Armenia’s drift towards NATO and panic among Moscow Armenians – News.Az

Posted on by

The attitude towards Armenia's obvious drift towards NATO in the Armenian society and among the Armenian elite is different.

Pro-Western Armenians do not hide their enthusiasm with this fact and are waiting for the moment when Armenia finally "throws away" Russia and runs under the wing of a new "ally" - the US, in order to start a new stage of aggression against its neighbors. However, such prodigies are not shared by the pro-Armenian forces that settled in Moscow.

Obviously, if Armenia betrays Russia and finally surrenders to the US and NATO, the fate of the powerful Armenian lobby in Russia will be unenviable and their positions will shaken. Including the positions of "near-Armenian" figures, such as the editor-in-chief of Regnum news agency Modest Kolerov.

After all, Kolerov and others like him managed to create the image of "the great patriots of Russia" among the Russian public, and the illusion that Armenia is the 'surest ally of Russia'. But if Armenia betrays Russia, Kolerov won't be able to play the same game anymore.

It will also become clear that for many years Modest Kolerov, as well as all kinds of Baghdasaryans, Margaritas Simonyans and others like them, fooled the Russian society, made them support the regime, which eventually ended up betraying Russia and becomingthe enemy of their country. In this case the representatives of Moscow Armenian lobby will also be suspected of betrayal, and, as a result, "the money flows" of Russian Armenians will be excommunicated. And their lives become more complicated - since no matter how naive the Russians are, they will hardly finance Armenian structures after Armenia joins the ranks of Russia's enemies.

Therefore, it was not accidental that the material of Sargis Artsruni entitled "Moscow incites Azerbaijan to a new war" recently published on the website of Armenia's pro-Western First Information expresses an extremely negative reaction on the attitude of the same Modest Kolerov to the rapprochement between Armenia and NATO which goes contrary to the aspirations of the pro-Western "First Information" .

Sargis Artsruni writes: "In Moscow they can not accept the fact that Armenia took part in NATO military exercises held in Georgia. Even if this participation of Yerevan was agreed with Moscow, the situation changed drastically after the new US sanctions against Russia and against the backdrop of US Vice President Mike Pence's visit to Georgia. Several Russian publications openly question the loyalty of the Armenian authorities.

In an interview with the First Information, the editor-in-chief of the Regnum news agency, political analyst Modest Kolerov, who is known for his connections with the Kremlin, spoke rather harshly. "Armenia itself said that it has solidarity with NATO. And this solidarity takes place with the joint participation with Turkey and Azerbaijan. That's all. And if Armenia participates in such projects jointly with Turkey and Azerbaijan, it does not mean that it does not need a united military group with Russia. So, let Armenia call on NATO to reconcile it with Turkey and Azerbaijan, " Kolerov said.

In this case, Sargis Artsruni accuses Modest Kolerov of lies and fraudulent facts. In particular, he writes:

"Russian officials and experts have tactics to bring their message or even threat to the appropriate audience at all means - even resorting to obvious falsifications. For example, Kolerov obviously deceives readers, giving the impression that Azerbaijan participated in military exercises in Georgia. Or the political scientist creates a completely false picture that Moscow is allegedly occupied with the Armenian-Azerbaijani or Armenian-Turkish reconciliation processes, and this is when Moscow arms the parties to the Karabakh conflict, and the Russian military base deployed in Armenia is one of the obstacles to the probable Armenian-Turkish rapprochement. However, all these manipulations are trifles in comparison with tthe threat clearly voiced by Kolerov. "So, let Armenia call on NATO to reconcile it with Turkey and Azerbaijan," Kolerov said, diplomatically making it clear that Armenia will pay a high price for participation in NATO exercises.

The conclusion of the First Information is purely speculative. Sargis Artsruni believes that Moscow has found a "legitimate" basis for issuing carte blanche to Azerbaijan for a new war - it is supposedly the Armenian authorities' review of their foreign policy. In his opinion, Moscow makes it clear that if Armenia continues to cooperate with NATO, or even signs a new agreement with NATO, they will provoke Azerbaijan to a new war against Armenia - laying the blame on our "pro-Western" authorities.

But the fact is that the sale of arms to Azerbaijan and Russian-Azerbaijani defense cooperation which is absolutely legitimate and mutually beneficial and consistent with Russia's interests is just being presented by the supporters of betrayal of Russia by Armenia as a "proof" of the fact that 'Russia is not Armenia's friend'. And these theses are repeated again and again.

Thus, a split has emerged in the formerly monolithic international Armenian lobby. Russian Armenians began to realize that the betrayal of Russia by Armeniacould touch them personally. And they frantically try to "slow down" the process in the present stage, when Armenia seems to continue to remain Russia's ally, while flirting with the West.

But such an"intermediate" state can not be preserved forever. Either here or there. And, judging by the latest trends, it is rather "there". Armenia's insidiousness as an ally and treacherous essence of the Yerevan regime will soon become apparent even to the most naive Russian patriots.

News.Az

See the original post:

Armenia's drift towards NATO and panic among Moscow Armenians - News.Az

Republika Srpska Doesn’t Want to ‘Lose Russia, Other Friends’ to … – Sputnik International

Posted on by

Politics

15:20 21.08.2017(updated 19:27 21.08.2017) Get short URL

Republika Srpska (RS), one of the constituting parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wants a referendum on the country joining NATO, RS President Milorad Dodik said in an exclusive interview with Sputnik.

Dodik pointed outthat a referendum would give the people an opportunity tovoice their opinions onthe possible integration ofBosnia and Herzegovina intothe alliance when the issue is onthe agenda.

"Several years ago we were not againstsome aspects ofmilitary cooperation withthe alliance. But now the situation is different. NATO wants Bosnia and Herzegovina tojoin the military bloc withoutthe consent ofRepublika Srpska. This is why the peoples voice is what really matters," Dodik told Sputnik Serbian.

Serbian-majority Republika Srpska is one oftwo largely autonomous entities constituting Bosnia and Herzegovina. The other one is the Federation ofBosnia and Herzegovina dominated byBosniaks and Croats aswell asthe Brcko district. The union state is governed bya three-member presidency.

AP Photo/ Sava Radovanovic

"There is some sort ofa consensus withinRepublika Srpska that we should not advance towardsa membership inNATO. The most adequate response is toorganize a legitimate referendum assoon aspossible. If RS says no toBosnia and Herzegovinas admission toNATO this would mean no more procedures related tojoining the alliance," Dodik said.

He explained that the decision has been prompted bya recent ruling ofthe Constitutional Court ofBosnia and Herzegovina that the Veliki Zep military facility inRepublika Srpska is owned bythe state.

Re-registration ofthe so-called "prospective military property" is the final step inBosnia and Herzegovinas bid tojoin NATO, the so-called Membership Action Plan.

"This decision is aimed atstripping Republika Srpska ofthe right topossess its own property. This decision was imposed byNATO and supported bySarajevo. The alliance shows its defiance oflaw and sovereignty. Republika Srpska will not obey this ruling. This precedent is very dangerous," Dodik said.

Sputnik/ Mikhail Palinchak

"Well try tounite all ofthe RS political parties and reach a consensus ona referendum. The proposed question should be: 'Do you support Republika Srpska becoming a NATO member?'" Dodik said.

He also commented onthe possible consequences ofa referendum and the possible reaction fromthe international community.

"I guess they will say that the referendum is illegal. But it is legal forRepublika Srpska. We want toreach a domestic political consensus and abandon the integration withNATO. We want tosend a clear message that Bosnia and Herzegovina should not join NATO ina polarized world, inwhich joining one side would mean losing Russia and other friends. We dont want tolose this friendship. Republika Srpska wants tobe likeSerbia that maintains neutrality. At the same time, we should not forget aboutNATOs attempts tomeddle inour domestic affairs," Dodik said.

AP Photo/ Risto Bozovic

Bosnia and Herzegovina was expected tojoin NATO by2011, butthe plan hit a skid overthe need tohand overmore than60 military facilities tothe federal government.

See the rest here:

Republika Srpska Doesn't Want to 'Lose Russia, Other Friends' to ... - Sputnik International

What the Announced NSA / Cyber Command Split Means – GovExec.com

Posted on by

The move to elevate Cyber Command to a full Unified Combatant Command and split it off from the National Security Agencyshows that cyber intelligence collection and information war are rapidly diverging fields. The future leadership of both entities is now in question, but the Pentagon has set out a conditions-based approach to the breakup. That represents a partial victory for the man who directs both Cyber Command and the NSA.

