decided against it.
If anything, the events in Charlottesvillewhich did take us very much by surprise, we were shocked and horrified by the things that went down thereif anything, that only makes the kind of thing that were trying to do all the more necessary, Medlar said.
He added that even if they told people not to go, hes sure theyd show up anyway.
Last weekends violence in Virginia prompted Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker to issue tough statementsa week ahead of the Boston rally thathate groups would not be welcome in the city.
Boston does not welcome you here. Boston does not want you here. Boston rejects your message, said Walsh. We reject racism, we reject white supremacy, we reject anti-Semitism, we reject the KKK, we reject neo-Nazis, we reject domestic terrorism, and reject hatred. We will do every single thing in our power to keep hate out of our city.
Medlar said my objective is to coordinate with police and with city officials to make sure that logistics are entirely in place and everything is kept orderly, everything is kept safe, and at the end of the day, everyone is able to go home with no trouble.
Medlar in part echoed the spirit of President Donald Trumps recent comments, saying that groups on the left as well as the right were responsible for political violence.
We absolutely denounce violent extremists on both sides of the aisle, like the Antifa movement on the left, and Identity Europa and Vanguard on the right, he said.
RELATED:Trump Again Blames Both Sides For Charlottesville Violence
In Roxbury Tuesday night, members of the NAACP and the local faith community planned a peace rally to coincide with the Boston Free Speech Rally Saturday.
White supremacists who are okay with being public now feel emboldened and protected by the person in the White House, said the Boston NAACPs Segun Idowu.
Meanwhile, a group that calls itself Fight Supremacy says they will be organizing a counter-rally Saturday.
In a post on their Facebook page, Fight Supremacy organizers wrote, On Saturday, August 19th, White Nationalists are converging on Boston Common to reinforce their white supremacist ideology and attempt to intimidate queer and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, POC) communities.
That group has not received a permit yet.
Monica Cannon, founder of a group called Violence In Boston that is among the sponsors of the Fight Supremacy event, told WBZ-TV why the counter-protest was being organized.
Mainly, to stand up and show that Boston is not the city, that you cant come here with those views, but also to highlight the fact that a lot of those people arent visiting Boston, she said. They actually live here, and although Boston tries to come across as progressive and liberal, theres a great deal of racism here.
But Medlar disagrees with Fight Supremacys characterization of his event.
Im afraid that they are very much misinformed, and we regret that, said Medlar. Were campaigning for people like them to rally as well. We have no problem with them exercising their freedom of assembly, we just wish they would do it for the right reasons, rather than mistaking us for something were not.
No matter whether or not city officials give the Boston Free Speech Coalition a permit, Cannon says her group will show up Saturday.
Whether they have their rally or they dont have their rally, were going to be there, because we need to send a message, she said.
WBZ NewsRadio 1030s Carl Stevens reports
See the article here:
Photo Joshua Wong during an October 2014 protest outside the offices of Hong Kongs chief executive. Credit Tyrone Siu/Reuters
To the Editor:
Re Three Young Voices Versus a Superpower (editorial, Aug. 15):
The three students were convicted because their disorderly and intimidating behavior broke the law during a protest. They were found guilty based on evidence presented in a fair and open trial.
Under Hong Kongs common law legal system, like others around the world, both the prosecution and the convicted can seek an appeal of sentence. The court will consider the case independently, fairly and openly. There is simply no basis to imply that political motive or the students political views are the reason for the appeal.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are protected in Hong Kongs Basic Law, our constitutional document, and underpinned by the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Hong Kongs judicial independence is ranked eighth globally by the World Economic Forum (the United States is 29th).
Your eagerness to label the alleged kidnapping case of Howard Lam, a member of Hong Kongs Democratic Party, as a brazen crackdown is also wide of the mark. Independent journalists have published evidence that contradicts his allegations. Mr. Lam has since been arrested on suspicion of misleading the police by false information.
CLEMENT LEUNG, WASHINGTON
The writer is Hong Kongs commissioner to the United States.
See original here:
The violent clashes in Charlottesville, Virginia, have turned a spotlight on the freedom of speech one of the first rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and one of the messiest.
In Charlottesville, white nationalists and other extremist groups including neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan rallied but only after a federal judge ruled they had the right to gather at Emancipation Park and protest the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Their rights were defended by the American Civil Liberties Union, despised by many conservatives as a liberal bastion. The ACLU deplored the "voices of white supremacy," and condemned the violence that killed a 32-year-old woman and injured dozens of others. But the ACLU made no apologies for its defense of speech that many find distasteful or even dangerous.
"The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech," the organization said.
So what are the boundaries of free speech? And how is it playing out in this politically charged landscape?
FREE SPEECH RIGHTS
"Even groups that have hateful messages still have a right under the First Amendment to express those positions, whether it's in rallies or protests or gatherings or writing," says Roy Gutterman, a First Amendment expert at Syracuse University.
But free speech does have boundaries. "You have no right to incite violence, you have no right to defame someone or disseminate child pornography," he says. "There are limits and some of the limits are easier to define than others. Even the concept of inciting a riot can get into some subjective and nebulous standards."
The limits of free speech were recognized in a 1919 Supreme Court decision in which the justices said the First Amendment could be restricted if the words represented a "clear and present danger." In that ruling, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
The ACLU has a long history of defending free speech rights, at times on behalf of bigoted groups with offensive messages. In one of its most controversial cases, the ACLU in the late 1970s argued that a neo-Nazi group should be allowed to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, which was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors. The demonstrators planned to wear Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands. Attorneys for Skokie argued that would be traumatic for many residents. The neo-Nazis ultimately won the legal battle as a free speech argument, but didn't follow through with the march. Instead, they held a rally in a federal plaza in downtown Chicago.
In a recent case the ACLU said it was defending right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos in a free speech lawsuit even though it disagrees with his positions, saying he has fostered "anti-Muslim views and disdain for women" and has compared Black Lives Matter activists to the Klan.
"We understand the pain caused by Mr. Yiannopoulos' views," James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project wrote last week. "We also understand the importance of the principles we seek to defend. The constitutional principle here, of course, is that government can't censor our speech just because it doesn't like what we say."
TOLERANCE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES
The debate over political expression and free speech has roiled college campuses in recent years, most notably at the University of California-Berkeley. An appearance by Yiannopoulos last winter was canceled after demonstrators dressed in black, broke windows, hurled rocks at police and set fires on the campus. A speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at Berkeley was later canceled because of safety concerns. And in Middlebury College, a small liberal arts campus in Vermont, scores of students shouted down political scientist Charles Murray, the author of "The Bell Curve," a controversial book that deals with race and intelligence.
