Silicon Valley and Free Speech: Tim Cook Edition – National Review

Reuters:

Apple Inc CEO Tim Cook has joined a chorus of business leaders who have voiced their opposition to President Donald Trump after he blamed white nationalists and anti-racism activists equally for violence in Virginia over the weekend.

I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans, Cook wrote in a note late on Wednesday to employees, according to technology news website Recode.

Cook also said in the letter that Apple will donate $1 million apiece to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and will match two-for-one their donations to the organizations and other human rights groups until Sept. 30.

Let me note first that I am not very impressed (to put it mildly) with the way that the president has responded to the events in Charlottesville.

That said, lets concentrate on this: Cook is spending $1m of shareholders money on a gift to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC has, shall we say, its issues. You can find some interesting commentaryover at that well-known bastion of the right, Harpers Magazine, here, here and here.

But Id like to focus on the SPLCs Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, and two of the names included in that guide (something already discussed by Ericka Andersen on this very Corner back in June).

Firstly, theresMaajid Nawaz a British activist and part of the ex-radical circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam.

Amongst the evidence of his extremism is this:

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.

So Apple is funding an organization that deems taking a stand in favor of free speech as evidence of extremism. The company that once advertised itself as the antithesis of Big Brotheris now a de facto supporter of controlling blasphemy. Times change.

Doubtless this will play well in Apple (Saudi Arabia), so theres that.

Heres (part of) what The Atlantic had to say about Nawaz last year (my emphasis added):

Nawaz is a star in certain anti-terror circles, thanks to a compelling personal narrative: A self-described former extremist who spent four years in an Egyptian prison, he has changed approaches and now argues for a pluralistic and peaceful vision of Islam. He stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat in 2015, and advised Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron.

Nawazs work has earned him detractorscritics claim he has embellished or neatened his narrative, some attack him for opportunism, and others question his liberal bona fidesbut calling him an anti-Muslim extremist is a surprise. Unlike the likes of Gaffney and Geller, he doesnt espouse the view that Islam itself is a problem; unlike Ali, who now describes herself as an atheist, Nawaz identifies as a Muslim.

Ali? Ah yes: Someone else who is on the SPLC extremist list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali knows a thing or two about Islam, having been brought up in thatfaith (at one point in her youth she was very devout) and then broken with it publicly and, yes, abrasively, something that put her life in danger (which goes some way to backing up what she has to say about Islam). Sometimes she has, in my view, overreached in her rhetoric (others will disagree), but to go from that to claiming that she is an extremist in the way that the SPLC use that word is absurd, no more than that, its sinister.

Another prominent atheist, Sam Harris, has described the labeling of Hirsi Ali and Nawaz as extremists as unbelievable. After Hirsi Ali was snubbed by Brandeis in 2014 (two years before the SPLCfield guide came out), Richard Dawkins referred toher as a hero of rationalism & feminism.

Over at Patheos,Hemant Mehta. the Friendly Atheist (and no rightist)called the SPLCs designation of Hirsi Ali and Nawaza f****** joke :

If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it wont be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list, too. And make no mistake, thats what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. Thats all theyre doing. Theyre not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. Theyre critical of the worst aspects of Islam. For goodness sake, theyre not attacking Malala Yousafzai.

Hell, Hirsi Alis foundation works to end faith-based honor killings and female genital mutilation. Who knew that would make her the Worst Person Ever?

Mehta added:

Essentially, while her words may have been harsh, they should be seen with the understanding that she has been personally affected by the worst aspects of the faith. As I wrote before, it takes a very uncharitable interpretation of Hirsi Alis words to think her goal of defeating Islam means we should commit violence against peaceful law-abiding Muslims or descends into hate speech. Her goal is full-scale reform of Islam, not genocide against all Muslims.

She has repeatedly said that her goal is to prevent the spread of Islamic radicalism, not to prevent peaceful Muslims from practicing their faith.

Yet sheand Nawaz have attracted the ire of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But all of thats fine with Apples Tim Cook, so fine that hes prepared to throw one million dollars of his shareholders money SPLCs way.

See the rest here:

Silicon Valley and Free Speech: Tim Cook Edition - National Review

Charlottesville forces Silicon Valley to confront its approach to free speech – wtvr.com

Following last weekends violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, many tech companies have been thrust into a debate over free speech and social responsibility.

One tech company after another has taken steps to effectively choke off white supremacist groups after a violent rally.

Some have said they have an obligation to take down content that incites violence. Others have simply suggested that hateful or racist behavior violates their community standards.

The moves have left some hate groups and websites in internet limbo, unable to communicate, move money or find a home online.

GoDaddy and Google each stopped hosting the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer after it published a derogatory story about Heather Heyer, who was killed while protesting against the rally. Facebook has taken down a number of white supremacist Facebook Groups and pulled the event page for Saturdays rally after it became clear it was violent.

On the payments side, PayPal has been cracking down on white supremacist accounts, and GoFundMe is banning crowdfunding campaigns for the man who alleged plowed his car into the crowd killing Heyer. Apple has reportedly cut off payments to websites selling Nazi-themed merchandise.

This approach even had consequences offline. Airbnb removed users who were connected with the rally and planned to stay at several of its home rentals. And an Uber driver in Charlottesville kicked out a group of prominent white nationalists from her car. The driver was then honored at Ubers all-hands meeting on Tuesday, according to a spokesperson.

Tech companies have long faced pressure to do more to address hate and harassment online.

But this weeks sudden and aggressive crack down reignites concerns about the industrys immense power to decide who does and doesnt have a place on the internet.

To me, the question is never about whether white supremacists deserve a platform, but who gets to decide that? says Jillian York, director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As private companies, the Facebooks and Googles of the world are free to determine who uses their products. Typically, however, theyve tried to cultivate the image of being neutral and unbiased platforms by relying on artificial intelligence and user feedback to flag offensive content.

At a more fundamental level, some tech companies were built by teams who strongly believed in free speech. One former Google employee told CNN Tech the company was reluctant to remove hate speech from its Blogger platform in the mid-2000s because of concerns it amounted to censorship.

The industry has been forced to evolve its approach in recent years amid greater media and regulatory scrutiny over online harassment and the spread of terrorist content from groups like ISIS.

York says most of the worlds governments and nearly all Silicon Valley companies decided that terrorists dont get speech rights. Now she says the tech industry is at risk of being seen as unilaterally deciding the same to be true for Nazis and white supremacists.

By asserting more control over offensive content, tech companies may find themselves on a slippery slope. They could face redoubled efforts from media outlets and governments to take down other controversial posts in the future.

Matthew Prince, CEO of internet firm Cloudfare, wrestled with these concerns in an unusually candid blog post Wednesday after his company terminated The Daily Stormers account.

After today, make no mistake, Prince said, it will be a little bit harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they dont like.

Meanwhile, a new cottage industry of fringe copycat startups has gained attention for catering to those who arent welcome on more mainstream platforms. But even some of these sites are starting to be more discerning.

Discord, a Skype and chat service popular with the alt-right, said this week it was shutting down accounts associated with the Charlottesville events. We will continue to take action against white supremacy, Nazi ideology, and all forms of hate, the company said in a statement.