The move would mean that the head of Cyber Command would answer directly to the Defense Secretary and the National Security Agency would get its own head. Its a move that many have said is long overdue, and its exact timing remains unknown. So what does the split mean for the Pentagon, for Cyber Command, and for the future of U.S. cyber security?

The split will give the commander of Cyber Command central authority over resource allocation, training, operational planning and mission execution. The commander will answer to the Defense secretary directly, not the head of Strategic Command. The decision means that Cyber Command will play an even more strategic role in synchronizing cyber forces and training, conducting and coordinating military cyberforce operations and advocating for and prioritizing cyber investments within the department, said Kenneth Rapuano, assistant defense secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security.

The Start of a Process

The move announced on Friday fulfills a mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017. Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter hinted at the split back in May 2016. But it wont happen immediately.

Instead, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford will nominate a flag officer to take over the new Cyber Command as well as the NSA. That person could be Adm. Michael Rogers, who currently heads both, or someone else. Trump has reportedly asked Mattis to give him the name of a nominee.Speculation has focused on Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville as the nominee to head Cyber Command.

Once that new person is nominated and confirmed and once Mattis and Dunford are satisfied that splitting the two entities will not hamper the ability of either Cyber Command or the NSA to conduct their missions independently, only then will Cyber Command and the NSA actually split.

What Does it Mean for Leadership?

Read one way, the announcement means Rogers will lose power. Even were he to become the nominee to the new elevated Cyber Command, he would still wind up losing the NSA eventually. If he were to stay on as head of NSA after the confirmation of a new Cyber Command head, as expected, he would briefly serve under Mayville until the formal split.

Read another way, the lack of a concrete timetable for the split, despite such a requirement in the authorization bill, represents a partial win for Rogers.

Rogers took over the NSA and Cyber Command in the spring of 2014. He has been resistant to the idea of a split, telling lawmakers in September that U.S. national security benefitted from the dual-hat arrangement. This view was not shared by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper nor then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter. Rogers resistance was one of many issues that rubbed them the wrong way.

It got so bad that in November, unnamed sources told The Washington Post that Clapper and Carter were urging President Barack Obama to fire Rogers.

The truth is a bit more nuanced. Clappers goal was to split the NSA from CyberCom. He was not a strong advocate of removal, but was willing to defer to [the Secretary of Defense] if Carter felt strongly about selecting new leadership at Cyber Command, a source inside the intelligence community said. There were other concerns unrelated to the potential split.

Rogers outlasted both Clapper, who had long planned to retire at the end of the Obama administration; and Carter, a political appointee. Rogers attitude toward an NSA-Cyber Command split evolved. In May, he testified that he would support a split was done in a way that did not hamper either the NSA or Cyber Command.

The manner in which the split was announced is in keeping with what Rogers has said he wanted.

The move toward a conditions-based split also met with the approval of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a longtime Rogers ally. I appreciate the administrations commitment today to ensuring that a future separation of the so-called dual hat relationship between Cyber Command and the National Security Agency will be based on conditions, rather than arbitrary political timelines, McCain said in a statement. While Cyber Command and the National Security Agency should eventually be able to operate independent of one another, the administration must work closely with the Congress to take the necessary steps that will make this separation of responsibilities successful, and to ensure that each agency will emerge more effective and more capable as a result.

What It Means for Cyber Command, the NSA, and Cyber Operations

The elevation of Cyber Command represents a big step forward for the militarys cyber ability, but it has yet to be catch up to the NSA in terms of collecting signals intelligence or creating network accesses, according to Bill Leigher, who as a rear admiral helped stand up Navy Fleet Cyber Command. Leigher, who now directs government cyber solutions for Raytheon, applauds the split because the NSA, which collects foreign intelligence, and Cyber Command, a warfighting outfit, have fundamentally different missions.This caused tension between the two organizations under one roof. Information collected for intelligence gathering may be useful in a way thats fundamentally different from intelligence for military purposes, he says. If you collecting intelligence, its foreign espionage. You dont want to get caught. The measure of success is: collect intelligence and dont get caught. If youre going to war, I would argue that the measure of performance is what we do has to have the characteristics of a legal weapon in the context of war and the commander has to know what he or she uses it.

This puts the agencies in disagreement about how to use intel and tools that they share. From an NSA perspective, cyber really is about gaining access to networks. From aCyber Command point of view, I would argue, its about every piece of software on the battlefield and having the means to prevent that software from working the way it was intended to work [for the adversary], he said.

The split will allow the agencies to pursue the very different tools, operations, and rules each of their missions requires, he said. Expect NSA to intensify its focus on developing access for intelligence, and Cyber Command to prepare to rapidly deploy massive cyber effects at scale during military operations and shut down the enemy. Both of this will likely leverage next-generation artificial intelligence but in very different ways said Leigher.

View original post here:

What the Announced NSA / Cyber Command Split Means - GovExec.com

Posted in NSA

Trump elevates Cyber Command, setting the stage for NSA … – The Verge

Posted on by

The Trump administration this week elevated the US Cyber Command to a Unified Combatant Command, in a long-awaited move that underscores the growing importance of cyber warfare.

The decision, announced Friday, puts the Cyber Command on par with nine other combat commands, and may lead to its separation from the National Security Agency (NSA). In a statement, President Trump said that Secretary of Defense James Mattis will examine the possibility of separating the Cyber Command and the NSA, and that he will announce recommendations at a later date.

This new Unified Combatant Command will strengthen our cyberspace operations and create more opportunities to improve our Nations defense, Trump said in the statement. The elevation of United States Cyber Command demonstrates our increased resolve against cyberspace threats and will help reassure our allies and partners and deter our adversaries.

Trump says the move will streamline command and control of time-sensitive cyberspace operations.

Trump also said that the move will streamline command and control of time-sensitive cyberspace operations, and that it will ensure that critical cyberspace operations are adequately funded.

Proposals for creating an independent Cyber Command were first made under the Obama administration, with supporters arguing that the units mandate was sometimes at odds with the NSAs intelligence gathering operations particularly with regard to the fight against ISIS.

Cyber Command was created as a sub-unit of the US Strategic Command, with a mandate to conduct cyber warfare and defend government networks. Navy Admiral Michael Rogers currently leads both Cyber Command and the NSA.

Continued here:

Trump elevates Cyber Command, setting the stage for NSA ... - The Verge

Posted in NSA

UP to use NSA to curb power thefts: Minister – Times of India

Posted on by

LUCKNOW: UP energy minister Srikant Sharma on Monday said the state government would slap the stringent National Security Act (NSA) and Goonda Act on those obstructing power officials from discharging their duties to curb electricity theft. "Power theft is an infringement of the rights of honest consumers. Power saved through action against pilferers could be given to those who pay their bill regularly," Sharma told TOI. This comes two days after an enforcement squad of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd (UPPCL) was attacked in Rampur where it had gone to check power theft. Following the incident, Sharma directed the UPPCL brass to take strict action against the attackers. In fact, UPPCL has been demanding adequate security during such drives. Sharma said the state government would follow the Gujarat model for power distribution and keep a check on pilferage. He said the UP government would also establish dedicated police stations in all 75 districts where cases of power theft would be taken up. Officials in the UP government said that imposing NSA would be at the discretion of the district magistrate. UPPCL chairman Alok Kumar said it would continue to carry out an exhaustive anti-power theft drive.

Go here to read the rest:

UP to use NSA to curb power thefts: Minister - Times of India

Posted in NSA

Target Finding for the Empire: The NSA and the Pine Gap Facility – International Policy Digest

Posted on by

The tasking we get at Pine Gap is look for this particular signal coming out of this particular location. If you find it, report it, and if you find anything else of interest, report that as well. David Rosenberg, former NSA Team leader, weapons analysis at Pine Gap, Aug 20, 2017

At times, there is a lag between the anticipation and the revelation, the assumption that an image might be as gruesome, or perhaps enlightening, as was first assumed. Nothing in the latest Edward Snowden show suggests anything revelatory. They knew it, as did we: that the US military satellite base spat on a bit of Australian dust in a part of the earth that would not make Mars seem out of place, is highly engaged.