Syracuse's Gutterman says what's happening now is a dramatic shift from the era between the 1940s and 1960s when people on college campuses who were being punished, censored and kicked out of school were on the political left. "Fast forward to today," he says. "It's people on the right or the far right who feel they're not getting a chance to articulate their viewpoint."
"'I think college campuses are a pretty precarious place for the free exchange of information," he says. "Berkeley is the birthplace of the Free Speech movement in the '60s. There's a huge irony there. College campuses have become kind of soft places because of speech codes, codes of conduct and things like that that tend to over-insulate people."
But Fanta Aw, interim vice president of campus life at American University in Washington, D.C., told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June: "As an institution, we draw the line when expression has the potential to incite violence and/or is a direct threat to members of our community."
THE VIEW FROM ABROAD
Many other democracies do not share America's broad protections of speech.
After World War II, several European countries enacted laws that were designed to curb religious and racial hatred. The punishment can range from fines to prison. In 2006, British historian David Irving was sentenced to prison in Austria for denying the Holocaust and gas chambers at Auschwitz. In 2011, a French court found the flamboyant fashion designer John Galliano guilty of making anti-Semitic comments at a Paris bistro.
Original post:
Strange bedfellows: The ACLU, free speech and Neo-Nazis - ABC News
At the height ofthe deadly racist mayhem last Saturday in Charlottesville, a so-called white nationalist named Preston Wiginton announced that he would hold a White Lives Matter rally on September 11 on the grounds of Texas A & M, a public university in College Station. The rally would feature Richard Spencer, a well-known white nationalist whose speech at an auditorium at the university in December sparked outrage and near violence on campus. The headline of Wigintons press release blared in all caps, TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, TOMORROW TEXAS A&M.
An opposing group immediately announced a counter-protest to be called BTHO Hate, borrowing from a campus sports-program acronym meaning beat the hell out of.
On Monday night, Texas A & M announced it was canceling Wiggintons rally, and issued the following statement:
After consultation with law enforcement and considerable study, Texas A&M is cancelling the event scheduled by Preston Wiginton at Rudder Plaza on campus on September 11 because of concerns about the safety of its students, faculty, staff, and the public.
Texas A&M changed its policy after Decembers protests so that no outside individual or group could reserve campus facilities without the sponsorship of a university-sanctioned group. None of the 1200-plus campus organizations invited Preston Wiginton nor did they agree to sponsor his events in December 2016 or on September 11 of this year.
With no university facilities afforded him, he chose instead to plan his event outdoors for September 11 at Rudder Plaza, in the middle of campus, during a school day, with a notification to the media under the headline Today Charlottesville, Tomorrow Texas A&M.
Linking the tragedy of Charlottesville with the Texas A&M event creates a major security risk on our campus. Additionally, the daylong event would provide disruption to our class schedules and to student, faculty and staff movement (both bus system and pedestrian).
Texas A&Ms support of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech cannot be questioned. On December 6, 2016 the university and law enforcement allowed the same speaker the opportunity to share his views, taking all of the necessary precautions to ensure a peaceful event. However, in this case, circumstances and information relating to the event have changed and the risks of threat to life and safety compel us to cancel the event.
Finally, the thoughts and prayers of Aggies here on campus and around the world are with those individuals affected by the tragedy in Charlottesville.
Texas A & M is a public university subject to the demands of the First Amendment. It cannot ban speech on campus simply because the content of that speech is objectionable to many or all. Even hate speech like that of White Supremacists is fully constitutionally protected. Courts long ago held that Nazis bearing swastikas must be allowed to march down the streets of a neighborhood populated by Holocaust survivors. Furthermore,Texas A & M permitsRudder Plaza to be used as a free-speech zone, whether or not the speakers are sponsored by a student group.
University lawyers know this, so officials have not announced a total ban on racist hate speech on campus. They are cancelling this particular event. And they are offering purported content-neutral justifications for the cancellation. Are they on solid First Amendment ground?
The first and potentially most compelling justification for the cancellation is a public safety concern. Given violent clashes in other places where political extremists have rallied, and especially the demonstration four days ago at the University of Virginia, its easy to sympathize with the university. Moreover, September 11 is an especially sensitive day on the American calendarwhich is no doubt the reason it was chosen for the rally. Protecting public safety is certainly a legitimate and indeed powerful concern of public officials. Speakers may not threaten violence or incite others to violence. Any actual acts of violence by speakers or counter-protesters could be punished.
The problem for Texas A & M is that, judging by the public record, we have no indication so far that organizers have made what courts would likely consider threats of violence. Its true that Wiginton linked his event to Charlottesville. But avague publicity reference to Today Charlottesville, Tomorrow Texas A &M is not enough to qualify as an unprotected true threat.
Theres also no evidence that organizers directly encouragedincitedothers to commit acts of violence. To constitute unprotected incitement, the speech must clearly advocate actual lawlessness (not merely hint at it) and be likely to immediately cause such lawlessness (not merely increase its likelihood). Under this test, the Supreme Court reversed the criminal conviction of a Klan leader who told armed membersat a cross-burning rally that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken against niggers and Jews.
Undoubtedly,many people feel provoked to violence when they see swastikas or Confederate flags or hear slogans that evoke genocide like Jews will not replace us. Thus, the planned counter-protest in response to Wiginton employed the language of force (beat the hell out of hate). But provocation is not incitement.The university cannot bar controversial speech simply because listeners might be deeply offended or might themselves react violently when they hear the speech. Federal courts are wary of allowing such a hecklers veto of controversial speechespecially based on an undifferentiated fear that violence might possibly ensue. Shutting down or prohibiting speech is the last resort, not the first.
Minimizing and containing the threat of violence at the rally is a matter for negotiation between the speakers and the university, with a judge resolving outstanding differences. But safety concerns are unlikely to prevent the speech altogether.
The second justification for the cancellation is that the event would disturb the normal activities of the campus during a school day, including possible disruption to class schedules, and would impede the safe and free movement of pedestrians and vehicles through campus. These are legitimate content-neutral concerns of the government, but there is a fact question about whether a protest or event could be orchestrated in a way that would minimize disruption and allow adequate traffic flow. These are matters that could be negotiated by lawyers for the university and the speakers, with differences adjudicated by a judge. Again, these concerns wont justify wholly forbidding the speech.