View original post here:

Charlottesville forces Silicon Valley to confront its approach to free speech - wtvr.com

Speaker list for ‘free speech’ rally includes right-wing extremists – The Boston Globe

Some speakers have dropped out of the Boston Free Speech rally planned for Saturday on the Common, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd at the event, which expected to draw counterprotesters and a heavy police presence.

The rally organizers said early Thursday in a Facebook post that the four headliners will be Kyle Chapman, Joe Biggs, US Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, and congressional candidate Samson Racioppi.

Advertisement

So its been a little tumultuous running up to the 19th. Weve attracted much love from the Alt Left aka Antifa and their trolly bits, the post said. We apologize for the upheaval of our speaker list.

Of the four speakers, Chapman and Biggs appeared likely to draw the most ire.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Chapman gained notoriety earlier this year after a video went viral of him smashing a wooden post over the head of an anti-fascist protester at a march for President Trump in Berkeley, Calif.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Mayor Walsh said. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Chapman, who became known on the Internet as Based Stickman, then started a group called the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a New Alt-Right Fight Club ready for street violence.

The Alt Knights are linked to another extremist group, the Proud Boys. According to the SPLC, Chapman says his new militant, highly-masculine group will be the tactical defensive arm of the Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters.

Advertisement

The Proud Boys were founded by Gavin McInnes, who was originally scheduled as a speaker at Saturdays rally but dropped out earlier this week.

Biggs, a former US Army staff sergeant, worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

The conspiracy theory almost went horribly wrong when a man showed up at the pizzeria and fired a miltiary-assault-style rifle. He was later sentenced to four years in prison.

Biggs previously told the Globe that Saturdays rally is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence.

These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He was referring to the rally in Virginia that turned deadly when white supremacists and neo-Nazi demonstrators clashed with counterprotesters, and one white supremacist allegedly plowed his vehicle into Heather Heyer, killing the young woman who was part of the counterprotest.

Tensions have been high in the leadup to the planned rally in Boston, with Mayor Martin J. Walsh telling hate groups that the city does not want you here. City officials have granted the organizers a permit allowing them to rally on the Common from noon to 2 p.m., with restrictions on objects that attendees can bring into the area.

Among the banned items for demonstrators on both sides: bats, sticks, and backpacks. Walsh said police will have a zero-tolerance policy.

Walsh is not the only political leader to condemn bigotry ahead of the rally.

During an ornate State House ceremony on Thursday, Governor Charlie Baker was joined by a number of elected officials including Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg in submitting an official resolution decrying white nationalism in the wake of the Charlottesville violence.

The officials took turns reading portions of the resolution, including one excerpt read by Baker that said the state strongly denounces the bigoted ideologies promoted by white nationalists.

Meanwhile, the rally organizers continue to insist that the event is open to a range of political views and not a forum for hate groups.

We are STILL offering our platform for left groups to join us and have open slots for speakers if any left groups would like to furnish some, the Facebook posting said. We will, of course, ask that speakers stick generally to the subject of Free Speech. We will not tolerate advocacy for hate against any ethnic/racial groups, as stated on our recent release.

Ayyadurai, a Cambridge Republican who has staked out a populist stance in the early months of the GOP Senate primary in Massachusetts, recently told the Globe via e-mail that he was concerned Saturdays rally could turn violent.

He added that racial strife is manufactured and fueled by the Establishment to distract from the economic problems that they have caused and profit from. ... The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter with the aim of dividing everyday poor black and white Americans.

Racioppi, the fourth speaker who is also running for Congress, is enrolled at Suffolk University and served as a Cavalry Scout in the US Army for three years, according to his campaign website.

Speech is such an important thing to me, a blog post says on his site. It is the most important value a society can recognize for free people to stay that way.

The site also includes a YouTube video of Racioppi speaking under a headline that says, How drug legalization reduces addiction and overdose deaths.

Here is the original post:

Speaker list for 'free speech' rally includes right-wing extremists - The Boston Globe

Letters: A clarion call for free speech – Press-Enterprise

In Dont weaken presss check on government [Opinion, Aug. 9], the Press-Enterprise sounds a clarion call for all who support freedom of the press as a constitutional check on government to push back against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions threat to make it easier to subpoena reporters.

Freedom of the press can trace its roots to the 1735 trial of newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger. Zengers New-York Weekly Journal published articles critical of New York Colonys Royal Gov. William S. Cosby, accusing him of tyranny, abusing peoples rights and removing a judge who ruled against him in a lawsuit. Under British law, criticism of the government even if true was illegal. Despite the fact that Zengers statements were true, he was arrested for seditious libel.

At trial, Zengers attorney, Andrew Hamilton, attacked the British law arguing that people had the right to speak the truth. The jury agreed and Zenger was found innocent. Zengers case provided the foundation for our right to freedom of speech and its expression in many forms.

The freedom to criticize the government has a glorious tradition in this nation.

And it compels each citizen to stand vigilant in defense of our constitutional right to exercise that freedom. Those calling for government censorship of the media, those who threaten reporters/journalists with subpoenas and possible arrest, and those who would withhold the truth about government activities from the people are reminiscent of behaviors found in totalitarian regimes rather than democratic republics.

When asked to share his view on the importance of freedom of the press, Zenger remarked, No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves.

Robert Eilek, Temecula

High tolls will create congestion

Re: As Inland toll lanes boom, why are new freeway lanes rarely free? [News, Aug. 15]: Martin Wachs on the toll lanes: It can always reduce congestion because you can raise the price higher and higher until some people choose not to use it.

In other words, you can increase congestion in the free lanes until the price people are willing to pay for the toll lanes impacts your income stream.

Greg Bice, Corona

Go here to see the original:

Letters: A clarion call for free speech - Press-Enterprise

‘Swedish police should prioritize crimes against freedom of speech’ – The Local Sweden

Sweden's Culture and Democracy Minister Alice Bah Kuhnke. Photo: Claudio Bresciani/TT

The Local speaks to Sweden's Culture and Democracy Minister Alice Bah Kuhnke about the government's plan to crack down on threats and hate against politicians, journalists and artists.

This interview is part of our Sweden in Focus article series. Read the main feature here:

The government has presented 'Defence of the Free Word', an action plan to combat threats and hate against journalists, elected representatives and artists. Could you explain the background?

Threats against journalists, elected representatives and artists have been highlighted in a series of studies, and also through reports from victims. Apart from the fact that the government has commissioned and financed surveys to ensure that the measures we invest in contribute to positive change, we have also learned from studies and intense roundtable discussions with everyone from editors-in-chief and journalists to artists and organizers because another thing that has been noted is that when a museum for example invites an artist to put together an exhibition they have received more and more threats in recent years linked both to the artist but also to the theme. There have been concerning signs and discussions about museums and organizers risking self-censorship because of security costs.

We have been talking about this and I have also travelled around the country to meet many of the various groups being targeted. That's the background why we adopted this action plan against hate and threats.

Recommended interview:

Swedish artist Lars Vilks has been threatened on multiple occasions. Photo: Fredrik Sandberg/TT

Many others have reported being threatened in their line of work in the past 12 months:one in five librarians, four out of ten police officers, and so on. Why does the action plan focus on these professions in particular?

Journalists, artists and elected representatives work on the basis of those freedoms and opportunities that free speech offers. So when they are threatened, free speech is also threatened. That's the simple explanation, because there are other groups in society who are also exposed to a lot of threats, everything from social workers to environmental health inspectors in restaurants and so on, but this is for professionals working with free speech.