Radio Nationals Background Briefing made something of a splash on Sunday, with some assistance from the Edward Snowden National Security Agency trove. The documents do much in terms of filling in assumptions on the geolocating role of the facility, much of which had already had some measure of plausibility through the work of Richard Tanter and the late Des Ball.

As Tanter puts it, Those documents provide authoritative confirmation that Pine Gap is involved, for example, in the geolocation of cell phones used by people throughout the world, from the Pacific to the edge of Africa.

NSA Intelligence Relationship with Australia, by way of example, discloses the NSA term for the Pine Gap facility, ironically termed RAINFALL. Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap (RAINFALL) [is] a site which plays a significant role in supporting both intelligence activities and military operations.

Another document supplies some detail as to the role of the facility, confirming that it does beyond the mundane task of merely collecting signals. It also does the dirty work analysing them. RAINFALL detects, collects, records, processes, analyses and reports on PROFORMA [data on surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and fighter aircraft] signals collected from tasked target entities.

Pine Gap has always generated a gaping accountability gap of its own, and these Snowden treats affirm the point. Rather than being an entity accountable to the queries and concerns of the local indigenous population; rather than supplying the local members of parliament from the Senate and the lower house briefings about its activities, Pine Gap is hived off from usual channels, a reminder about how truly inconsequential democracy is in the Canberra-Washington alliance.

Pine Gap has always had its platoons of unflinching apologists, and a common theme, apart from the worn notion that the US security umbrella prevails with fortitude, is that the base is genuinely good. In a Central Intelligence Agencys National Intelligence Daily (Feb 13, 1987), the agency notes with approval the forthcoming Australian Defence white paper indicating strong support or US-Australian joint defence facilities.

The publication would dispel any wobbliness on Australian military commitments, a point alluded to by the then minister for defence, Kim Beazley. A further point was to note the defensive nature of the facilities, opposition to those leftwing groups to the contrary.

So what if Australians in the Northern Territory are ignorant that the communications facility pinpoints targets for drone strikes? We can be assured that these are legitimate, vetted and, when struck, obliterated with fastidious care.

Much of this dressed up bunk is based on the notion, sacrosanct as it is, that drone strikes work. They certain do on a few levels in galvanising more recruits and liquidating more civilians. Like any military weapon, the hygienic notion of the engineered kill, the surgical operation on the battlefield, is fantasy. If the target so happens to be embedded in an urban setting, one filled with non-combatants, the moral calculus becomes less easy to measure.

The other through-the-glass-darkly feature of the Pine Gap facility lies not only in its geolocation means, but its value as a target. Having such conspicuous yet inscrutable tenants places Australia in harms way, a loud invitation to assault.

The CIA was already cognisant of this point in 1987, identifying awareness on the part of Australian defence officials that the joint facilities would be attacked in a US-Soviet nuclear exchange but argues that removal of the US presence would increase the likelihood of superpower conflict. The end of the Cold War does little to dispel the significance of Pine Gap as a target of considerable interest.

Where to, then? A firm insistence, for one, that Australia detach itself from the tit of empire, the bosom of Washingtons military industrial complex. This requires something virtually outlawed in Canberra: courage. It has fallen upon such delightfully committed if motley outfits as the Independent and Peaceful Australian Network (IPAN), an organisation of calm determination committed to seeing Australia as something more than the grand real estate for empire.

With each disclosure, with each revelation about Australias all too willing complicity in facilitating strikes against foreign targets, many in countries Australians would barely know, the will to change may be piqued. They most certainly will once Australian officials face their first war crimes charges over the use of drones, aiding and abetting their US counterparts in the whole damn awful enterprise.

Read the original post:

Target Finding for the Empire: The NSA and the Pine Gap Facility - International Policy Digest

Posted in NSA

Homeschoolers ramp up 4th Amendment battle – WND.com

Posted on by

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the nations premiere advocate for homeschooling, is representing a family in its suit against a police officers unauthorized entry into a private home, even though the case has nothing to do with homeschooling.

Its because the case brought by LuAnn, Joseph and Timothy Batt against police officer Joseph Buccilli, who forced his way into the familys home without either a warrant or an emergency reason, illustrates the battle for the front door.

The family is appealing to the the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing the Fourth Amendment protects them from unreasonable searches.

The amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The case is relevant to homeschoolers, HSDLA explains, because early homeschoolers sometimesfound an investigative social worker at their front door, often accompanied by uniformed police officers.

These authorities were typically investigating anonymous tips that didnt have much to do with homeschooling itself often something like this: The children are always home, they dont go to school, and the family seems really religious.'

Police State USA: How Orwells Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

HSLDA said homeschoolers soon learned that front-door encounters with an investigative social worker could be traumatic for both parents and children alike.

Protecting our member families from such unwarranted investigations was what drew HSLDA into what we call the battle for the front door defending Fourth Amendment rights, the organizationsaid.

In the New York case, Buccilli, a police officerin Orchard City, barged into the familys home without a warrant after being told he had no permission to enter.

He claimed social services had asked him to do a welfare check at the home.

According to an HSLDA brief to the 2nd Circuit, which asks that the lower courts decision to award Buccilli immunity in the case be overturned, the officeradmitted he knew nothing about any allegations of wrongdoingor any emergencyand didnt know who asked for the welfare check.

I dont know the basis of the allegations or what the welfare concerns are, he told the family. We do have a right to come in here when an allegation is made.

I dont need a search warrant. I dont need to ask permission, he continued.

And, multiple times, he threatened anyone who obstructed him with arrest.

He ended up talking to a senior citizen, LuAnn Batts father, Fred Puntoriero, who was well-dressed and well-groomed and was being cared for by a nurse, and left. Social services closed down its investigation almost immediately.

But the lawsuit against the officer argueshe did exactly what the Constitution, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, forbids.

Entries without a warrant are allowed for several reasons: when an officer is in hot pursuit of a suspect, when evidence is in imminent danger of being destroyed or someone is in need of emergency aid.

The brief points outnone of those circumstances existed for Buccilli.

Pointedly, the brief states, In 2004, the Supreme Court said no reasonable officer could claim to be unaware of the basic rule, well established by our cases, that absent consent or exigency, a warrantless search of the home is presumptively unconstitutional.

It turns out, the brief explains, that Puntorieros daughter-in-law, who had been involved in disputes with the family over Freds care and property, had called authorities with the complaint that two weeks earlier her husband had expressed concern over his fathers welfare.

However, when Fred livedwith her and her husband, he was diagnosed with failure to thrive.

She told adult protective services that her husband had said two weeks earlier that Fred was lethargic when he visited.

APS admitted such reports from an underlying family dispute often are false, but the officer charged into the home anyway.

On April 17, 2012, Lt. Buccilli forcibly entered the Batts home, without consent or a warrant, to conduct a welfare check. On that day, federal law prohibited police from forcibly entering a home without consent or a warrant for any reason whatsoever, unless the circumstances fell within one of the established narrowly-drawn exigency exceptions, the brief explains.

The circumstances Lt. Buccilli confronted presented no exigency whatsoever.

HSLDAs Darren Jones, a litigation attorney, said theFourth Amendment doesnt have an exception based on a welfare check.'

Before police can come into a home, they must have either a warrant or some clearly defined exception, like an emergency or a hot pursuit of a suspect, he explained.

HSLDA Senior Counsel James R. Mason previously notedthe Batts were members of HSLDA since their son was a child.

He grew up reading about his Fourth Amendment rights in The Home School Court Report.

Mason pointed out Buccilli even threatened the family with informing adult protect services about [your] lack of cooperation.

The officerthen said, You should not pretend to know the law.

Mason argued the Fourth Amendment does not permit the police to enter anyones home without a warrant unless there is a real emergency even if its called a welfare check.'

The report said HSLDA has long believed that it is important to dispel the notion among police and other authorities that all Fourth Amendment bets are off when they demand to enter a home to conduct a welfare check.'