The universitys cancellation is an opening bid in a negotiation with lawyers for the speakers. It may be that a different date or time or specific place on campus for the event can be arranged to address safety and other concerns. Certainly the university can take steps to protect the peace, like increasing police presence and erecting barriers between opposing groups. But I doubt the University will succeed in simply prohibiting this event on campus.
Texas A & M is not a one-off. The newly emboldened and brazen white racist movement is seeking similar publicity around the country. The constitutional issues raised by the universitys purported cancellation of a White Supremacy rally will recur. The First Amendment is not an alt-right slogan. We cant let it be distorted by our fear of bigots. And we cant let it be a tool for them alone.
Read the original post:
Free speech and White Supremacy at Texas A & M (and elsewhere) - Washington Post
Free speech isn't an absolute and it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want.
"First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. The protection is mainly from the government, and it doesn't protect against the consequences of the freedom of speech," saidJohn Elmore, a legal analyst.
Because of the First Amendment protections, it's rare that a government will deny a permit to assemble, even if it is for a recognized hate group, like the White Nationalists who organized the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend. Plus, those groups can sue if their assembly permit is denied. But the government can restrict a protest to a certain place and time.
"The court has always had the ruling that if the government restricts speech based on the content of that speech, they have a very high standard. And it is very reluctant to allow that restriction," saidPeter Yacobucci, Ph.D., a SUNY Buffalo State political science associate professor.
The exceptions to freedom of speech include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity and lies, just to name a few. And there's a fine line between freedom to spew hate speech and inciting violence.
"For hate speech, as long as nobody is acting on it, it's still protected. If people are acting on it, we can say this person was engaging in incitement and incitement, we have laws against," saidClairissa Breen, Ph.D., a SUNY Buffalo State criminal justice professor.
Yacobucci added, "If a common person understood it that they were being directed to that violence, then the speech can be restricted, but that's a pretty high standard. To just say, 'I want to kill that person,' that's not a enough to be a threat. There has to be something substantial behind it."
Elmore said, "No matter how untasteful the language is, that's protected speech."
But freedom of speech and assembly rights can be revoked if things turn violent. Plus, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from potential consequences.
"A private employer may be embarrassed by extreme political views of a person that is publicized, somebody that publicizes their Nazi views, their KKK views, extreme racist views. The government says you can say those things, but a private employer has the right to discharge an employee because that would affect their business," said Elmore.
But for government employees, it's more of a gray area. If the hate speech is something that could affect the way they do their job, like a police officer, they would be at risk for getting fired.
View post:
The police chief reminds group that Islam is the official religion and there is no provision for atheism in the constitution.
KUALA LUMPUR: Police today warned an atheist group not to cause uneasiness among Malaysians, particularly the Muslims, with their activities.
Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar, who issued the warning, said the group must abide by the laws.
I advise this atheist group not to cause uneasiness, particularly among Muslims who reject atheism, he told a news conference after witnessing a transfer of duty in the narcotics criminal investigation department and pinning on new rank insignias for senior officers.
Last week, the special officer to the prime minister, Rizal Mansor, expressed his concern over the appearance of an atheist club in Malaysia.
Rizal said the club should not be treated lightly.
Khalid said the nations constitution recognised Islam as the official religion without any provision in it for atheism.
He said the police would scrutinise the existing laws to enable appropriate action to be taken should the atheist group cause anxiety among Muslims.
The IGP was also asked what action the police would take if the group received threats from Muslims.
If they are threatened and there is an infringement of the laws, we will investigate and take action, he said.
On the discovery of the body of a South Korean woman found bound in a hotel room toilet in Genting Highlands today, Khalid said police had identified the killer and were hunting him.
We believe the killer is a Korean citizen and we have alerted the authorities at all exit points to detain him if he tries to leave the country.
This case involves a gambling debt. We believe it is connected with lending money to South Koreans to gamble in Genting Highlands.
When the borrower is unable to repay, this sort of thing happens, he said.
On the issue of Selangor menteri besar Azmin Ali seeking a court order to compel the IGP to arrest businessman Low Taek Jho or Jho Low in connection with the 1MDB scandal, Khalid said he would wait for the courts decision.
No matter, we wait for the courts order, he said.
The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.
Continue reading here:
IGP warns atheist group not to cause uneasiness - Free Malaysia Today
August 16, 2017 By Hal Ostrander and Daryl Smith
Watching my grandkids laugh, explore and have fun, I shake my head and wonder where this culture of ours will take them. Do we realize how fast the future is rushing to meet our posterity, and us? In the days ahead, the contours of civilization likely will radically alter, sacred and secular alike, and in ways staggering to think about.
Consider the past: In 1790, 90 percent of people worked on farms; 1870, 50 percent; today, less than 1 percent. In 1900, 90 percent of the population was rural; today 90 percent is urban. Folks worked 60 hours a week over six days with a life expectancy of 47 years. Three percent of homes had electricity, and 15 percent had flush toilets.
Only one in five households owned a horse, and an eighth-grade education was the norm with college graduates numbering a scant 7 percent. Halfway through 2017, its hard to fathom the scale of change weve undergone and harder still to grasp whats yet to take place.
Just look at computing
In 1965, Gordon Moore, Intels co-founder, predicted transistors on circuits would double roughly every two years. His estimate has held true, but he couldnt have foreseen 2017 as the 10th anniversary of the iPhone. Now we can contact anyone around the world instantly from our pockets!
Remarkably, smart phone circuitry is 150 million times more powerful than the computer NASA used to navigate Apollo 11 safely to the moon in July 1969. At the time, NASA computers stored only a megabyte of memory each, were car-sized, and cost $3.5 million apiece.
If the trend continues
Today theres no stopping things! Forgive the technicality, but the development of carbon-based transistors in hand with quantum/nano-biological computing will take whats listed below and advance things to ever higher levels:
If the trend continues, artificial intelligence (AI) could emerge exponentially, with no turning back! Processing power exceeding the human brain may suddenly slap an unsuspecting public in the face. The brightest minds in the industry are alleging that one day, hopefully soon, machines and robots will simulate human intelligence successfully, solving challenges previously reserved only for conscious thinking.
Weak and strong AI
There are three waves of weak AI. The first solves problems very fast and works very well in video games, Excel sheets, TurboTax, etc. The second is where machines seem to learn via millions of pieces of data Siri, Cortana, Watson, AlphaGo, Microsofts Tay, Twitter, Chatbox and self-driving cars. But none of these can explain the why of things.