What does it mean for society if these voices are silenced?

It is extremely serious. The consequences of a journalist either being completely silenced or choosing not to investigate a tip because of threats directed at the journalist or their family is terrible, because that means that something risks not being investigated, that we as citizens lose the chance to gain knowledge and form an opinion. And parallel to this there is a development that more and more choose to form their perceptions of reality based on information that is not journalism, that is, does not follow those principles and guidelines that journalism does. Unfortunately it is also the case that many people believe that what you read on for example Facebook is journalism, and that is not always the case. It may very well be, it could be linked to journalistic articles where there is a publisher responsible for the articles, but unfortunately that is not always the case.

Many of those we've spoken to say that threats are not the only problem, but also hateful comments in e-mails and elsewhere online that may not necessarily be illegal in the eyes of the law. How do you tackle this?

That is also a big problem, and the action plan we've now got in place is by no means a cure-all. It is part of systematic work by the government, but in society as a whole we need very many different actors using our respective platforms to create a better climate for conversations, because just as you say, the tone of conversations and that hostile tone that is all too often used on social media is not always criminal as such, but can still contribute to people choosing not to participate.

That is also something we're highlighting in the action plan, where some of the measures are targeted at support for, say, a blogger that's also a group that's extremely exposed to hate and threats or people in general who express opinions or thoughts and the more threats and the more hostilities they face, the narrower and smaller the space for public conversation becomes. And we all lose out when the climate is not inviting and generous even when we do not at all agree with people's opinions it still benefits all of us in the end when they are given the space to express those opinions.

Recommended reading:

Alice Bah Kuhnke, right, taking part in a march for diversity in Visby, July 2017. Photo: Henrik Montgomery/TT

Surely people must be allowed to express negative opinions too, so where do you draw the line between limiting hate speech and protecting free speech?

Democracy is not a simple matter. Fortunately, we live in a state where the rule of law applies, and the line is drawn when the rule of law is threatened and when the justice system decides what is legal and what is not legal. But until you reach that external line our freedoms come with a great deal of responsibility.

Unfortunately those forces that do not want or do not protect our freedoms also use our freedoms. They take advantage of the fundamental rights we have for generating discussions and affecting the development of society, and they are advanced in how they use those freedoms to silence and limit other people's freedoms. That's incredibly saddening and provocative, and at the same time I remain convinced,convinced, that I want to fight to preserve and consolidate our freedoms and that that is also the best tool to fight those who want to limit them.

Politicians and journalists are not always innocent, and there have been cases in Sweden and elsewhere where individuals from both professions have been criticized for spreading hate, or indirectly spreading hate by posting something online that is then backed by trolls who stir things up even more. Do we also need to think more about how we express ourselves?

Yes. I as a politician very much have to raise my own awareness and pay attention to what tone I use in discussions with other politicians and other politicians' opinions and political proposals. We should not throw stones in glass houses, and that is kind of what I was hinting at when I said that we need to be many different actors doing a lot to create a better environment for conversation and opinion formation, but also to build a better society because that is based on us having information that we can then break down and wrestle with.

Some of those targeted claim that the justice system is not doing enough. Why was this action plan put forward by yourself and the culture ministry rather than the interior ministry, which is responsible for the police and the justice system?

This is put forward by the government, and the police are part of the action plan, because as you say this is something that has been highlighted. All various actors describe the frustration of not feeling and not knowing that those reports to the police (are taken seriously). It should be said they are few, there is likely a large number of incidents that go unrecorded because many of the victims have normalized the hate and the threats, but they have clearly explained how it quite simply has not felt meaningful to go to the police.

So that's why the Swedish police should now prioritize crimes against opinion-formation and freedom of speech and with the action plan we will now ask the police to report back how they're working, how they're prioritizing and show the government that they are doing this. And not least we are emphasizing the importance that local police forces prioritize relationship-building but also security work for local newspaper offices.

There has been talk in many parts of the world about threats against journalists from leaders themselves. Even in the US, President Donald Trump was accused of advocating violence against journalists when tweeting an edited video where he was beating a person whose head had been replaced with CNN's logo. How did you react to that?

It is extremely distressing that we politicians who are trusted with governing our states spread or grow mistrust of journalists and journalism which is the fourth estate and whose main task is to investigate us. It makes me appalled and deeply saddened, but also inspires me to continue the work we're doing in Sweden. The day we do not have investigative journalism, the day we do not have journalists investigating people like myself, then then well, that's the downfall of our society.

This article is part of ourSweden in Focusseries, an in-depth look at what makes this country tick. Read more from the serieshere.

Edited for length and clarity.

Here is the original post:

'Swedish police should prioritize crimes against freedom of speech' - The Local Sweden

Religion and racism, atheism and the Alt-Right – Patheos (blog)

When it comes to hateful ideological movements, religion has always provided hateful tyranny a helping hand. As James Madison observed, Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.

This is true for religions role in slavery and segregation and the subjugation of women and terrorism and LGBTQ rights and on and on. This list is incredibly long, but a few recent examples ought to suffice. Martin Luther King, Jr.s wonderful Letter from the Birmingham Jaila piece I reread every few monthswas written to his fellow clergymen, specifically, the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South.King took to task the white churchmen [who] stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities amid the mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice.

Bob Jones, the televangelist and founder of an eponymous religious school, infamously declared that segregation was scriptural in his 1960 Easter sermon: If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God . . . . Bob Jones University enjoyed tax exemption, a privilege. But the IRS revoked the tax exemption because the school discriminated on the basis of race. In the 1980s, BJU sued the government, arguing that its religious beliefs required the discrimination and that the government could not remove its privilege because of its religion. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed and backed up the IRS.

Jones was not a lone Christian minister fighting for segregation in his gods name. Many other churchmen joined him. The KKK is itself an explicitly Christian organization. Hell, Klansmen began burning crosses to spread the light of Jesus into the countryside. The unconstitutional anti-miscegenation law struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, was religious, Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Even now, as CEOs, business leaders, and politicians scramble to distance themselves from Trumps toxicity, his evangelical councilmade up self-proclaimed moral leadersis standing by their man and defending Trumps Tuesday bigotry.

If recent reports are to be believed, the clarity of this history is getting murky. In a recent NPR story, George Hawley, a professor at the University of Alabama and author of Making Sense of the Alt-Right explained, based on interviews he conducted, who makes up the Alt-Right.

AUDIE CORNISH: Youve interviewed many people who consider themselves part of the alt-right. Can you give us a profile? Who does this ideology appeal to?

HAWLEY: I would say it is definitely a young movement. Id say that it is predominantly white millennial men. It is not sort of stereotypically conservative in its profile. Id say that probably it is a more secular population than the country overall. That is, there are a lot of agnostics and atheists or people who are just generally indifferent to religion. And I think that it is a fairly well-educated movement on average, that as I think that probably the model alt-right member has at least some college education.

Peter Beinart wrote an article for the Atlanticon this topic and was also interviewed by NPR (NPR does great work). Beinart spoke with a bit more nuance than Hawley and addressed the bigger question, why?: [W]hat Im trying to suggest in my piece is there seems to be some evidence that as culturally conservative people disengage from religious institutions, they redraw the boundaries of us versus them from religious and moral terms to a divide over race and nation.