Police State USA: How Orwells Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

Read more here:

Homeschoolers ramp up 4th Amendment battle - WND.com

Charlottesville, militias and the Second Amendment – NY Daily News – New York Daily News

Posted on by

{%mLT-F&]?V!~x{Y_y-z2:y:*8}u. E6dGavan*F sqA.eLFm EJbW80|El5g9S"c|YM5 'M?`KuQh5~*GX/5$i,kn {"NR-WdEFk{Cq1e.QL.hOMtjS4`K5&]wN5MxS5MBVYC[||2j(Q,~`):FyBe1B|6fF{-$3|XaKg>8d+$U_1[sesP3W)[b'^o5]|]St?VSjgBZ0uRl7L7kpo7:'u=TWQEN' P.}Cw~rc29V|Qb~HIVjw4zwYCT?k I` A}X{LU32@w|*7LHeHHW4#KN~ Hhsnprn 0Cwzu/_T^1i NFcB>z0]_yr>Z94JxrQ{W1Q%~j8?+?b.cL5G{SAO.Q+u>KAasUHE0ZfF8Ya:1.gBm_62f6EMs3Cg?owS=_up:? AD-4m8kGP-~{,f'=5}PKj >o^~`=khu?$ 3o`w03UAu436>X;#: .8 m~y.3$M $~CYvc]1jvsoLq}(H=C1>NK7 5h~{a*inB~kM0S& NV;|.HgSl:J:J?EGk{gEW&k $uP]_ ]kj1vJ&`V9XiVyG.J+90CDJCk]sqPTpo`".`Y_{{yo^K6k6z7e$4!","'8Nsv1 {X3wS7YOl0wqmdMc&!Mw6_ I|AB6_;v4, RW`=ND|>rO,N~?OD."&Ytx_' 6ID=(eeAE!9kS!}nnM74qnJYs'B|i-3{~c;iB5:Rb-e8IwMo>y&>v4~ gu+%qn&;cB7XLB.g4Ns{RhPGrZ!_'ROZRFE9chg}4G {nR`(mJ|1Ux)zu^#)@XJ=?.+5Yn"B^lG}[HxN9~wc|gy9ByvyvZTL&b6IX^J50/#?vR$:%&bFq/$a{RvtTGB=Q^|,RZ=IsXxglT@UHu]Z4B.p~FjF98hu%TyF mJjj1n*=D lsm`{5D{w];Z}bX:I_q?1wH$;Au uyhtWDH,|>=xNWM)?j{-^9gaX9Av8y2%_Is!as2Yswp2o*1md_e}|L^0E)S.k".e3k?S rW:] yk#W.yIx$5 lXfE| .Mc5^FpAyVJ)MKM{DS5F1 I}]?E]($w7DQF/5+&3co5xyqYQ}/V@q %c*'`McV h}Sq{l^J+>) '!AkwKj|3h1!-Yb.yq'Xq{o25_d^D}~oX>C]5M=c:!Xg>[zi?Ap|^&)Cp}h)R_o>(1'RMU-[oPH;Cdg?f,~n@W|oPM FR.9%M7aEFbY3[h*L{=gH>`1c>A /7zw 4v95!o[_pof_r.4{5=fZ:,Y!}~}?nLo&1YX'ts[kC?%/%Mz&9TH~E?=bO[R;_ `57 &_WxeVmfW?!v|F>~y# ?IbZQwu|Fj [6nkr?ZtkQq]61FxAY$w9 5'}V6C*o0^*SS`7,$`/_]fH2 U./V5Wby"'#UtwSr}9;TGz7W8CWJ*/e-+/bl)*-/>#N>jtmq#| NUkTdUwVp} Mz 7]T+vDmM"btZ;%3m`{3r'*Or99Os7r'xU N>|, 2_b!75Z{BD3Dx5J:rXurt4lqjvV|:yL pTt%nvRE]x urQBe'xq%L5wEi:TGux RR90Q;eq`?Yu> =!FWQeIgkBPF$9)Ip)$2$p<9k^w%=$0VaW7Cf 1^)7 |}}mb1OwINKvqzE:G{yaJUAeQ6m"3L~exW,n$[I(>$OgX1 i+YC5pe?B++ hTtZ!@t SN9RA0Jko9k^N{-s^,^ CyJ'DqZ*";"Q_Xk8&A m# f;{_e$GlG8LMUOb]n"mtMEa!b5-iLsgej)*|QIzB77]h ~opC-hk(g`F+O=W@|f&7`+Vwe~W`?oSa88S&'%B yXx(!,?bk/k9jmWq ^nH~l?rn;?1w{+nvqj9I%x7D38K@^tg}o~e080S>.K}ay zRk'<}_&b| gAo&]nX{+|A#]"Z$Yg"y[7zW98C7xu_T_~}5g2):O

See more here:

Charlottesville, militias and the Second Amendment - NY Daily News - New York Daily News

The Lessons Of Charlottesville: Speech And Guns – HuffPost

Posted on by

The events in Charlottesville have given rise to a lot of discussion about speech and guns. That is, to what extent do protesters who are otherwise exercising their First Amendment rights also have a right to carry assault weapons and other guns as part of their demonstrations? It turns out that this is a complicated and interesting question, for which there is no simple answer.

First, does the Second Amendment give demonstrators a constitutional right to carry their weapons in public? Although the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, it has not gone much further in fleshing out the details of this right, and it has not yet considered whether the Second Amendment should be understood to guarantee individuals a right to open carry. If the Court were to hold that the Constitution guarantees individuals a right to walk down the street carrying assault weapons an outcome I think unlikely then that would go a long way to resolving the question. But that is not the law, and I rather doubt it will ever be the law, so we can move on to the next question.

Second, about half the states allow open carry and half prohibit it. Lets assume we are in a state that prohibits open carry. Assuming the Second Amendment does not guarantee such a right, the next question is whether the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry assault weapons or other guns as part of an otherwise lawful public demonstration. The best argument that could be made by the would-be gun carriers is that they are carrying their guns as a form of symbolic expression that is a central part of the message of their demonstration. The carrying of the assault weapons, they argue, is meant symbolically to communicate their commitment to their cause. The guns are, in effect, a part of their uniform.

Lets assume that this is credible. That is, lets assume that their purpose is not to threaten violence, but to convey the nature and depth of their beliefs. Symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. For example, burning an American flag as a sign of disrespect for the nation is constitutionally protected speech. That being so, is carrying an assault weapon when done for symbolic purposes also constitutionally protected speech? Interestingly, the answer is no.

The Supreme Court has held that symbolic speech is protected by the Constitution when the governments reason for prohibiting the action is to suppress the content of the speech. But if the governments reason for prohibiting the action has nothing at all to do with speech, and the law therefore has only an incidental effect on speech, then the law will almost always be deemed constitutional, even as applied to symbolic speech.

For example, if demonstrators march naked down a public street in order to protest anti-nudity laws, they can constitutionally be punished for violating the anti-nudity laws, which are not themselves directed at speech, even though their nudity in the protest is a form of symbolic speech. Similarly, if an individual urinates on a statue of Robert E. Lee in order to show his contempt for the Confederacy, he can constitutionally be punished for public urination, even though he did his act for expressive purposes.

This is well-settled law, and it would certainly apply to protesters who want to carry guns in violation of a state law that forbids open carry. Thus, in a state that forbids open carry, the demonstrators would not have a First Amendment right to carry their weapons, even if their reason for doing so was to convey a symbolic message.

Third, that brings us to the situation where the state allows open carry generally, but forbids it in demonstrations involving more than X number of people. The reason for this limitation is the states concern that, in large demonstrations, the risks presented by the presence of weapons is too great to permit. In this situation, the state is applying a special rule about open carry that is directed specifically at otherwise constitutionally-protected protests.

In this situation, the demonstrators will argue that this violates their rights under the First Amendment, because the only reason for denying them what otherwise would be the state-recognized right of open carry is that they are exercising their First Amendment rights. What happens here?

As a general rule, the government can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech in public places as long as it does so in a neutral manner and has a reasonable justification for doing so. For example, a city can forbid public demonstrations that might disrupt a school or hospital, it can ban the use of loudspeakers in a residential neighborhood at night, it can refuse to permit a demonstration that will unduly block traffic in rush hour, and so on. Thus, even if the desire to carry assault weapons as part of a demonstration is seen as a form of symbolic expression, such a restriction if applied neutrally to all protests would likely be constitutional.

Fourth, suppose the government allows open carry in public demonstrations, but only for some speakers and not others? For example, suppose it permits Black Lives Matter demonstrators to carry weapons, but not white supremacist demonstrators? Suppose the government argues, for example, that in the particular location, the presence of guns by white supremacist protesters would frighten citizens much more than the presence of guns by Black Lives Matter protesters.