Whether third-wave, weak AI is achievable is an open question. Because humans can abstract things based on small amounts of data, third-wave AI tries for the same, operating on minimal information.
The stuff of sci-fi for now, strong AI is what cognitive science is really striving for machines that function with human-like minds, crossing the threshold into self-awareness/consciousness. Eventually downloading human consciousness to a computer is part of the game plan as well.
Whos charting our future?
Some of the smartest and wealthiest people in Silicon Valley, the venture techno-capitalists, are teaming up to invest billions to make strong AI happen. Even Google and NASA are cooperating to this end.
Sanctioning the likes of Ray Kurzweils think-tank, Singularity University, and Zoltan Istvans Transhumanist Party, futurist investors are siding, paradoxically, with an inelegant duo a hyper-optimistic form of scientism (only science can get at truth) and a transhumanist vision striving to achieve omnipotence (as if achieving divinity).
One dissenting voice, Elon Musk, warns his colleagues optimism about AI isnt justified: If our intelligence is exceeded, its unlikely well remain in charge of the planet. Bill Gates himself comments about AI, I dont understand why some people are not concerned.
What is lacking
Coming too fast, Christians must begin thinking soundly about the implications of futurity ASAP! Most techno-futurists assume as true the rationale lying behind philosophical naturalism, which popularizes the universe as a closed system into which nothing god-like can intervene to impose its will.
In the beginning, only particles and impersonal laws of physics reigned, and human beings are just bio-chemical machines without souls. Put crassly, were meat machines. Christians, of course, recognize immediately how short-sighted this is.
It doesnt mean, however, believers wont be influenced or charmed by futurist agendas. Some will! While we know futurists lack an adequately Christian sense of reality, their impact on society may well create a sense of uneasiness about our next cultural steps as followers of Christ.
A google of questions
So, how far will God allow things to go? Theologizing about techno-futures is imperative if were to remain comprehensively Christian throughout. Responding to bizarre worlds in the making is paramount. The choices well make individually when faced with techno-options unavailable to earlier generations will be weighty. The church must push for answers to questions raised by the techno-future, however alarming:
Will Christians:
Brief conclusion
Answering questions related to future shock comes down to the worldview on the table, with profound implications about how individual lives and corporate society should conduct themselves considering the techno-futurist demands coming our way.
Too few Christians and church traditions ask the question, Just because we can, should we? The simple answer is no, but the issues require sophisticated reasoning. According to Scripture, what you see in the mirror is a uniquely ensouled eternal being, created in Gods image and likeness and more than sufficient for the purposes he grants us.
Hal Ostrander is online professor of religion and philosophy at Wayland Baptist University. Daryl Smith is former adjunct professor of religion at Dallas Baptist University and currently an information technology corporate manager.
View post:
By Army Staff Sgt. Aaron Duncan, U.S. Special Operations Command Europe
VAZIANI, Georgia, Aug. 16, 2017 Georgian special operations forces took part in exercise Noble Partner here July 30-Aug. 12, developing interoperability with conventional forces from not only their own military, but that of the U.S. and participating nations.
Noble Partner is an annual U.S. Army Europe-led exercise designed to support Georgias integration into the NATO Response Force. The exercise allows multinational partners to work together in a realistic and challenging training event. About 2,800 troops from Armenia, Georgia, Germany, Slovenia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the U.S. participated in multiple locations across Georgia.
"In many ways, the exercise was a new way of operating for GSOF," said a U.S. Army Special Forces advisor to GSOF.
U.S. Special Operations Command Europe played an advisory role with GSOF during the exercise in order to mentor the Georgian SOF on building interoperability with U.S., Georgian and other multinational conventional forces.
"Soceurs contribution was very helpful," said a GSOF officer involved in the planning of the exercise. "They helped us understand the capabilities and procedures that allowed us to integrate with multinational forces. They also served as a link to coordinate our activities."
State Partnership Program
In addition to Soceur, the GSOF also worked closely with the Georgia National Guard. The two have participated in the State Partnership Program, which pairs U.S. states with 22 European nations and 65 worldwide, since 1994.
"Working with the GSOF was awesome," said Georgia Army National Guard Capt. Christopher Pulliam, commander of the 121st Infantry Regiment s Hotel Company. "Our mission set requires that we work in small teams that gather specific intel in the area of operations," he said. "The GSOF understand this and can use our intel to create a better understanding of the situation on the ground and react accordingly."
Pulliam's company conducted combined airborne operations alongside GSOF troops, and during the field exercise was assigned under their command, allowing GSOF to complete objectives through their coordinated efforts. With the Georgia Army National Guard conducting reconnaissance, GSOF was able to execute a raid on an enemy position.
The Georgian troops also worked with the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard during Noble Partner.
"This is the first time the Georgians have jumped from a C-130," said Georgia Air National Guard Lt. Col. Donald Pallone, the vice air commander of the 165th Airlift Wing. "They are learning from us and we are learning from them. This helps us build our interoperability and furthers the Georgia National Guards [state] partnership with the Georgians."
Call For Fire
GSOF also trained on calling for indirect fire working with the U.S. Air Forces 2nd Air Support Operations Squadron. This training also provided them the ability to learn the same procedures as their conventional forces and U.S. forces and share these procedures throughout GSOF.
"The Georgian military was very motivated and eager to learn how to incorporate indirect fires control to enhance their combat capabilities," said U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Justin Tamayo, a joint terminal attack controller with the 2nd Air Support Operations Squadron. "We were able to train both the GSOF and conventional parties simultaneously, and from the classes we taught we are confident that interoperability was strengthened amongst their military as well as with U.S. forces and partner nations."
GSOF also trained on their military assistance mission by training Georgian and Ukrainian conventional forces on the tactics and procedures of clearing rooms and passing through friendly defensive lines.
"To be able to accomplish its military assistance mission, GSOF must be able to teach classes and train other soldiers," said the U.S. Army Special Forces advisor to GSOF. "Teaching and training is a skill that must be practiced. Noble Partner was a great opportunity for GSOF to build its military assistance skills while also improving the combat skills of Georgian and Ukrainian infantry."
The ability to plan training that involves both internal and multinational military forces is in itself a skill that has to be learned. Noble Partner provided the chance for GSOF staff to build upon their capability to conduct such training.
"This was a new experience for us," said a GSOF officer involved in the planning of the exercise. "It allowed us to develop how we will work with conventional and multinational forces in the future."