Beinart also suggests that the Black Lives Matter movement is to some degree the flip side of this coin: African-Americans remain more tied to church than do white Americans. And yet, you see this same divide generational divide where younger African-Americans are substantially more likely to be disengaged from religious affiliation. I suggest in the piece that the Black Lives Matter movement is to some degree a product of that.

Should data back up the anecdotal interviews about nonbelievers in the Alt-Right, there will be an overflow of religious commentators who will try to paint all atheists, agnostics, and other freethinkers as racist bigots. But such data would no more show that the racists were motivated by their atheism than it would show that they were motivated by their college education, especially since the younger demographic is uniformly more nonreligious anyway.

As FFRF pointed out in our statement on Charlottesville, Raw racism does not spring from religion or irreligion. It is a harmful xenophobic tribalistic instinct that manifests itself in a certain subpopulation of our species. Religion has been a justification for racism, but it does not follow that religion is the cause. Nor would it follow that atheism is the cause.

Absolutely true. But one thing is clear: Ideas have consequences. Believing that one raceyour raceis superior dehumanizes those of other races. This idea has consequences. When others are made less than human it is easier to hate them, discriminate against them, marginalize them, and even murder them. This is why Nazis denigrated Jews as cockroaches and rats. Its why the Hutus called the Tutsis cockroaches, as well. It is sadly straightforward to treat animals like animals. Ironically, genetics prove that thereis only one race, the human race.

Religious ideas have consequences too. As I write this, we are finding out about the attack in Barcelona that left 13 dead on one of my favorite streets, Las Ramblas. No claim of responsibility yet, but ISIS is already celebrating. The parallels to Charlottesville are haunting: An attack in which an ideologically twisted individual drove a car through crowds of innocent people, different only in body count and, in all likelihood, motivating ideology.

If you believe your religion is superior to all others, that makes you special and everyone else lesser. If you believe that you are righteous and everyone else is wicked, that idea has consequences. The bible itself is inherently racist as FFRF Co-President Dan Barker has shownin his new book. FFRFs new website catalogs the racist verses and the verses in which god himself is a slavemonger Go have a look.

Religion is an idea or, more properly, a set of ideas like any other. However, religious ideas differ in two important ways. First, their authority supposedly derives from divine fiat. People who believe they have a divine sanction tend to have the worst ideas. (This makes sense; the ideas are not standing or falling on their merits, but on the basis of authority alone). Secondly, religious ideas are explicitly and deliberately held on the basis of faith. That is, they are knowingly held without evidence or in spite of evidence. As a result, religious ideas are significantly more tenacious. But every mind possessed of these bad ideas is capable of changing. There are plenty of atheists who were once preachers and reverends and Muslims. There is hope. There is hope because good ideas will eventually and inevitably triumph over bad ideas.

By Andrew L. Seidel Constitutional Attorney, Director of Strategic Response Freedom From Religion Foundation

FFRF is a national nonprofit dedicated to keeping state and church separate and educating about nontheism. We depend on member support, pleasejoin today.

Read more here:

Religion and racism, atheism and the Alt-Right - Patheos (blog)

How TV Host Ray Comfort is Confronting Atheism – CBN News

Ray Comfort is trying to get atheists to change their minds.

The filmmaker and best-selling Christian author has joined up with Living Waters to create, "The Atheist Delusion," a documentary that dives into the mindset of atheists.

"The Atheist Delusion" pulls back the curtain and reveals what is going on in the mind of those who deny the obvious," says the film's website. "It introduces you to a number of atheists who you will follow as they go where the evidence leads, find a roadblock, and enter into a place of honesty that is rarely seen on film."

Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron hosts the show "The Way of the Master." Comfort has authored more than 80 books.

The show involves Comfort and Cameron evangelizing to people in the streets, and sharing the gospel with them.

Cameron speaks highly of the new documentary.

"Classic Comfort mixed with high-resolution logic, breath-taking creation, topped off with quality humor and compassionate Gospel interviews," he said. "Ray has taken his message to a new level...I've never been so proud of my friend Ray's work. Show it to everyone you know, especially your teens."

Moody Radio Host Janet Parshall calls it, "Absolutely magnificent!"

And Todd Friel, host of Wretched Radio/TV spoke praised it as well.

"No need to tune-in to the Hallmark Channel for tear-jerkers," Friel said. "Watching the faces of atheists as Ray lovingly and truthfully witnesses to them will make you cry. Just beautiful."

Click here to find out more about the film.

Excerpt from:

How TV Host Ray Comfort is Confronting Atheism - CBN News

Malaysian Police Official: Atheists Have To Stop Causing Anxiety Among Muslims – Patheos (blog)

Earlier this month, a picture of an Atheist Republic gathering in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia went viral, leading to a government crackdown. This is a nation that, in theory, celebrates the freedom of religion, but those rules dont apply to Muslims who leave their faith and certainly not to Muslims who become atheists. Government officials wanted to know if there were any ex-Muslims in that picture because they could be fined or prosecuted.

Shahidan Kassim, a minister in President Najib Razaks Cabinet, even said on camera that atheists in the country must be hunted down, because their lack of religion amounted to illegal thought crimes.

Now the Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar has weighed in with even more idiotic advice. He just issued a warning to atheists.

Stop hurting the feelings of Muslims.

I advise this atheist group not to cause uneasiness, particularly among Muslims who reject atheism, he told a news conference after witnessing a transfer of duty in the narcotics criminal investigation department and pinning on new rank insignias for senior officers.

Khalid said the nations constitution recognised Islam as the official religion without any provision in it for atheism.

He said the police would scrutinise the existing laws to enable appropriate action to be taken should the atheist group cause anxiety among Muslims.

Just a reminder: The picture above was a gathering of atheists. They werent starting arguments outside a mosque; they were just talking amongst themselves.

And how can atheists not cause anxiety against Muslims when many Muslims get offended over perceived slights against their faith? If moderates get mad over drawings of Muhammad, radicals kill over westernized culture, and the Malaysian government getting anxious over atheists hanging out, theres really nothing atheists can do to protect their feelings.

Other than just shutting up about their atheism. Which, lets face it, is what the Malaysian government really wants.

One reporter asked the top cop what hed do about Muslims who threaten atheists, which is an excellent question. Too bad the response was disappointing.

If [atheists] are threatened and there is an infringement of the laws, we will investigate and take action, he said.

Great. Theyre going to go after hateful Muslims with the same urgency that Donald Trump will go after white supremacy groups. Im sure all the atheists feel safe.

Read the rest here:

Malaysian Police Official: Atheists Have To Stop Causing Anxiety Among Muslims - Patheos (blog)

Sheila Gautreaux Highlights Importance of Forgiveness – Benzinga

New book brims with insights how readers can traverse endure The Long Journey Home'

HOUSTON, TX (PRWEB) August 17, 2017

In the "The Long Journey Home" (published by Balboa Press), author Sheila Gautreaux offers a fresh look at one of the most powerful parables in the Biblethe Prodigal Sonas man's personal journey of evolution in consciousness. This book revolves around its central theme that forgiveness holds the key to reawakening love, peace and connection for all humanity.