Such a distinction would clearly violate the First Amendment, because the government must regulate speech in an even-handed manner, and cannot treat people conveying one constitutionally-protected message differently than people conveying another constitutionally-protected message, unless it has a truly compelling justification for the distinction a test that is next to impossible to meet. Thus, although it can constitutionally ban all guns in these demonstrations, it cannot constitutionally pick-and-choose which messages to favor and which to restrict, even if it has a reasonable justification for the distinction. Put simply, we do not trust government to make such judgments, because of the risk that, if given that power, government officials will manipulate speech to further their own political and ideological goals.

Fifth, suppose the protesters in a particular demonstration carry guns not just to express a symbolic message about the nature and strength of their views, but as a way to threaten others that if they criticize or mock them during the demonstration they will be shot. If the protesters literally told counter-demonstrators that it they criticize or mock them during the protest they will be shot, that would clearly constitute an express threat of violence that is not protected by the First Amendment. It is well-established that such true threats can be punished.

The question, then, is whether carrying assault weapons can in itself be understood to constitute such a threat. Is it sufficient that counter-demonstrators reasonably understand this as a true threat, do the speakers have to specifically intend this to be a true threat, are the speakers protected by the First Amendment unless they expressly utter a true threat? This remains an open question under the First Amendment. How, then, should we decide whether the carrying of assault weapons is just symbolic speech, whether it is done merely to deter violence against the protesters, or whether it is an implied true threat designed to intimidate others from exercising their own First Amendment rights to criticize or mock the protesters?

Sixth, to add to the confusion, suppose the protesters are openly carrying their guns not for their own self-protection, and not to unlawfully threaten others with violence, but allegedly to incite counter-protesters to be violent themselves. It is possible that the very presence of weapons would so infuriate counter-protesters that they would be incited to respond with violence, as intended by the demonstrators. Why might the demonstrators want this? Well, the outbreak of serious violence would certainly get them on the news, make them appear to be victims, and give their views lots of publicity and visibility.

So, if this was their actual reason for openly carrying the weapons, can they then be punished for inciting unlawful conduct by the counter-demonstrators? In this situation, the carrying of assault weapons would be like carrying especially offensive and infuriating signs for the purpose of inciting a riot. Can people who do that be punished consistent with the First Amendment? The Supreme Court held in 1969 in a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio, which involved a Klan rally, that even express incitement to violence can be punished only if it is specifically intended to cause violence and the violence is likely to happen imminently.

In theory, that could be the situation in highly-emotional protest situations, but even there the speakers (in this case, the protesters carrying assault weapons with the specific intent to incite a violent response) can be held accountable only if the police have done everything reasonably in their power to forestall the violence. That, of course, depends on the circumstances.

So, where does all this leave us? I hope Ive provided at least a bit of clarity, But I also hope Ive demonstrated why much of the commentary on the Charlottesville situation in terms of the issue of open carry and assault weapons has been inconsistent and confused. That is, in short, the state of the law.

Follow this link:

The Lessons Of Charlottesville: Speech And Guns - HuffPost

Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ’s Gun Control Laws – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted on by

Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ's Gun Control Laws

New Jersey -(Ammoland.com)-Now this is a bill we can support The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), would ban most of NJ's gun control laws.

Drafted for people living in states like New Jersey, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from being able to ban any weapons that are legal under Federal Law. This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo, said Collins.

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.

Though widely available and commonly owned throughout the country, northeastern states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have banned the mere possession of many popular long guns. Though, it's not clear what effect, if any, these state laws have had on violent crimes.

According to Collins, the bill would ban state or local governments from regulating, prohibiting, or requiring registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, rifle or shotgun includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

With a law like that, NJ's assault weapon and magazine bans would be toast. Furthermore, the entire permit system would likely be gone as well since it's more restrictive than Federal law. This bill, plus Trump's court appointments to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which takes appeals from NJ, should bring hope and optimism for gun owners in NJ seeking relief from the laws that have been imposed on us for decades.

If you'd like to be a part of stopping the madness of NJ's gun control laws, join NJ2AS or become a Frontline donor. Remember, everyone who joins NJ2AS or donates $10 or more this month will automatically be entered into our August Giveaway. There's no cavalry on the horizon, it's just us, so join today and help make a difference in this state.

About the New Jersey Second Amendment Society:

New Jersey Second Amendment Society Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit: http://www.nj2as.com

Read this article:

Bill Introduced in Congress that Would Ban NJ's Gun Control Laws - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Second Amendment | Wyoming County Free Press – Wyoming County Free Press

Posted on by

Press release:

Congressman Chris Collins response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial (Aug. 11):

My bill would restore New Yorkers Second Amendment rights and doesnt supersede states rights.

I do believe in States' rights, the need for local control and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Gov. Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Cuomo forced into law.

Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

See related: Collins proposes new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights

The rest is here:

Second Amendment | Wyoming County Free Press - Wyoming County Free Press

The Guns Won – Slate Magazine

Posted on by

Men patrol on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.*

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad rejected Charlottesville, Virginias attempt to relocate Saturdays white nationalist rally, he wrote that merely moving [the] demonstration to another park will not avoid a clash of ideologies between demonstrators and counter-protesters. He also acknowledged that a change in the location of the demonstration would not eliminate the need for members of the Citys law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel to appear at Emancipation Park. Instead, it would necessitate having personnel present at two locations in the City.

As it turned out, the nightmare that unfolded on Saturday in this small college town involved a great deal more than an ideological clash and demanded far more police protection than was available. Dozens of white nationalists showed up toting semi-automatic weapons, as did some counter-protesters, making it all but impossible for police to intervene when violence erupted. In short order, peaceful protesters were forced to hide as armed rioters attacked one another with clubs, smoke bombs, and pepper spray.

Complaints abound that law enforcement officers looked on from the sidelines as the brutality quickly escalated into a crisis. The tragedy culminated in the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer when a white supremacist rammed his car into a group of peaceful protesters.

Seen in isolation, Conrads order was grounded in solid First Amendment doctrine: Charlottesville could not, he ruled, relocate the racist demonstrators based on the content of [their] speech. This is textbook law, but one is left to wonder whether it takes into account armed white supremacists invading a city with promises of confrontation. Conrads decision seems to have been issued in a vacuum, one in which Second Amendment open-carry rights either swallowed First Amendment doctrine altogether or were simply wished away, for after-the-fact analysis. The judge failed to answer the central question: When demonstrators plan to carry guns and cause fights, does the government have a compelling interest in regulating their expressive conduct more carefully than itd be able to otherwise? This is not any one judges fault. It is a failure of our First Amendment jurisprudence to reckon with our Second Amendment reality.

Charlottesville proves that this issue is hardly theoretical anymore. In his order, Conrad chose to exclude from his First Amendment analysis the very strong possibility that demonstrators would carry weapons. (The city police warned the court that hundreds of protesters would bring firearms and that militia members would be in attendance.) But, ironically, by protecting the free speech rights of the white supremacists, Conrad may have ultimately suppressed speech by ensuring an armed confrontation between the neo-Nazis and the counter-protesters would break out and that police would be powerless to stop it until blood was spilled. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe later claimed that the militia members had better equipment than our State Policeand that their weapons prevented law enforcement from imposing order and protecting peaceful protesters. While we dont yet know the full details of what happened or how, the governors statement suggested that the presence of large quantities of lethal guns had in fact effectively silenced the many people whod assembled to peacefully express their opposition to racism.

This conflict between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech is nothing new, but the sudden surge in white nationalist activism has made it painfully obvious that, in the public square, the right to bear arms tends to trump the right to free speech. Confederate sympathizers are bringing weapons of war to their demonstrationsjust last month, in fact, Ku Klux Klansmen carried guns to a protest in an adjacent Charlottesville park. Forty-five states, including Virginia, allow some form of open carry. So long as armed demonstrators comply with their permits and do not openly threaten anyone, their protests are perfectly legal.

Rallies with guns cannot be treated, for First Amendment purposes, in the same fashion as rallies with no guns.

But of course, the presence of a gun itself dramatically heightens the odds that somebody is going to get shot. And, as Saturday proved, the presence of many guns, particularly the sort that can kill many people in very little time, may dissuade law enforcement from stepping in when a protest gets out of hand. The result is an alarming form of censorship: Nonviolent demonstrators lose their right to assemble and express their ideas because the police are too apprehensive to shield them from violence. The right to bear arms overrides the right to free speech. And when protesters dress like militia members and the police are confused about who is with whom, chaos is inevitable.