U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mark Schwartz, the commander of Soceur, visited with GSOF leadership and observed soldiers participating in the exercise. During his visit, GSOF briefed Schwartz on upcoming exercise events and how GSOF plans to continue developing their interoperability with conventional forces.
"In the future, if GSOF and multinational forces have to work together, training together will allow us to understand how to work fluently with each other," said a team leader from the GSOF company conducting the training. "It will help us integrate our tactics with theirs and direct their efforts with ours."
Read this article:
Noble Partner Supports Georgia's NATO Response Force Integration - Department of Defense
Dalai Lama Christopher Michel / Flickr
In a recent interview with Russian media in India, the Dalai Lama voiced a radical proposal to reduce tensions between NATO and Russia.
I have mentioned before an idea that may be an empty dream, but if NATO were to shift its headquarters to Moscow it might allay whatever misapprehensions Russians may feel, the Dalai Lama said in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper.
The Dalai Lamas comments come as NATO is bolstering deployments to the Baltic States and Poland ahead of Russian military exercises in Belarus in September.
Aware that his controversial suggestion might not be well received in Washington, the Dalai Lama said: I'm afraid now that after such a suggestion, I wont be allowed to go to America!
The Buddhist spiritual leader is a contentious figure in Russia. He last visited in 2004, and authorities in Moscow have repeatedly denied him permission to return ever since. China has publicly thanked the Kremlin on each occasion it bars the Dalai Lama.
In an outspoken interview in 2014, the Dalai Lama criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin for being self-centered. "His attitude is: I, I, I. This is the root of the problem, he told a German newspaper.
This time, he told Kommersant he saw positive changes. I look at Russia and I see protests against corruption and so on. In Stalinist times that was impossible, he said. Perhaps not as quickly as we would want, but change is happening.
I believe in a big future for Russia, he added. Russia could become a real bridge between East and West.
The Dalai Lama was in New Delhi for the first ever conference of Russian and Buddhist scholars.
Continue reading here:
Dalai Lama 'Dreams' of NATO Relocating to Moscow - The Moscow Times
WASHINGTON President Donald Trump's national security adviser on Sunday minced no words and clearly labeled Saturday's deadly car attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, as terrorism.
"Certainly I think we can confidently call it a form of terrorism," the adviser, Lt. Gen H.R. McMaster, said on NBC's "Meet The Press."
"What terrorism is is the use of violence to incite terror and fear, and of course it was terrorism."
McMaster's words went further than Trump's did on Saturday, when Trump was widely criticized by members of both parties for placing blame on "many sides" for violence that was sparked by a white nationalist rally and for not specifically naming and condemning the racist groups involved.
McMaster said the president intended to denounce the racists.
"He condemned hatred and bigotry on all sides, and that includes white supremacists and neo-Nazis," McMaster said. "I think it's clear I know it's clear in his mind and ought to be clear to all Americans: We cannot tolerate, obviously, that bigotry, that hatred that is rooted in ignorance, ignorance of what America stands for, what America is."
But McMaster also offered very vague answers when asked more than once whether he can work with Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, since considerable friction between the two advisers has seeped into the public.
"I am ready to work with anybody who will help advance the president's agenda and advance the security, prosperity of the American people," McMaster answered.
Asked whether Bannon is someone who does that, McMaster didn't specifically answer. Instead, he replied, "I believe everyone who works in the White House, who has the privilege, the great privilege every day of serving their nation, should be motivated by that goal."
Later on "Meet The Press," Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, assessed McMaster's language.
"He used Washington-speak three times to basically answer your question: 'No, I cannot work with Steve Bannon,'" Lowry told host Chuck Todd.
McMaster also said Sebastian Gorka, a deputy assistant for the president who frequently appears on television to speak about national security issues, "is not in the National Security Council."
McMaster indicated that if Gorka represents himself as a spokesman on national security, he wasn't involved. "The scheduling people for the media and spokespeople is not my area of responsibility," he said.
McMaster also rebutted an assertion that Gorka made to BBC Radio on Thursday, when Gorka called it "nonsensical" for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to discuss military matters.
"We should always take Secretary of State Tillerson at his word," McMaster said. "He is a tremendously talented leader and diplomat."
See original here:
NSA McMaster on Charlottesville: "Of course it was terrorism"
Written by Manish Sahu | Lucknow | Updated: August 17, 2017 2:22 am Among the three accused, Bhura alias Israil and Khalil alias Leelu have been in prison since June 26, while Inaam was sent to jail on July 23. Police are yet to file a chargesheet in the case. (File/Representational)
THE MUZAFFARNAGAR district administration has invoked the National Security Act (NSA) against three people arrested in June-July under the UP Cow Slaughter Act and various other charges. The accused are lodged in the district jail.
Station House Officer (SHO) of Janshath police station, Kamal Singh Chauhan, said: A recommendation was made to District Magistrate (Muzaffarnagar) G S Priyadarshi, requesting to invoke the NSA on the three accused along with a report containing details of the case. The request was accepted and I served the order invoking the NSA against the accused in Muzaffarnagar district jail on August 14.
Priyadarshi confirmed that the NSA had been invoked against the accused on the police recommendation.
Among the three accused, Bhura alias Israil and Khalil alias Leelu have been in prison since June 26, while Inaam was sent to jail on July 23. Police are yet to file a chargesheet in the case.
According to Chauhan, on the morning of June 24, police received information about the slaughter of a cow at Katka village. A team rushed to the spot, where the accused allegedly fired at them, injuring a constable. The police team, however, managed to nab Bhura and Khalil, residents of the neighbouring Khedi Firozabad village, added Chauhan.
The SHO further said that the team recovered flesh, skin and body parts of a bullock, knives used for slaughtering the animal and a country-made pistol from the spot. A bullock was also found tied with a rope near the spot, he added.
A case was lodged against Bhura, Khalil and others under the UP Cow Slaughter Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Arms Act and sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon) and 149 (common object) of the IPC.
The flesh seized from the place was not sent for lab tests as the district veterinary officer had visited the spot immediately after the raid. He had confirmed the meat as that of a bullock. Parts of the animals body as tail, skins and horns too had confirmed it was a bullock, said Chauhan.
On July 22, another accused, Inaam, was arrested from his house in the Kakroli area in Muzaffarnagar, the SHO added.
The superintendent of Muzaffarnagar district jail Arun Saxena said the NSA report has been received by the prison.
In June, DGP Sulkhan Singh had issued directions to take strict action against those involved in cow slaughter, smuggling of cows and their progeny by invoking the NSA and the Gangsters Act against them. The DGP had clarified that the district magistrate and police chief can decide what action needs to be taken after taking into consideration the gravity of the situation.
