In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment

Posted on by

The elderly owner of an NBA team spouts racist comments in private that are secretly being recorded. The league ends up punishing him, but is that enough? Should government do something to punish people who say such things?

Hateful and hurtful comments abound daily on the Internet. Sometimes people who harbor such feelings end up committing crimes. Should government monitor cyberspace and take action against such speech?

To students of the United States Constitution and its origins, the answers to such questions are clear. The nations Founding Fathers exhibited extraordinary wisdom when they added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that included, in its First Amendment, a guarantee of free speech, free press and the free exercise of religion.

The natural inclination of most people in power is to suppress dissent and put an end to ideas that might threaten their power. But the Founders understood that ideas, like commerce, flourish best in a free marketplace, and that the best way to combat hatred and falsehood is to do so head-on, with logic, reason and persuasion.

That wisdom has become only more self-evident since their day.

A government that attempts to ban speech cannot ban the ideas behind that speech.

Left uncontested in societys dark corners, false and dangerous ideas can fester and grow until they burst again into view, too large to confront with reason. On the other end of the spectrum, a government concerned with speech may ban good ideas merely because it perceives them to be a threat.

Unfortunately, Americans are not born with an understanding of these fundamental notions of freedom. Each generation must confront them anew.

One of the most disturbing recent manifestations of this is a bill being sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It would empower the federal government to analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.

This analysis would end with a report that includes recommendations for addressing such hate speech, as long as these are consistent with the First Amendment.

Read the rest here:

In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment

In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment

Posted on by

The elderly owner of an NBA team spouts racist comments in private that are secretly being recorded. The league ends up punishing him, but is that enough? Should government do something to punish people who say such things?

Hateful and hurtful comments abound daily on the Internet. Sometimes people who harbor such feelings end up committing crimes. Should government monitor cyberspace and take action against such speech?

To students of the United States Constitution and its origins, the answers to such questions are clear. The nations Founding Fathers exhibited extraordinary wisdom when they added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that included, in its First Amendment, a guarantee of free speech, free press and the free exercise of religion.

The natural inclination of most people in power is to suppress dissent and put an end to ideas that might threaten their power. But the Founders understood that ideas, like commerce, flourish best in a free marketplace, and that the best way to combat hatred and falsehood is to do so head-on, with logic, reason and persuasion.

That wisdom has become only more self-evident since their day.

A government that attempts to ban speech cannot ban the ideas behind that speech.

Left uncontested in societys dark corners, false and dangerous ideas can fester and grow until they burst again into view, too large to confront with reason. On the other end of the spectrum, a government concerned with speech may ban good ideas merely because it perceives them to be a threat.

Unfortunately, Americans are not born with an understanding of these fundamental notions of freedom. Each generation must confront them anew.

One of the most disturbing recent manifestations of this is a bill being sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It would empower the federal government to analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.

This analysis would end with a report that includes recommendations for addressing such hate speech, as long as these are consistent with the First Amendment.

Continued here:

In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment

HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment

Posted on by

Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors April 1. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLMs heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested.

Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign 1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.

Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his familys cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that. One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.

I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.

The First Amendment clearly states that, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to pen dissent.

Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and mannerbut not contentof expression, hence the origin of free speech zonesdecidedly a court perversion. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the governments proper areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.

For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments First Amendment Area had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances? No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.

Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit http://www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

The rest is here:

HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment

The Bitcoin Group #28 (Live) – Yelp Lists Bitcoin – MIT Bitcoin $100 – Dark Wallet – Ohio Bans BTC – Video

Posted on by


The Bitcoin Group #28 (Live) - Yelp Lists Bitcoin - MIT Bitcoin $100 - Dark Wallet - Ohio Bans BTC
Donate: 18EQEiQBK1X2DyDL5Y18j78iw4NuNHoLej Featuring... Chris J. Ellis (http://feathercoin.com), M.K. Lords (http://bitcoinnotbombs.com), Will Pangman (http://bitcoinmke.org), Paige Peterson...