This problem is especially acute in public areas like Charlottesvilles Emancipation Park and the surrounding streets and walkways. The Supreme Court recently reminded us that parks and sidewalks occupy a special position in terms of First Amendment protection because of their historic role as sites for discussion and debate. These traditional public fora have, according to the court, immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.

So the government doesnt get to bar neo-Nazis from marching in a park just because theyre neo-Nazis. But what about neo-Nazis who are toting around assault weapons? As the world saw on Saturday, armed agitators can quickly turn a public forum into a public brawl and hijack peaceful assembly. Current First Amendment doctrine praises the open debate that is supposed to occur in our streets and parks. But it is poorly equipped to help courts apply the law when bullets may accompany the free exchange of ideas.

The seminal case protecting the rights of white nationalists to march in the streets is National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not bar neo-Nazis from marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Illinois.* Most civil libertarians (us included) believe the court got the Skokie case right. But its increasingly clear that Skokie cant always help courts figure out how to deal with a post-Heller, poststand your ground white nationalist protest. Whatever the courts were attempting to protect in the Skokie case wasnt protected in Charlottesville. The marchers in Skokie didnt promise to bring guns and armed militias to protect themselves.

Moreover, the threat posed by Nazis marching in Illinois, while symbolic and terrifying, especially in a town of Holocaust survivors, was not the threat that we are coming to your town with the power to kill you. Second Amendment enthusiasts will tell you that they dont intend to deliver any message of this sort when they parade with semi-automatic weapons. Their message is merely that guns are outstanding. But one of the lessons of Charlottesville 2017 is that sometimes, when 500 people promise to come to a protest with guns to hurt people they want to see extinguished, they plan to do just that.

Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout guests for a discussion about the high court and the countrys most important cases.

Its become amply clear that open carry in Charlottesville led to little discussion and lots of fighting. Indeed, open carry seemed to guarantee that fewer people could speak and that the police had no choice but to wait until there was actual bleeding to call off the rally. If bringing guns to a speech event pushes the line for incitement past the point where people have gone mad, its time to have another look at the intersection of speech and open carry.

Rallies with guns cannot be treated, for First Amendment purposes, in the same fashion as rallies with no guns. When the police are literally too afraid of armed protesters to stop a melee, First Amendment values are diminished; discussion is supplanted by disorder and even death, and conversations about time, place, and manner seem antiquated and trite. In his analysis, Conrad treated todays white nationalists like the neo-Nazis who planned to march through Skokie.* That was a mistake. Ideas may not be able to hurt us, but assault weapons surely can. Thats why the white supremacists who marched through Charlottesville this weekend carried guns instead of Pokmon cards.Its perfectly reasonable for courts to consider the speech-suppressing potential of guns when evaluating a citys efforts to keep the peace. And it will be perfectly lethal if they fail to take the Second Amendment reality into account, as they reflect upon the values we seek to protect with the First.

*Correction, Aug. 14, 2017: This post originally misstated that Klansmen marched in Skokie, Illinois. The marchers were neo-Nazis. (Return.)

*Update, Aug. 17, 2017: The caption on the photo of this piece has been updated.

Original post:

The Guns Won - Slate Magazine

The First Amendment and Hate Groups Should They Be Free to Rally? – WDET

Posted on by

Courtesy of Dan Gottlieb

White supremacist groups say theyre intent on holding more rallies and protests around the country. Thats after a rally in Charlottesville turned violent, resulting in many injuries and one womansdeath.

Some universities say they wont allow white nationalists and supremacists to rally on or near their campuses due to concerns over safety andsecurity.

That includes Michigan State University, which last weekdenied a request to come on campus from a group led by white nationalist ringleader RichardSpencer.

Spencer claims thats a violation of his First Amendmentrights.

And weve been hearing a lot from these hate groups in recent months about a perceived violation of their right to free speech.

What speech is protected under the First Amendment and what isnt? Is it important that these groups are able to demonstrate as long as they dont turnviolent?

Richard Primus is aconstitutional law expert and professor at theUniversity of Michigan Law School. He joins Detroit Today to talk about thosequestions.

Nobody thinks the founders didnt think, and the courts have never thought that the freedom of speech means the freedom to say any words you want under any circumstances in any way at any time, saysPrimus.

What the government is not supposed to do is repress speech for the purpose of preventing the dissemination of an idea, he says. The questions that are most relevant in things like the Charlottesville scenario are about the line between speech thats the conveying of an idea intended to be offered to persuade people and speech that is actually a set of actions designed not to persuade,but tointimidate.

Jake Neher/WDET

ShikhaDalmia

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia and Lansing State Journal columnist Judy Putnam also join the show to continue the conversation and talk about MSUs decision, which Putnam says put safety over bravery in a recentcolumn.

Dalmia has written in Reason Magazine about her defense of First Amendment Absolutismas well as the University of California-Berkleys decision to cancel right-wing provocateurMilo Yiannopoulos speech earlier this year after his scheduled appearance sparked violentprotests.

I dont believe in content-based restrictions on free speech, even hate speech, saysDalmia.

I think the American model of free speech is correct that the antidote to hate speech is more speech. Free speech is a great disinfectant to badideas.

However, Dalmia defends MSUs decision, largely because there was no invitation from the university or any student groups to have the group oncampus.

Click on the audio player above to hear the fullconversation.

See the rest here:

The First Amendment and Hate Groups Should They Be Free to Rally? - WDET

Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment – CNSNews.com

Posted on by

CNSNews.com
Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment
CNSNews.com
I can attest to the fear being spread. Friday night before the next day's Boston rally, a liberal friend and First Amendment lawyer colleague who knows my work for an unrelated Free Speech Coalition out of McLean, Virginia emailed: Tell me it isn't ...
Keller @ Large: Making A Joke Of The First AmendmentCBS Boston / WBZ
A Huge Victory For Free Speech In BostonForbes
Boston Right-Wing 'Free Speech' Rally Dwarfed By CounterprotestersNPR
Columbia Journalism Review -Metro US -Esquire.com
all 1,628 news articles »

Read this article:

Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment - CNSNews.com

Equality, Justice and the First Amendment – ACLU (blog)

Posted on by

For all people of good will regardless of party affiliation, race, creed, or color the events that took place thisweekend in Charlottesville were sickening and deeply disturbing.

Several clear themes emerged for me this weekend. And while they are pretty obvious, I thought I would share them with the broader ACLU community, in an effort to give voice to what many of us are feeling and to spark a further discussion that will allow us to move together with greater hope and resolve through what are likely to be troubling days ahead.

While the events of this weekend withwhite supremacists holding lit torches frightened and outraged many Americans, we can never underestimate the impact of these images on African-Americans. Thatrally reflected this nations history of slavery, racial violence, and terrorism, which has left an indelible mark on our democracy to this day. As employees, members, or supporters of an organization dedicated to racial justice, we are all affected. Many of us are even more directly affected because we and our family members are the direct targets of the white supremacists. I know that speech alone has consequences, hurtful and deep, and thats why I believe its important to place the ACLUs representation of white supremacist demonstrators in Virginia in the broader context of the values and principles that have guided this organization for nearly a century.

First, the ACLU unequivocally rejects the ideology of white supremacists and we work actively with all our might to oppose that ideology in diverse communities across the country and to defend the right of all Americans to speak out against those views. By budget allocation, the national ACLUs top issue areas are ending mass incarceration, protecting LGBT rights, and safeguarding immigrants rights, demonstrating our commitment to advancing equality and justice with communities that are often the targets of white supremacists' bigotry and hate.

The ACLU has represented or publicly supported Black Lives Matter activists in First Amendment matters at least five times in recent months. Our work against police agencies surveillance of activists has been frequently in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and American-Muslim organizations and individuals. Weve represented and taken public positions in support of anti-Trump protesters more than five times since the election and represented one of the Standing Rock protesters in a free speech case. The ACLU has also defended the free speech rights of African-American environmental activists in Alabama against a defamation lawsuit brought by the toxic waste-generating corporation they opposed. This is all in the past yearalone.

We are not newcomers to this work. Weve defended individuals targeted for their socialist, anarchist, and communist affiliations, for anti-war speech, and for civil rights activism throughout our history. We have repeatedly defended the free speech rights of day laborers against city ordinances grounded in anti-Latino racism that would have prohibited their expressing their availability for work. The ACLU was founded in 1920 when the attorney general of the United States carried out his Palmer raids to round up immigrants based on their subversive views. And we stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the emerging labor movement of the early 20thcentury. The First Amendment freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of religionhas always been foundational for our organization.