For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App
Link:
Muzaffarnagar: NSA against three held under cow slaughter Act - The Indian Express
Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh) [India], Aug 16 : After a Madrasa in Bareilly did not adhere the state government's order on singing the national anthem on Independence Day; Bareilly's Divisional Commissioner P.V. Jaganmohan said that charges can be slapped on the seminary under the National Security Act (NSA).
Speaking to , Jagmohan said, "So far on Independence Day every school, government organisation and Madrasa abided to the rule which had been initiated. But the Madrasa which did not sing national anthem will be probed and National Security Act (NSA) can be imposed against them. Only after finding solid proof about anti-national activities we will probe this matter in details".
Earlier in week, the Bareilly district magistrate, R. Vikram Singh, had issued a statement that said the refusal to sing the national anthem may lead to a law and order situation and any person or organisation doing so will attract action under section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if he or she hampers proceedings during singing/reading of national anthem or asks them not to respect it.
The Jamiat-ur-Raza Madrasa in Bareilly came under the radar after refraining from singing the national anthem and video-recording the day's events. Nearly 1,000 students of the Madrasa, before ending the day shouted "Humara Hindustan zindabad" and broke into 'Sare Jahan Se Accha'.
This came even as some madrasas sang the national anthem and said they had no problem doing so.
Original post:
UP: NSA likely against Madrasa over not singing national anthem on Independence Day - Outlook India
Enlarge / An Uber driverless Ford Fusion drives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images
SAN FRANCISCODuring a heated court hearing here today, Waymo lawyersaccused Uber's law firm, Morrison Foerster, of violating a court order by not handing over documentsthat Waymo says were illegally downloaded from Google.
Waymo filed a lawsuit in February, claiming that theformer head of Uber's self-driving car project, Anthony Levandowski, downloaded more than 14,000 Google documents that contain trade secrets about self-driving cars,shortly before he left his job at the company. Levandowskithen created a startup called Otto, which he sold to Uber for $680 million. Waymo has saidthat Uberhasused thosetrade secrets, which were brought over by Levandowski.
Uber deniesthat any trade secrets were on Uber servers and says it built its own technology from the ground up. Levandowski, who is not a defendant in the case, hasn't denied downloading filesinstead, he has pled his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to talk. Uber fired him in May for refusing to cooperate with court orders.
"Weve been trying to get these documents since the outset of this case, and we still dont have them," Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoeven told US District Judge William Alsup.
Uberattorney Arturo Gonzalez protested that Waymo'sexplanation wasmisleading. It's true thata digital forensics firm, Stroz Friedberg, imaged Levandowski's devices as part of Uber's acquisition. But onlya "tiny sliver" of thoseimages came into Morrison Foerster's offices, where they were reviewed by a single associate.
The material came in at a time whenMorrison Foerster, often called MoFo for short, was representing Levandowski in an arbitration over his departure from Google.Gonzalez said he "pulled the plug" on the documents being reviewed once he saw that a conflict was developing between Uber and Levandowski.
He alsopointed out that it's Levandowski who is arguing that the documents are protected by a joint defense privilege. It's Levandowski's lawyers, not Uber, who have appealed the issue to the USCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which still hasnot ruled on the matter.
"Once the FederalCircuit rules, this will be reviewed under whatever protocol we agree to, and produced,"said Gonzalez.
"We have repeatedly asked, specifically, for the Google documents," said Verhoeven. He continued:
Upuntil June, theysaid they didn'thave it. That MoFodidn'thave it. Thatwas false. Thatis not protected by the FifthAmendment.Theydidnt tell us, intentionallyuntil they were forced to, when we finally battered them down after a dozen motions.
Alsup generally seemed sympathetic to Verhoeven, although he said he would wait for the Federal Circuit ruling. When he pondered a solution to the matter, he said he was inclined to tell the jury exactly what happened.
"I am concerned thatMr. Gonzalezfailed to disclose that he had the documents," Alsup said. "He took a long time to come clean. Maybe he can get on the stand and explain it away. Iam inclinedto tell the jury exactly this scenariothat he was ordered to come clean and did not come clean. Then finally in June and July, he comes clean."
"You've bought into a completely false narrative," Gonzalez said. "We'renot trying to hide anything. Thistrial is against Uber. Uberdidn't even know MoFohad these documents. Thedownloadedmaterials are not at MoFo, and Uberdidn't even know we had these materials."
The arguments over Levandowski's documents were part of a series of three motions that will lay the groundwork for an October trial,now less than 60 days away.
In addition to hearing arguments overLevandowski's imaged devices, Alsup heard two other motions filed by Uber: one attacking Waymo's damages case and another attempting to limit the trade secrets that Waymo can present at trial.
"Uber does not have [damage] calculations, the basis for them, the theoriesand methodology that they're going to rely on," said Uber lawyer Karen Dunn. "It may be time to face up to the fact they want an injunction. They don'thave a damages case at allit's a non-commercialized market."
A Waymo attorney countered that the companyhad provided a 26-page narrative outlining its damages theories.
"We just got Uber'sside of the ledger yesterday," said Waymo attorney Melissa Baily. "So nowwe have ninedays [before the end of discovery] to take that into account. We cant do a complete analysis without that information."
Alsup didn't rule on the damages matter, saying that he needs to see where thetwo sides come out on the matter.
"Thenit will be clearer how fair or unfair the process has been," he said. "This piece of the controversy will be held in abeyance for a while."
A final motion, over limiting Waymo's alleged trade secrets, was held in closed session.
Original post:
Lawyers clash over an imaged hard drive as Waymo v. Uber hurtles toward trial - Ars Technica
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017, five active-duty service members filed a lawsuit against President Trump regarding his plan to institute a ban on transgender people from serving in the military.
In response to his stated intention, five anonymous Jane Does filed suit, claiming that the order to implement a ban on service by transgender individuals is in violation of both the Equal Protection element of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs are:
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) are advocating on their behalf. Trump declared in a succession of tweets on July 26, 2017 that the U.S. government will not permit transgender persons to serve in the military. However, the military has not released a policy explaining the way in which that mandate would be accomplished.
In June 2016, the Obama administration repealed the ban on transgender troops, and since then, hundreds of service members have been openly serving. According to a study conducted by the Rand Corp., and authorized by the Pentagon last year, there are approximately 11,000 transgender troops in the reserves, and serving on active duty in the military.