By: World Crypto Network

Read more here:

The Bitcoin Group #28 (Live) - Yelp Lists Bitcoin - MIT Bitcoin $100 - Dark Wallet - Ohio Bans BTC - Video

Bitcoin A Terrorist Threat? Counterterrorism Program Names Virtual Currencies As Area Of Interest

Posted on by

Friday was the deadline for submissions to a counterterrorism program seeking vendors to help the military understand state-of-the-art technologies that may pose threats to national security, and bitcoin and virtual currencies are listed among them.

The program is being conducted by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office, a division of the Department of Defense that identifies and develops counterterrorism abilities and investigates irregular warfare and evolving threats.

An unclassified memo from January unearthed by Bitcoin Magazine detailed solicitations for CTTSO projects. The memo states that one of the mission requirements is for innovative...solutions to develop and/or enhance new concepts and constructs for understanding the role of virtual currencies in financing threats against the United States.

The memo said the blurring of national lines is facilitating the transfer of virtual currencies: The introduction of virtual currency will likely shape threat finance by increasing the opaqueness, transactional velocity, and overall efficiencies of terrorist attacks, it stated.

At the heart of the concern is the anonymity built into the bitcoin architecture. While every bitcoin transaction is public, the parties involved are kept anonymous. With bitcoins, illegal operations can be made with the speed and ease of the Internet and with the secrecy of cash.

Several recent high-profile cases have put bitcoin under greater scrutiny.

In October, the FBI closed down the Silk Road, a digital black market that allowed users to buy drugs, guns and even professional assassins. Silk Road accepted only bitcoin for payments, and the man arrested for running Silk Road was charged with narcotics trafficking and money

laundering, among other charges.

Charlie Shrem, chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation and the head of BitInstant, a defunct bitcoin exchange, was arrested in January on charges of money laundering with bitcoins.

In February, Mt. Gox, one of the largest bitcoin exchanges, filed for bankruptcy protection after hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins were stolen. No criminal charges have been filed yet, but many former Mt. Gox customers suspect that it was a scam.

Here is the original post:

Bitcoin A Terrorist Threat? Counterterrorism Program Names Virtual Currencies As Area Of Interest

Bulldogs knock off fourth-ranked Comets

Posted on by

SAN MARCOS Hancock Colleges baseball team has played itself into the Southern California Super Regional.

And the Bulldogs knocked off a solid favorite to get there.

Palomar College had not lost since March 15, but the 13th-seeded Bulldogs beat the fourth-ranked Comets twice Saturday, 3-2 and 8-2, at Palomar in a best-of-three Southern California Regional Tournament match-up.

The Comets beat the Bulldogs 10-2 in the series opener Friday. Cabrillo graduate Henry Fienga (3-0), earned the win in both games Saturday, getting the last out in the top of the ninth in the first game and pitching five innings of scoreless, hitless, relief in the second.

Palomar had a 16-game winning streak before Saturday. The Comets (28-11) were ranked 19th in the nation in the latest Perfect Game USA poll.

Hancock (24-14-1) will play at Costa Mesa-based Orange Coast College (29-9) in a best-of-three Super Regional, the last stop before the state tournament. The first game is set for 2 p.m. this Friday. Game two of the series is at 1 p.m. this Saturday. Coach Chris Stevens squad is in the Super Regional for the first time since 2010.

The Bulldogs were the designated home team in the first game Saturday, and they scored twice in the first inning. Ryan Bendele singled home an unearned run, and Cameron Ketchen singled in another run.

The Comets tied the score at 2-2 in the top of the ninth on Anthony Balderas sacrifice fly against Hancock starter Ryan Bower, but Jacob Witkowski singled in Zach Nyman for an unearned run against Comets closer Gary Cornish (1-2) for the winning run in the bottom of the ninth.

Bower gave the Bulldogs eight strong innings, giving up four hits, before Zach Skipper relieved him in the ninth. Fienga eventually got the third out.

Hancock, as the visiting team, broke to a 6-0 lead in the second game against Comets starter Emilio Esquibel (7-2) , scoring twice in the first inning and taking advantage of two Palomar errors for four runs in the third.

Read more from the original source:

Bulldogs knock off fourth-ranked Comets