"The Long Journey Home" takes a fresh look at one of the most widely-recognized and most frequently interpreted of the many parables taught by Jesus during his ministry. Using the process of metaphysical interpretation, along with the concepts of conscious evolution and quantum science, the Prodigal Son emerges from a great story about coming home and forgiveness to an exploration into how life experiences are valuable teaching points and may provide powerful catalysts for quantum shifts in consciousness.

The book helps readers make sense of the challenges, struggles and detours that define people's paths as they attempt to live and grow in a world that appears to keep them from finding the safe haven they seek from birth that inner sense of "home." What it seeks to highlight is that, "our painful experiences do not have to destroy us; that they are not happening "to" us but are happening "for" us to awaken us to the tremendous power within us to heal our lives."

An excerpt from the book: "The key to successfully living in this world of polar opposites is remembering that God exists within the light and the dark; that there is only God, only Truth, and all else is but a hoax perpetrated by our ego for its own glorification. Awareness is focused attention to the details of lifethe messages, spiritual meaning and lessons within everything around us and everything that happens to us. By recognizing that everything happens for a reasonhappens not to us but for uswe use life as a tool for conscious evolution and the route to home."

"The Long Journey Home" By Sheila Gautreaux Softcover | 6 x 9in | 162 pages | ISBN 9781504368704 E-Book | 162 pages | ISBN 9781504368797 Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble

About the Author Sheila Gautreaux calls herself a "Spiritual Activist" and passionately carries the message of healing people and the planet through forgiveness. She is a Unity Minister, Licensed Unity Teacher, Certified Radical Forgiveness Coach and a 30-year student of "A Course in Miracles," and a 38-year student of Unity principles. She has written two books: "Praying Through a Storm" and "Messages." She is in demand as a highly-praised, exciting speaker who, as a retired Opera Singer, adds her vocal gift to her message. She has three children and four grandchildren.

Balboa Press, a division of Hay House, Inc. a leading provider in publishing products that specialize in self-help and the mind, body, and spirit genres. Through an alliance with indie book publishing leader Author Solutions, LLC, authors benefit from the leadership of Hay House Publishing and the speed-to-market advantages of the self-publishing model. For more information, visit balboapress.com. To start publishing your book with Balboa Press, call 877-407-4847 today. For the latest, follow @balboapress on Twitter.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/SheilaGautreaux/TheLongJourneyHome/prweb14610518.htm

See the rest here:

Sheila Gautreaux Highlights Importance of Forgiveness - Benzinga

Eclipse forum planned at MVTHS – Mt. Vernon Register-News

MT. VERNON Mt. Vernon Township High School will host a special education forum on the solar eclipse Sunday night.

The free event will feature hands-on activities for kids, a scientific lecture, and stargazing outside the school, said MVTHS Dramatics Director Mary Beth Mezo, one of the forum's organizers.

What's great about this presentation is it's good for all ages, Mezo said, later adding, Hopefully, some of our out-of-town guests will take advantage of it.

Rend Lake College Associate Professor Greg Hollmann and NASA Specialist Dr. Kenneth Sembach will be featured guests at the forum, which kicks off at 7 p.m. in the MVTHS Schweinfurth Theater. The forum is the final event of the Totality Fest leading up to Monday's solar eclipse.

Hollmann will speak about the significance of the eclipse and offer hands-on activities for kids to teach them about astronomy.

Then Dr. Sembach will take the stage to talk about his work with the Hubble Telescope. Sembach, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, has worked with the Hubble Telescope for about 16 years and has a leadership role in the new James Webb Space Telescope project.

The stargazing begins at around 9 p.m. as the audience will be invited outside to look at the night sky. Hollmann will provide guidance during the session, pointing out stars and other celestial bodies.

To enhance the experience, all the lights at MVTHS will be shut off, Mezo said. This, plus the high school's isolated location, should give people a clearer view of the sky, Mezo said.

You don't have all the city lights interfering with the night sky, Mezo said.

Mezo said she hopes those in attendance will learn more about the eclipse while enjoying a fun family activity.

She added the new theater is an ideal setting for the forum and it's nice to host an event there for the whole community.

It's something at the theater other than a high school production or a concert, Mezo said. This is the kind of thing that the theater needs to be doing for the community.

Originally posted here:

Eclipse forum planned at MVTHS - Mt. Vernon Register-News

Heinrich pays a visit to the MRO – El Defensor Chieftain

U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich calls the Magdalena Ridge Observatory a facility with enormous promise.

Heinrich toured the observatory Friday after announcing congressional funding for the observatorys interferometer project.

Were excited to be able to secure some federal funding to keep this moving down the road, Heinrich said. I think that the science of being able to track objects in space is only becoming more important over time, both from a scientific point of view and a defense point of view.

Heinrich said that was the reason $5 million in funding was secured from the Fiscal 2017 budget to help build the Magdalena Ridge Observatory Interferometer. Heinrich saw the first of the telescopes that will become the Magdalena Ridge Observatory Interferometer (MROI). When complete, the telescopes of MROI will be arrayed in a Y-shape and will be able to achieve a resolution 100 times greater than the Hubble Telescope.

Were working on the 2018 bill, Heinrich said. No promises, but were hopeful. A lot of people see the value of this project.

We deeply value the support we receive through Congress and the Air Force (who is working with New Mexico Tech on the project) for this really innovative research that we have here, New Mexico Tech President Stephen Wells added.

The funding will go toward the first telescope on the ridge, which is being moved into place, and the second telescope, which is under construction. The project is expected to cost $25 million when complete.

We dont have the money yet to complete the second telescope, New Mexico Tech Vice President for Research and Economic Development Van Romero said. When we receive that telescope will depend on when we receive the money and how its appropriated.

Romero said another $5 million is needed to get the second telescope on site. The appropriation from the Fiscal 2017 budget is the second round of funding. Another $15 million will be needed to complete the project.

We look forward to receiving the full amount of the appropriation so we can complete the project in a timely way and produce the science that weve promised Congress and our colleagues in the U.K., Wells added.

Cambridge University is working with New Mexico Tech on the project.

It really helps build on the scientific mission of New Mexico Tech broadly, Heinrich said. I have to say, I am amazed at the people I come in contact with who are familiar with the science that New Mexico Tech does, whether thats optics and telescopes, or explosives obviously or the engineering department. The reputation is quite deserved and very impressive.

Heinrich said he ran into people involved with the television show MythBusters last year and they couldnt stop raving about EMRTC and New Mexico Tech and the work they do there.

They were at the White House Science Night and they ended up talking about New Mexico Tech for quite a while, Heinrich said.

Heinrich said he had been to the ridge before, but this was the first time he actually toured the facility.

Its very impressive, Heinrich said. Im looking forward to the day when there are three operational telescopes. Thats when well be able to prove its value and concept nationally, and for that matter, internationally.

The telescopes will be able to track satellites and deep space objects, Romero said.

See the article here:

Heinrich pays a visit to the MRO - El Defensor Chieftain

NATO Needs an Offensive Cybersecurity Policy – StopFake.org

A man stands next to screens during the Locked Shields 2017 exercise organized by NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia, April 26, 2017. (REUTERS/Ints Kalnins)

By Barbara Roggeveen, for Atlantic Council

Modern-day warfare is as much about cyberattacks and the protection of communication and information systems as it is about kinetic military action. In 2016, NATOs institutional networks experienced on average 500 cyberattacks a monthan increase of roughly 60 percent from the year before. Other recent, high-profile, transnational cyberattacks, such as the WannaCry ransomware attack and Petya, highlight the urgent need for NATO and its member states to develop strong cybesecurity capabilities.