Trumps decision puts an end to the furtherance of rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the U.S. military that started with the revocation of the dont ask, dont tell policy in 2010. Trumps explanation for his decision was the inability of the military to assume responsibility for the increased medical expenses and the disturbance that transgender troops would create. However, Trumps declaration has caused Republicans and Democrats in Congress to be worried about the expansive scope of Trumps directive.
Republicans critical of Trumps decision One critic of Trumps policy change is Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who disagreed with terminating dont ask, dont tell in 2010. Sen. McCain took issue with the way in which Trump expressed his message, and its ramifications for transgender members on active duty. McCain said it was inappropriate for important announcements regarding policy to be made via Twitter.
He also stated that any American who was in compliance with medical and readiness guidelines should be permitted to continue serving, and that it is unreasonable to compel service members who have the ability to engage in combat, training and deployment, to exit the military, notwithstanding their gender identity. In addition to McCain, Republican Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Joni Ernst (Iowa), an Army veteran, and Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) put forth statements that cast doubt on Trumps decision.
Trump faced pressure from conservative Republicans Trumps tweets on the subject may well be in response to lobbying on the part of conservative Republicans to revert to the policy in place prior to the time of the Obama administration. He posted his tweets on the subject just weeks following the rejection by the House of an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have prevented the Pentagon from providing gender-transition therapies to members on active duty. However, conservative legislators, several of whom are members of the House Freedom Caucus, had warned that they would refuse to back a spending bill if Congress did not forbid the Pentagon from financing the procedures. The deadlock jeopardized government spending, and possibly held up funds that had been earmarked for the border wall between the United States and Mexico.
Comments from a military attorney Military attorney Matt C. Pinsker, who is also a criminal defense attorney and an Adjunct Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, offered his comments on the transgender ban. Pinsker says the implications of a transgender ban for those currently serving would be an Honorable Discharge. Or they would be grandfathered in and permitted to continue serving. He also states a ban is unlikely to have any effect on civilian employment following military service.
Additionally, a ban is very unlikely to affect eligibility to receive veterans benefits. Pinsker went on to say that a transgender person should not join the military because you are dependent on medications, and without them, your physical or mental health suffers, endangering not just your own well-being, but that of those depending on you. (This also eliminates people with heart conditions, diabetes and ADHD).
Plaintiffs relied on change in policy Each of the plaintiffs said they acted in reliance on the 2016 change in policy when they informed commanding officers that they were transgender. They are requesting that the court hold that Trumps objective is in violation of the pledge the government made to military members. The lawsuit claims that since they described themselves as transgender as a result of defendants prior promise, plaintiffs are now bereft of the security and confidence they possessed with respect to their careers and benefits. Such benefits include post-military and retirement benefits that are dependent on the duration of their service. More lawsuits are expected to follow upon the official issuance of the ban.
See the original post here:
Service Members Sue Trump Over Ban on Transgender People in the Military - Bigger Law Firm Magazine
Newsweekpublished this story under the headline of G-Men and Klansmen on August 25, 1975. Due to recent events at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which resulted in one death and 19 injuries,Newsweekis republishing the story.
For decades, almost without restraint, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has carried out a wide range of undercover intelligence projects. Unknown to most Americans, some of these operations probably included violations of the law - and others, as they became known, seemed simply foolish. Last week, at the American Bar Association convention in Montreal, Attorney General Edward H. Levi made clear that he intended to put a leash on the FBI by instituting "guidelines" to cover its intelligence activities.
Levi proposed to restrict domestic intelligence gathering to circumstances that may threaten violence in the nation, and he promised to review these programs periodically. Electronic surveillance, such as wiretapping, would be limited to long-range investigations. The use by the FBI of "provocateurs" to lure unpopular people and groups into trouble would be barred completed. The vast amount of unsolicited - and often derogatory - material that the bureau receives about government officials and private citizens would be destroyed within 90 days if it could not be connected to criminal misconduct. And as part of the Watergate legacy. Levi sought to make sure that the bureau was not misused for political purposes. The FBI would undertake probes for the White House, he said, only upon written request by specified high-ranking officials.
As it happened, even as Levi was announcing his guidelines, the FBI released last week some fresh details of just the sort of operation the new rules were designed to prevent:
Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
Most recent revelations of FBI harassment have involved left-wing groups such as antiwar organizations and the Socialist Workers Party. The newly released document showed that throughout the 1960s, the bureau had also waged a spirited and often imaginative counter-intelligence program - COINTELPRO, in bureau jargon - against right-wing outfits like the Ku Klux Klan and theAmerican Nazi Party.
Central to this campaign was a wholly fictitious organization, surreptitiously run from Washington, dubbed "The National Committee for Domestic Tranquility." In a coy touch of esoteric humor, some unknown wag in the Bureau christened the bogus organization's director "Harman Blennerhassett" - the name of an obscure financial supporter of Aaron Burr in the early nineteenth century. In thousands of mailings to unsuspecting Klansmen, the "committee" portrayed Klan leaders as Communist dupes or greedy grafters and parasites living off the membership.
"By placing themselves above the law of the land through the invocation of the Fifth Amendment," the committee wrote haughtily, "these irresponsible Klan leaders have joined hands with Communists who also always hide behind the Fifth Amendment." FBI field agents prodded the Klan with thousands of postcards, intentionally exposing the messages to outsiders along the way. One widely distributed postcard featured a cartoon of two Klansmen drinking at a bar over a caption, "Which Klan leaders are spending your money tonight?" The bureau also sent anonymous letters accusing various Klansmen of being FBI informants - which carried a double edge. They helped to protect the real informants, of whom there were at least hundreds, and they made Klansmen suspicious of almost everybody.
The FBI had a well-stocked bag of dirty tricks. It once faked a picture of a Miami Klansman consorting with Cuba's Fidel Castro. Upon learning that the Klan was holding a meeting in North Carolina, it called various motels in the area to cancel their room reservations. One Klan official was discovered to be receiving a veteran's disability pension while making $400 a month as a plumbing and electrical contractor; the G-men sicked the Veterans Administration on him to cut off his benefits, then for good measure alerted the Internal Revenue Service that he had not filed income-tax returns for several years.
Trinkets: Almost nothing was beneath the bureau's notice. COINTELPRO proposed an attempt to persuade Virginia GovernorMills E. Godwin Jr. to collect sales tax on trinkets sold at Klan rallies. The bureau seemed particularly upset with the Virginia Klan. A Washington memo, omitting any mention of attacks on blacks, noted the Klan had attacked the FBI. One Klan leader announced that it would be KKK policy to shoot any agent who appeared on its property.