Second,and more directly related to the events of this weekend, there are important reasons for our long history of defending freedom of speech including speech we abhor. We fundamentally believe that our democracy will be better and stronger for engaging and hearing divergent views. Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground. Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it. Not all speech is morally equivalent, but the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate. This contestation of values can only happen if the exchange of ideas is out in the open.

Thereis another practical reason that we have defended the free speech rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Today, as much as ever, the forces of white supremacy and the forces for equality and justice are locked in fierce battles, not only in Washington but in state houses and city councils around the country. Some government decision-makers are deeply opposed to the speech we support. We simply never want government to be in a position to favor or disfavor particular viewpoints. And the fact is,government officialsfrom the local to the nationalare more apt to suppress the speech of individuals or groups who disagree with government positions. Many of the landmark First Amendment cases, such as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and New York Times v. Sullivan, have been fought by African-American civil rights activists. Preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.

Third, the First Amendment cannot be used as sword or shield to justify or rationalize violence. Violenceeven when accompanied by speech does not garner the protection of the First Amendment. It is also true that the airing of ideasno matter how repugnant or loathsomedoes not necessarily lead to violence. The violence of this weekend was not caused by our defense of the First Amendment. The ACLU of Virginia went to court to insist that the First Amendment be appliedneutrally and equally to all protesters. Reasonable members of our community might differ on whether we ought to have brought that case. But I believe that having divergent views within an organization dedicated to freedom of speech is a sign of strength not weakness. I also believe the ACLU of Virginia made the right call here. Some have argued that we should not be putting resources toward anything that could benefit the voices of white supremacy. But we cannot stand by silently as the government repudiates the principles we have fought for and won in the courts when it violates clearly established First Amendment rights.

Invoking the threat of violence cannot serve as the governments carte blanche to shut down protests. If that were the case, governments would almost always be able to shut down protests, even when the protesters themselves are peaceful, because others could exercise a hecklers veto through violence or the threat of violence. We must not give government officials a free pass to cite public safety as a reason to stifle protest. They have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all protestersand may make their case in court for reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. That is what we sought in our lawsuit in Virginia.

Thehard job for us now is to find concrete strategies for healing the divides that were laid bare this weekend. For the broader society, this would require that white supremacy, bigotry, and racism be confronted and rejected. Freedom of speech has to be valued and heralded as the cornerstone of our democratic society. Political leaders must shape the political discourse to underscore what binds us together as people, rather than exploit our differences. And government officials must neutrally apply the First Amendment and ensure the safety of all Americans when they take to the streets to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

For our organization, we must remain focused and vigorous in our defense of civil liberties and civil rights in every community and in every context. Our 97-year history of defending the constitutional rights of all persons even those we disagree withis imbued with a belief that these rights are indeed indivisible, unalienable, and granted to each of us in our democracy. Our job is to turn those promises and aspirations into a reality for all people. And that work has never been more important than now.

See the original post here:

Equality, Justice and the First Amendment - ACLU (blog)

Welcome back, Garrison: Saluting the First Amendment – The Union Leader

Posted on by

But it doesnt hurt.

Our friends at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications have invited Keillor to headline the 15th Annual First Amendment Awards, Oct. 5 at the Palace Theatre in Manchester.

Some of our readers dont like that Keillor has sharpened the tone of his homespun prairie punditry in response to President Donald Trump. But we must never take for granted the freedom that allows a writer to call out the head of our government.

Our late President and Publisher, Nackey Loeb, founded the Loeb School in 1999 to promote understanding and appreciation of the First Amendment, and to foster excellence in journalism.

Partisans who rarely agree on anything should be able to agree on the importance of those principles.

Tickets to the First Amendment Awards are on sale now at the Palace Theatre. We would encourage you to attend.

Were sure everyone in the audience will be above average.

Politics Social issues Editorial

See the original post:

Welcome back, Garrison: Saluting the First Amendment - The Union Leader

Letter: Peculiar First Amendment interpretation – Opinion – Milford … – Milford Daily News

Posted on by

According to Joseph Rizoli the First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly only extend to those with government-issued permits to exercise those rights (The real haters at Charlottesville, Aug. 15). Thus, the counter-protesters to the supposed non-haters had no right to assemble, no right to speak freely, only to stay home and shut up. Anything else is hate, according to Mr. Rizoli.

Of course, theres no excuse for either side throwing bricks or anything else at the other side, except perhaps insults, even without a permit. You, know, its the free speech thing. I notice, however, that Mr. Rizoli did not mention driving a car into the counter-protesting haters, apparently because having a permit to exercise ones First Amendment rights also allows attacking those without a permit with a 3,000-pound, deadly weapon.

The MetroWest News frequently publishes the First Amendment on the editorial page. Mr. Rizoli should read it, contemplate it, and try to understand it.

K. A. Boriskin

Bellingham

Read more:

Letter: Peculiar First Amendment interpretation - Opinion - Milford ... - Milford Daily News

10 Reasons Why Central Banks Will Miss the Cryptocurrency Renaissance – CoinDesk

Posted on by

Eugne Etsebeth is an ex-central bankerwho was employed as a technologist at the South African Reserve Bank from 2013 to 2017. During his time at the reserve bank, he notablychaired the virtual currency and distributed ledger working group.

In this opinion piece, Etsebeth outlines why he believes central banks won't be able to adapt to innovations in cryptocurrency, arguing they simply aren't set up to compete with sea changes in technology.

It's a familiar trend, one that happened in communications (internet), and that is now playing out in energy (solar), manufacturing (3D printing)and finance (cryptocurrency) power and control are moving into the hands of the individual and away from nation states.

This has huge implications for central banks, which today enable nation states to maintain their monopolies over the issuance of notes, coins and sovereign bonds. While communications and manufacturing are not their focus, cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs) fall predominantly in the realm of central banks.

In these systems,central banks don't issue legal tender. Rather, miners and algorithms now control the issuance of tokens effectively, the money supply. Whereas previously banks were licensed to store, send and spend currency, now wallet providers and exchanges allow the same features.

The currency renaissance has arrived and central banks are studying cryptocurrencies, though some central banks are more open to change than others.

Singapore has been investigating the notion of using distributed ledger technologies to settle cross-border transactions in real time, and the Bank of England has experimented with Ripple. Central banks are even looking to build their own versions of central bank-issued digital currency (CBDC).

Even still, central banks are not well equipped to deal with the cryptocurrency renaissance.

In fact, there are10 good reasons why most central banks will find cryptocurrencies insurmountable. Sure, a small number of forward-thinking (and acting) central banks willmaintain monetary competiveness with the burgeoning cryptocurrencies and ICOs that have reared their decentralized heads.

Still, most will succumb to a mix of the following issues:

Central banks will need to attract and retain fresh talent that will enable them to deal with the new openness and transparency demands, as well as digital transformation and the increasingly complex global world.

Decision-making in central banks is like wading through treacle decisions take months because of numerouslayers of hierarchy.

Working groups need to compile voluminous and detailed documents that need to be reviewed and signed by all parties before they can proceed to the heads of departments or the deputy governors.

Academics, economists and big-picture thinkers excel in central banks. The academics ponder on conceptual issues andthe economists make interpretations from data, whereas the policy makers and regulators mull over the cause and effect of promulgating laws.

However,technologists are generally not part of the discussion when it comes to policy and economic decisions for currency.

Although some central banks are engaging in experimentation, there is a fear of going from proof-of-concept to pilot phase.

This is natural, should a central bank make an error, it may turn out to be a reputation buster and reputation is the cornerstone of central banks. There is also some trepidation that the early regulation of cryptocurrencies, and associated new technologies, may legitimize their adoption.

Central banks are similar to conglomerates in that they have a number of different and distinct departments that require diverse skills and outputs.

These differences make it difficult to approach a new technology and economic tour de force like cryptocurrency, because it doesnt fit neatly into any one of the industrial-style conglomerate domains.

To highlight the conglomerate type nature of central banks, the core departments and skill sets are listed below:

Most central banks do not have substantial software development capability. Therefore any new project will have to buy its technology. There is an acute shortage of central bankers who can explain or use Merkle trees.