Although NATO has been working toward a more comprehensive cybersecurity policy, there are two major challenges with its current strategy. The current plan places cyberattacks within the scope of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the concept of collective defense, thus, creating high thresholds for engagement. In addition, it allows for mainly defensive and reactive measures, leaving less room for preventive or offensive operations.

NATOs approach to cybersecurity can be traced back to early steps taken at the 2014 Wales Summit, in which NATO included cyber defense in its core tasks of collective defense. At the Warsaw Summit two years later, NATO recognized cyberspace as a domain of operations, reaffirming its defensive mandate with regard to cyber threats.

The Warsaw Summit Communiqu states that recognizing cyberspace as a domain of operations will support NATOs broader deterrence [of] and defense [against cyber threats], and NATO promised to continue integrating cyber defense into operational planning [to ensure] a better management of resources, skills, and capabilities.

Armed attack-threshold

The designation of cyberspace as a domain of operations has far-reaching implications. As decided upon by Allied countries in the Tallinn Manual 2.0, such a label allows NATO to act only against those cyberattacks that qualify as an armed attack. In the case of cyberattacks, however, opponents often do not seek physical destruction. Of late, cyberattacks have moved further away from traditional warfare in pursuit of subtler influences, sometimes involving coercive political pressure. On July 28, the US Congress voted for new sanctions on Russia for its meddling in the 2016 US presidential election in favor of then-candidate US President Donald J. Trump.

By placing cyberattacks within the doctrine of collective defense, NATO limits its response to those cyberattacks that reach the armed-attack threshold, making it extremely difficult for NATO members to effectively address cyberattacks that do not qualify as such.

Whether a cyber operation constitutes an armed attack also depends on the parties involved. Traditionally, the right to collective defense could only be invoked in case of an armed attack undertaken by one state against another. NATOs Strategic Concept allowed for a wider definition, stipulating that the North Atlantic Treaty covers any armed attack on the territory of the Allies, from whatever direction or source. Although this allows NATO to take defensive action against cyberattacks carried out by non-state actors, there is still some uncertainty within the community of allied countries as to when collective defense against non-state actors is permissible. One of the biggest challenges in this case remains attribution. It is often difficult to trace cyberattacks back to one specific organization.

From defensive to offensive capabilities

Currently, NATOs cybersecurity strategy is strictly defensive. The NATO Computer Incident Response Capability (NCIRC) protects NATOs own networks, and NATO supports allied members in their individual cyber defenses through intelligence gathering and sharing, the employment of high-readiness cyber defense teams, the development of targets for allied countries to facilitate national cyber defense capabilities, and investment in education, training, and exercise.

As James A. Lewis, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote for the Tallinn Papers, a series of publications from the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, a cyber defensive orientation is the equivalent of a static defense, defending fixed positions rather than maneuvering, and conceding initiative to opponents.

Defensive measures might hold off an individual cyberattack, but they do not address the underlying threat. Although the protection of NATO members national networks should be a priority, the most effective way to provide sustainable and long-term protection against cyberattacks is through offensive capabilities and the destruction of opponent networks and systems.

While individual member states can take certain steps toward achieving this objectivethe United States, for example, has already employed strong offensive cyber capabilities, such as Stuxneta collective NATO doctrine would provide allied countries with the necessary guidelines regarding proportionality and subsidiarity when employing offensive cyber capabilities. NATOs cybersecurity policy should provide a clear framework to address the relatively uncharted territory of offensive cyber operations.

Recommendations

Current developments in the field of cybersecurity require a more proactive approach. In order to counter cyber threats, NATO should pursue a broader and more dynamic operational framework than that of collective defense. As the cyber capabilities of NATOs opponents grow more sophisticated, the Alliance should adopt a cybersecurity policy that can effectively counter these threats.

Primarily, this means that NATO should create a public doctrine, independent from the concept of collective defense, that allows member states to not only act defensively, but also offensively. Second, NATO should pursue a public policy that also effectively addresses cyber threats that stay below the armed attack-threshold. Overcoming these two challenges would enable the community of Allied countries to develop the necessary framework to comprehensively address current cybersecurity threats.

By Barbara Roggeveen, for Atlantic Council

Barbara Roggeveen is a research assistant at the Slavic Department of the University of Amsterdam and a former intern with the Atlantic Councils Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.

Read more:

NATO Needs an Offensive Cybersecurity Policy - StopFake.org

Russian Invasion? Moscow’s Rivals Say War Games Are Cover And Troops Won’t Leave – Newsweek

Russia has been sending troops into Belarus since Monday in preparation for massive upcoming war games that opponents in the neighboring Eastern European state worry could be acover for a long-term foreign military presence.

Despite Moscow repeatedly assuring rivals that next month's military maneuvers were simply that, critics in Belarus have joined a number of other regional countries in expressing concern about President Vladimir Putin's long-term goals. The Zapad, or "West," exercises are set to officially include 12,700 Russian soldiers across Russia's western flank as well as in Belarus, a traditional ally of the Kremlin. Putin has provided U.S.-led Western defense pact NATO with troop information and has invited foreign observers, including those from anxious Baltic states, but some in Belarus still fear the Russian leader's strategy.

Related:Russia, Iran, other Assad allies and enemies cash in on success in Syria, but U.S. left out

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

"He will lead this situation to what had happened in Ukraine, Aleksandr Konches, an elderly protestor told The New York Times Sunday. "Look at who came outpensioners, workers, simple people."

Russia's President Vladimir Putin (C), Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (R) and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko watch the joint war games Zapad-2013 (West-2013) at Khmelevka base in the Kaliningrad Region, September 26, 2013. After Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula, neighboring countries have expressed concern about the size of this year's Zapad exercise. Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti/Kremlin/Reuters

Since Russia annexed the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014 amid widespread unrest in the neighboring country, Moscow's NATO-aligned neighbors have sought to boost protection against what they perceive to be aggressive Russian military and political moves in the region. In 2015, the U.S. mapped out four multinational battle groups in theBalticstates and Poland, intended to bolster NATO's military infrastructure on Russia's border. Russia has argued NATO's plans are an attempt to isolate it and has sought to improve its own defensive positions. Both NATO and Russia have since engaged in an arms race, including a near constant series of dueling military exercises.

Zapad has occurred every four years for decades and, despite heightened tensions between Russia and the West, nothing appears to set this exercise apart. Russian media have previously placed the number of troops involved as being up to 100,000, butMargarete Klein of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs told Germany's Deutsche Welle Thursday that this figure may refer to Russia's larger preparation for the upcoming exercises.

Other rumors have also contributed to popular concerns about Russia's intentions.Numerous Western media outlets reported that the 2009Zapad exercise ended with a simulated nuking of Poland, but no declassified evidence of such a scenario could be found, according to CNN.Some also speculate that the 2009 exercise was a cover for heightened military action in neighboring Georgia and the next installation in 2013 was designed to prepare for military action in Ukraine the following year, according to Real Clear Defense, which went on to say that this year's drills did not appear to be a cover for any real-world aggressions. Prominent opponents of Moscow, such asMikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president, have also shared their analysis.