In its campaign against the Nazi Party, the FBI informed party members that their Midwest coordinator was of Jewish descent, thus forcing his rapid expulsion. In the mid-'60s, the Chicago chapter of the party exhausted its meager financial resources to buy and repair a rundown building for use as it headquarters. After waiting until the job was completed, agents anonymously called Cook County inspectors who closed the building for technical violations.
The hitherto-secret FBI report also revealed that in its COINTELPRO campaign the bureau had carefully manipulated the press, leaking to friendly newsmen stories that were sometimes true and sometimes not. It provides prominent Southern publisher Ralph McGill with information to pass on to a colleague who was writing an article about the Klan for a national magazine. McGill is "a staunch and proven friend of the bureau," a memo from Washington to Atlanta said, and "would not betray our confidence."
Two members of the Virgil Griffin White Knights, a group that claims affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, pose for a photograph in their robes ahead of a cross lighting ceremony at a private farm house in Carter County, Tennessee July 4, 2015. REUTERS/Johnny Milano
See the original post here:
Location data from your phone may fall under the protection of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and advocates from various circles, including the tech world, are making the argument that this should be the case. The conversation was started by a court case known as Carter v. the United States, wherein the court is seeking the right to obtain rough location data to track the defendant over the course of 127 days. Carter is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The movement includes representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Verizon, and a panel of experts from around the tech sphere. The base argument is that obtaining data constitutes seizure, while interpreting the data constitutes search, two activities that are restricted by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects from unreasonable examples of those activities, and establishes the requirement for law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before performing most types of search and seizure procedures.
The type of location data thats presently at the center of the conversation is the somewhat less precise location data that can be gleaned from any device connected to a cellular network, with or without the involvement of GPS. This data includes a triangulation of your current location from nearby cell towers, as well as the locations of nearby Bluetooth devices and Wi-Fi networks, if available. This data tends to be less precise than GPS data, with an average accuracy of a couple dozen to a couple hundred meters, depending on network conditions. Thanks to the deployment of a larger amount of towers and small cells and more sophisticated network equipment, as well as a larger amount of mobile, IoT, and other electronic devices around at any given time, this location data has been less prone to gross inaccuracy in recent years.
The location data in question has, in the past, been considered imprecise enough to not warrant it being categorized as personal or private data. Police have used such data on a fairly routine basis for more rough usages, such as obtaining evidence of an alibi or a lack of one, putting multiple defendants near the scene of a crime at the same time, and doing other investigative tasks. Having such data require a warrant going forward could make investigations costlier and slower, which in turn means that the privacy and security advocates trying to push for this change will have an uphill battle ahead of them.
More:
4th Amendment Protections Sought For Cell Site Location Data - Android Headlines
This article is part of a series on the Constitution of the United States of America Preamble and Articles of the Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to petition.
The Establishment Clause does not allow the government to support one religion more than any other religion. The government also can not say that a religion or a god is true. This is often described as "separation of church and state", where "state" means "the government". It also does not allow the government to establish a national religion. It allows people to debate religion freely without the federal government of the United States getting involved. The clause did not stop the various states from supporting a particular religion, and several states did.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Read the original here:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Simple ...
In November 2015, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA), operator of the Washington public transit (bus and Metro) system, amendedguidelines regarding commercial advertisements that it would accept for Metro cars and Metro stations. The guidelines contain 14 numbered restrictions, including these four:
Ostensibly applying these guidelines, WMATA made some rather peculiar decisions, refusing, for example, to accept advertisements from:
And, rather astonishingly, WMATA rejected an ACLU ad consisting of nothing but the text of the First Amendment (in English, Spanish and Arabic) alongside the ACLU logo (Guideline 9: intended to influence the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions (!!))
[The rejected ads can all be seen here.]
The ACLU recently filed suit on behalf of itself, Yiannopoulos, Carafem and PETA in D.C. federal district court arguing that the WMATA policy is a violation of the First Amendment both on its face and as applied to the plaintiffs. [The complaint is posted here.]*
Note * Apparently, the ACLU has taken some heat from its supporters for including Yiannopoulos as a co-plaintiff. That is unfortunate; the ACLUs habit of taking the position that speech even speech we might regard as offensive, from people we might regard as offensive is worthy of protection may be maddening at times, but it is a highly principled one, and is itself worthy of support and protection.
The plaintiffs, surely, have a strong case. On what possible grounds can WMATA defend rejecting an advertisement consisting of the text of the First Amendment? Who decides whether any particular issue is one on which there are varying opinions, and on what basis is that decision made? Why should PETAs non-commercial message (Dont eat meat) be prohibited while Burger Kings commercial message (Eat more meat)is allowed?
WMATA will undoubtedly rely heavily on Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974), a case in which the Supreme Court upheld (5 to 4) a ban on all political advertising in the Shaker Heights transit system. The court there rejected the notion that the rail and bus cars constitute a public forum protected by the First Amendment with a guarantee of nondiscriminatory access to such publicly owned and controlled areas of communication.
The streetcar audience is a captive audience. It is there as a matter of necessity, not of choice. Here, we have no open spaces, no meeting hall, park, street corner, or other public thoroughfare. Instead, the city is engaged in commerce. It must provide rapid, convenient, pleasant, and inexpensive service to the commuters of Shaker Heights. The car [advertising] space, although incidental to the provision of public transportation, is a part of the commercial venture. In much the same way that a newspaper or periodical, or even a radio or television station, need not accept every proffer of advertising from the general public, a city transit system has discretion to develop and make reasonable choices concerning the type of advertising that may be displayed in its vehicles.
The level of scrutiny such governmental action would receive would be low: the choices must simply be reasonable, and the policies and practices governing access to the transit systems advertising space must not be arbitrary, capricious, or invidious.
The ACLUs complaint argues that the guidelines constitute viewpoint discrimination of a kind that was not present in Lehmanallowing messages that reflect the AMAs (or the governments) views on health-related matters, or those that reflectcommercialpositions on industry goals, while rejecting advertisements reflecting other viewpoints requires the court to engage in a more exacting First Amendment analysis.
They may well succeed in that argument. Even if they dont, though, its hard to see a a court upholding WMATAs decision here even under the relaxed reasonableness standard. To my eye, these certainly do look like the kind of arbitrary, capricious, or invidious decisions that, even under a generous reading of Lehman,WMATA, as a state actor, has to steer clear of.
See original here:
First Amendment banned from DC Metro literally! - Washington Post