A large portion of central bankers are career central bankers, so the desire and ability to change arenot incentivised. Change is often considered a threat to staff, and threats are met with jelly-like stickiness to the status quo.

Banks are licensed to operate by central banks, giving them the ability to create money from customer deposits.

The central bank asks the banks to protect depositor's hard-earned money and to serve as many customers as it can: i.e. maximizingfinancial inclusion. The task of banks is therefore to service anation's citizens at the behest of the central bank.

These relationships and licenses are expensive to buy and will not easily be changed to include new members.

Just as the departments within central banks tend to be siloed, so too are the intergovernmental departments that look at currency matters.

They cover treasury, financial intelligence (KYC), financial services conduct authority, central bank, tax revenue and secret service units. Each of these units may have different acts and regulations that overlap cryptocurrencies and ICOs.

Internationally the nation-state must get guidance from a multitude of organisations like the G20 or G7, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Bank of International Settlements (BIS), Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and INTERPOL. International coordination often requires prolonged diplomacy and mismatched agendas.

Statue of Davidimage via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk strives to offer an open platform for dialogue and discussion on all things blockchain by encouraging contributed articles. As such, the opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of CoinDesk.

For more details on how you can submit an opinion or analysis article, view our Editorial Collaboration Guide or email [emailprotected].

More:

10 Reasons Why Central Banks Will Miss the Cryptocurrency Renaissance - CoinDesk

AMD Releases Beta Graphics Driver for Better Cryptocurrency Mining – Bitcoin Magazine

Posted on by

A few days ago, AMD released the Radeon Software Crimson ReLive Edition Beta for Blockchain Compute driver. According to the release notes on the tech giants website, the software optimizes the performance for Blockchain Compute Workloads, thereby boosting the efficiency of cryptocurrency mining rigs that are using a GPU for mining (eg., Ethereum mining rigs).

Currently, the graphics driver can be downloaded from AMDs official website. The beta software supports desktop GPUs from AMD Radeon HD 7700, and it can be installed on 64-bit Windows 7 (Service Pack 1 or higher required) and 64-bit Windows 10 systems. AMD highlighted in the release notes that the graphics driver is not intended to boost users gaming performance. The company added that since this is a beta software, it will not be supported with further updates, upgrades or bug fixes.

AMDs new beta driver is designed to fix an issue related to the DAG (directed acyclic graph) size. As the number of blocks in the Ethereum blockchain increases (taking roughly 14 seconds to generate a block), so does Ethereums epoch (a 100-hour window). For every epoch, or 30,000 blocks, a DAG is generated. As the DAG size grows, the memory requirements for mining Ethereum increase. Since the memory footprint of the workload is increasing, it will, at a certain time, overflow from the graphics cards memory and will be stored in the main system memory. The main system memory is much slower than accessing the GPUs VRAM. If a mining rig is slower to access the memory, it will result in performance penalties concerning the miners hashrate.

AMDs new beta driver appears to have fixed the DAG issue. According to TechPowerUp, there is only a minimal difference between mining different DAG sizes with the beta software. Compared to the old driver, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB (1546 MHz/945 MHz) experienced an 81 percent increase in the hashrate mining DAG 199.

The Reddit community has also confirmed that AMDs new update is resulting in greater hashrates for their GPUs.

My RX Vega went from 31 to 37Mh/s mining ETH only. Very nice improvement, wrote a user named Hot-Diggity-Daffodil.

Just got these new drivers installed on one of my 6 gpu rigs. MSI RX 580 8GBs confirmed back up to 29.5 from 27.5. Installing on other rigs now. Using BBT modded ROMs, another user called TheHansGruber wrote in the /r/EtherMining subreddit.

AMDs beta driver will boost the performance of Ethereum mining rigs for a while. However, if Ethereum evolves from proof of work to proof of stake, with a first step toward this model expected on November 1, GPUs will be less needed over time. At the instance of proof of stake, the mining is based on coin ownership rather than hash power.

Follow this link:

AMD Releases Beta Graphics Driver for Better Cryptocurrency Mining - Bitcoin Magazine

A Bitcoin Law for Every State? Interest and Animosity Greet Model US Regulation – CoinDesk

Posted on by

A two-year effort to unify cryptocurrency business regulations across the U.S. has concluded now, the technology's enthusiastsjust have to convince legislators to enact it.

Established in 1982, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) is a non-profit association made up of 350 commissioners. All are lawyers by trade, and theirgoal isto draft legislation that brings clarity to areas where state law is creating instability.

Given the onerous regulatory regimes that have so far been enacted for cryptocurrencies, it may be no surprise that the ULC has taken an interest in the area. Since the group began its work in 2014, attempts by states to regulate the tech have attracted everything from public boycotts to criticism and petitionsto ongoing lawsuits.

But with the ULC's work now concluded, some industry observers are optimistic this narrative could see a much-needed reversal.

Stephen Middlebrook, an attorney with Womble Carlyle who served as the American Bar Association advisor to the ULC during its drafting process, expects several states to introduce itsUniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Businesses Actin upcoming legislative sessions around the country.

Middlebrook told CoinDesk:

"It's my understanding that legislators in several states who were interested in legislating in this area held off waiting for the Uniform Act. So, I think there's sort of a built up demand for it."

Others involved with the work agree.

Sarah Jane Hughes, who served as reporter for the ULC committee, said Texas and California which were involved in the drafting process would likely be early adopters.

"We believe that there are a number of states that have been holding back their own regulatory and legislative approaches in order to wait for this," she said.

The Uniform Act seeks to spell out which virtual currency-related activitiesare and are not considered money transmission, and therefore require licensure. It furtherdefines foundational conceptssuch as the "custody" of crypto assets.

One of the more innovative itemsthe bill seeks to put into law is a three-tier licensing structure that offers full exemptions for individuals and small entities, createsa regulatory sandbox for startups andgrants full licensure status for larger virtual currency businesses.

And legislators seem keen to continue engaging and working with the nascent industry.

Matt Dababneh, a member of the California state assembly who hasintroducedvirtual currency legislation in the past, told CoinDeskhe is considering the Uniform Act, explaining:

"I have been monitoring the growth and progression of virtual currency and how it impacts our economy. I am still reviewing all of the recommendations put forth in the [Uniform]Act. I will continue to be engaged in this issue as virtual currency becomes a more prominent payment option for businesses throughout the state."

With all this optimism, though, there's still an uphill battle ahead.

According to Carol Van Cleef, a fintechattorney with BakerHostetler, getting the law passed in any single state, much less all 50, will be a challenge. And there's history to prove it.

About 17 years ago, a uniform money transmitter statute was circulated, with the idea that money transmitters would only need to receive a license from one state, which could then be used as a passport to operate in other states, said Van Cleef.

"As of today, I think approximately 10 states have adopted that. So, we're not going to see this as a real panacea, or think that were resolving the state money transmitter issue," she said at a conference last month in Washington, D.C.

Complicating matters further, a segment of the virtual currency community remains stridently opposed to the Uniform Act on the grounds it too closely resembles New Yorks "BitLicense" regulation, which they claim has chased fintech innovators out of the state.

The Bitcoin Foundation, a non-profit of waning influence in the industry, has urged the National Council of State Legislatures (NCLS), a group that represents state legislators and staff, to direct its members to reject the bill.

Writing to the NCLS, the foundation's executive director Llew Claasen warned:

"Adopting a model act with the characteristics of the New York regulation is sure to threaten the existence of the fintech industry nationwide."

And theremight be merit in these ideas.

Given the fast-moving nature of cryptocurrencies and related technologies, laws like the BitLicense have shown a propensity to quickly become dated.

Since the law was drawn up in 2014, two separate movements have sprung out of the tech:bank-focused private blockchains and initial coin offerings both of which haven't been addressedon the state level.

Still, Middlebrook advocated for a balance here, as both regulators and innovators seek to find a middle ground that can perhaps only be found with time.

He concluded:

"The choice really is whether it's going to be regulated using statutes and regulatory schemes that were designed for other things that dont really mesh well with virtual currency, or whether a regulatory scheme is going to be something specifically designed for businesses operating in this area."

U.S. dollar puzzleimage via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Interested in offering your expertise or insights to our reporting? Contact us at [emailprotected].

Link:

A Bitcoin Law for Every State? Interest and Animosity Greet Model US Regulation - CoinDesk