Russian servicemen celebrate their victory in the Safe Route competition at the International Army Games 2017 at the Andreyevsky military polygon outside Tyumen, August 6, 2017. Russia's military recently displayed its military might along with a number of nations as part of the International Army Games 2017, which it co-hosted with China. Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

"I think the most imminent threat [from Russia] is coming up against Belarus, because I think part of the military personnel and equipment will remain in Belarus after the exercises," Saakashvili told the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Libertyearlier this month.

"It is unlikely they will do anything during the exercises. But any trap might be expected after the exercises. I think they are considering the possibility of the complete occupation of Belarus, and possibly an annexation of that country. That would be yet another big crisis in the region."

Russia has denied any plans to compromise the sovereignty of Belarus, where Aleksandr Lukashenko has been a supporter of the Kremlin since becoming the country's first post-Soviet president in 1994. Prior to the Zapad exercises, Russia and Belarus will conduct command and control exercises from Monday through Friday, the Belarusian Telegraph Agency cited the country's defense ministry as saying.

See more here:

Russian Invasion? Moscow's Rivals Say War Games Are Cover And Troops Won't Leave - Newsweek

One chart sums up how little faith American allies have in Trump – Vox

Russian President Vladimir Putin has illegally seized Crimea, invaded Ukraine, and meddled in the US and French elections. Yet people in more than half a dozen NATO countries still trust him to do the right thing in international affairs more than they trust President Trump to, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Thats pretty wild.

NATO is a Cold Warera military alliance that was formed to protect Europe from the Soviet Union, and one of its key roles today is serving as a bulwark against Russian influence and expansionism. The US is the backbone of NATO in terms of military power and financing, and its essential to keeping Russian influence in Europe in check.

Yet majorities in seven NATO countries Greece, Germany, Turkey, Hungary, France, Italy, and Spain said they had more faith that Putin would do the right thing in global affairs than Trump, often by huge margins. The chart below shows the results from 36 of the countries included in the survey. All the countries listed above that black line about halfway down are the ones in which more people said they trust Putin than Trump:

But take a look at the three countries that are right under that black line: Australia, Canada, and the UK. Two of those (Canada and the UK) are NATO members, and Australia is one of Americas closest allies, having fought alongside the US in every major conflict since World War I. Yet those three countries only barely made it under that line: In Australia, confidence in Trump was just 2 points more than in Putin; it was only 3 points more in both Canada and the UK.

The prompt that pollsters posed to respondents is extremely broad do the right thing could be interpreted in a number of ways. On one hand, trust in a leader by that metric could signal approval of his worldview and his policies. In that case, it would seem Putin is generally more well-liked in these countries.

Alternatively, it could mean that someone believes the leader is judicious and not inclined to act rashly in his foreign policy. Through that lens, respondents could simply be saying they think Putin is a more prudent strategist than Trump, who is famously inexperienced and impulsive.

In all likelihood, the poll results suggest a blend of the two both unfavorable views of Trump and mistrust in his ability to navigate international affairs wisely. In either case, its an amazing finding, and yet another indicator of sharply declining trust in American leadership.

Continue reading here:

One chart sums up how little faith American allies have in Trump - Vox

Accused NSA leaker will get to see classified evidence in her espionage prosecution – The Augusta Chronicle

The Augusta National Security Agency leak suspect will get to review classified information federal prosecutors might use against her during her upcoming espionage trial.

In an supplemental protective order signed by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on Wednesday, both sides have agreed to the procedure which will allow Reality Leigh Winner to access evidence the prosecutors may use to prove she committed the crime of willful retention and transmission of national defense information.

Winner, 25, has pleaded not guilty. She has been held without bond since her June 3 arrest in which federal agents armed with a search warrant raided her Battle Row rental home. The search was brought on by a federal investigation launched after a National Security Agency official was approached by a reporter seeking to authenticate a national security document.

The prosecutors contend Winner accessed and copied a classified document through her job with the National Security Agency contractor Pluribus International Corp., at Fort Gordon. Winner, who served in the Air Force for six years as a linguist specializing in Middle Eastern languages, had a top security clearance.

In the order Epps signed this week, Winner will be held to the obligations of her security clearance. She can face further prosecution if she releases any classified information she may learn through the discovery materials in her case. She may see any document that is deemed unclassified or is specifically marked by federal prosecutors as authorized for disclosure to Reality Leigh Winner. That material is expected to include intelligence reporting, network audit logs of U.S. government agency, FBI interview reports including Winners own interview, and correspondence of contractors from May 24 to June 1.

Although federal prosecutors insist the document Winner allegedly leaked is classified, The Intercept online news media produced an in-depth report on a classified document it received this summer that is an analysis of the extent of Russias tampering efforts during the latest presidential election.

Winners trial is tentatively set to begin the week of Oct. 23.

Reach Sandy Hodson at sandy.hodson@augustachronicle.com or (706) 823-3226

More here:

Accused NSA leaker will get to see classified evidence in her espionage prosecution - The Augusta Chronicle

Posted in NSA

UP: Madrassas defying order on I-Day may face action under NSA – citytoday

Prime News, Nation, (Bareilly), August 17:-Madrassas in Bareilly area which defied the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government order on unfurling the national flag and singing the national anthem on Independence Day may face action, including under the stringent National Security Act (NSA), a senior official said here.

If we get a complaint that any madrassa did not comply with the government order on the unfurling the national flag and the recital of national anthem, we will get it probed and after giving a chance to all, action will be taken against the guilty as per the law, Bareilly Divisional Commissioner, P V Jaganmohan said today.

He added that action could be initiated as per the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), besides other laws, for showing disregard to the national flag and national anthem, including the National Security Act (NSA).

Under the NSA, a person can be detained without bail or trial and the authorities need not disclose the grounds of detention if they believe the detainee can act in a way that poses a threat to the security of the state, country or the maintenance of public order.

Jaganmohan said that all the minority welfare officers had been asked to immediately submit a list of madrassas where the national anthem was not recited. Complaints from the public in this regard will also be probed, he said. According to officials, a majority of the madrassas followed the order.

However, according to some reports, the call by some clerics to defy the order had an impact in some madrassas and Saare jahan se achcha Hindustan hamara was sung instead of the national anthem. However there was no official confirmation about this.

-(NAV, Inputs: Agencies)

View post:

UP: Madrassas defying order on I-Day may face action under NSA - citytoday

Posted in NSA

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF’s petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County – Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

This week several groups filed friend of the court briefs supporting PLFs Supreme Court petition inWayside Church v. Van Buren County.

Two of the amicus briefsone by AARP and the other by the Buckeye Institutefocus on the need for the Court to review Michigans unjust tax foreclosure law. Under this unjust and unconstitutional law, Van Buren County took Wayside Churchs property, sold it for $206,000 to pay around $16,750 in property taxes, penalties, fees, and interest. The County then pocketed all of the remaining profit as a windfall. Similarly, the county took the farm and home where Henderson Hodgens grew up, and sold it for $47,750 to pay a $5,900 debt. The County kept the entire profit, even though it already got significant benefit from the penalties and high interest rate due under state law. The amicus briefs offer additional arguments that explain why the County violated the constitution when it took thesurplus profit and why it is important that the Court overturn the practice.

The other two briefsoneby Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and the other by NFIB Small Business Legal Center, The Cato Institute, and Southeastern Legal Foundationask the Supreme Court to review an important jurisdictional issue in this case. As they succinctly explain, this case presents the Supreme Court with a great opportunity to open the federal courthouse doors to individuals who seek to enforce their Fifth Amendment right to just compensation. Congress intended that the federal courthouses be open for these sorts of claims and there is no reasonto deny individuals of that right.

We are grateful for these organizations support and hope the Supreme Court will grant the petition to remedy the injustice suffered by our clients.

Continued here:

Groups ask Supreme Court to grant PLF's petition in Wayside Church v. Van Buren County - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

You Should Be Able to Vindicate Federal Property Rights in Federal Court – Cato Institute (blog)

In 2012, various properties in Van Buren County, Michigan became subject to foreclosure for property tax delinquencies. In 2014, the properties were subject to an order of foreclosure and were auctioned off to satisfy the delinquencies. Wayside Church owed $16,750 in back taxes on a parcel it used as a youth camp. When the property was sold for $206,000, Van Buren County kept the $189,250 in surplus as required by Michigans General Property Tax Act. Other taxpayers were similarly situated. For example, Myron Stahl and Henderson Hodgens had their properties auctioned for $68,750 to pay a $25,000 debt and $47,750 to pay a $5,900 debt, respectively.

Michigan law doesnt recognize a right to surplus proceeds from tax sales, so the property owners sued in federal court, alleging that the county violated the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause when it kept the surplus proceeds from the sale of their properties. The district court dismissed the suit, precisely because Michigan law doesnt recognize a right to surplus proceeds in such cases. On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Citing the Supreme Courts ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), the court held that plaintiffs failure to first pursue avenues of relief in state court barred the door to federal court.

Wayside Church and the other property owners filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case and clarify takings law. Along with the National Federation of Independent Business, Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Prof. Ilya Somin, Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition. We argue that this case provides an excellent opportunity to preferably overrule, but at least reconsider, Williamson Countys requirement that a property owner must first sue in state court to ripen a federal takings claim.

The reality is that Williamson Countys state-remedies requirement results in constitutional absurdity: the very state court decision that a property owner must receive in order to ripen their claim simultaneously bars the owner from (re)litigating the issue in federal court. The Williamson County rule has also proven to be a potent weapon in the hands of manipulative defendants. Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a takings claim filed in state court could be removed to federal court (because of the federal constitutional issue), governmental defendants have removed claims to federal court, and then argued that they should be dismissed as unripe!

The state-remedies rule has no doctrinal basis and is antithetical to the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified to secure constitutional rights against the states and was seen as necessary to curb state government abuses. Fearing state courts could not be trusted to enforce the U.S. Constitution against their own state governments, a federal civil rights law 42 U.S.C. 1983 was then enacted to ensure a federal forum for vindicating federal rights. Yet Williamson County has effectively gutted the protections of both of these Reconstruction-era reforms.

Before Williamson County, there was no rule that required a property owner to resort to litigation in order to ripen a takings claim, and nothing in the text of the Fifth Amendment suggests that litigation in state court is necessary to ripen a takings claim. Instead, the text should be read to recognize a ripened claim the moment property is taken if there isnt a readily available administrative procedure for obtaining just compensation.

The Supreme Court will decide this fall whether to take upWayside Church v. Van Buren County.

Go here to read the rest:

You Should Be Able to Vindicate Federal Property Rights in Federal Court - Cato Institute (blog)

Armed private militias like Charlottesville’s offend the Founding Fathers’ intent: This is not what the Second … – New York Daily News

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 12:27 PM

The armed encampment formerly known as the idyllic college town of Charlottesville showed the world what a gun-happy nation looks like: a toxic mix of armed white supremacist alt-right Neo-Nazis and KKK members protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, counter-demonstrators, some of whom were armed, Charlottesville police, Virginia state National Guard and other so-called militias private citizens armed and outfitted in military garb who claimed to be there to keep the peace.

This confrontation revealed two epic American blunders: the idea that arming hostile groups somehow improves public safety, and the parallel notion that so-called private militias are a legitimate expression of Second Amendment rights.

To its detriment, Virginias lax gun laws allow for open civilian gun carrying and easy gun access to virtually any kind of hand-held firearm, including assault weapons. While Virginias law enforcement has been criticized for not intervening more effectively between the opposing groups, the situation was only complicated by the presence of self-styled militias, including representatives from the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, who claimed to be there not to take sides-although they were initially invited by the white supremacists but to help keep the peace (although theres no evidence they did anything of the kind).

According to a typical news account, these unofficial paramilitary groups . . . have long thrived across America due to the second amendments directive: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Make America Gray again: Trump's betrayal of American values

America and the rest of the world need to know that this is false: the Second Amendments right to bear arms does not protect, much less encourage, private citizens to form their own armed para-military groups.

From the colonial era on, Americans organized as militias did so and sought to do so-under the recognition and control of the state or national governments. The Bill of Rights had just been ratified when Congress enacted the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, a law designed to bring greater uniformity and control to the nations militias, which at the time were central to national defense.

In a little-known Supreme Court case from 1886, Presser vs. Illinois, the court made clear why private militias are not, and cannot be, militias under law. In ruling against the right of an armed paramilitary group to march in Chicago, the court explained that Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government. . . . They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.

To deny the government the right to restrict or outlaw such private groups would be tantamount to denying the government the right to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine (looting).

Trumps America is an alien nation

As the court said then, the only legal militia is the National Guard. That is no less true today.

Every state in the union, including Virginia, has laws against private armies, but law enforcement is often reluctant to press the matter with armed private militias for fear of provoking an armed response. And when anyone can carry guns openly, law enforcement finds itself boxed in.

Too bad that Virginia has missed the lesson of Americas actual gun law past: by the end of the 19th century, every state but four had enacted laws to restrict civilian gun carrying, especially in the cities and towns of the old West. The best way to keep trouble from escalating, they knew, was to require everyone entering town to surrender their firearms, to be retrieved only when they left.

In the upside down world of todays gun laws, at a time of record low crime, places like Virginia seem to say the opposite: bring your guns! Carry them openly!

Our countrys forebears knew that hostilities could only be made worse when antagonists were armed, and that law enforcement was best left to the professionals. And as for private militias, if they really want to serve their country, the National Guard is still taking applications.

Spitzer is distinguished service professor and chair of political science at SUNY Cortland, and the author of five books on gun policy, including Guns Across America.

Visit link:

Armed private militias like Charlottesville's offend the Founding Fathers' intent: This is not what the Second ... - New York Daily News

Ban the Open Carry of Firearms – New York Times

Photo Members of a white supremacists militia stand in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday. Credit Joshua Roberts/Reuters

When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.

They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but lets not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.

Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.

Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized. For states, such a law was necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.

In other words, our political forebears would not have tolerated open carry as racially motivated terrorists practiced it in Charlottesville. They did not view open carry as protected speech. According to the framers, the First Amendment protected the right to peaceably not violently or threateningly assemble. The Second Amendment did not protect private paramilitary organizations or an individual menacingly carrying a loaded weapon. Open carry was antithetical to the public peace. Lawmakers were not about to let people take the law into their own hands, so they proactively and explicitly prohibited it.

See the article here:

Ban the Open Carry of Firearms - New York Times