Neo-Nazis have the right to free speech. They don’t have the right to deny it to the rest of us – Quartz

In the US, freedom of speech is a sacred right. But the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend was not about people exercising that right. What I saw at the University of Virginia, where I am a professor, was an organized campaign to terrorize American citizens and suppress the rights of others.

First of all, white supremacists at Unite the Right mobilized against a town that had democratically decided to move the statues of Confederate rebels to less-prominent locations. There is no Constitutional amendment dictating the types of statues a municipality must display in its town square. At one time, this city chose to erect a statue of General Robert E. Lee, which was legal and their prerogative. At another time in history, we chose to move the statues to another part of the city. This is also within the rights of Charlottesville and its residents.

Second of all, the clear intent of the Unite the Right rally was to incite violence. Its participants mobilized knowing that they were in breach of their permit for 400 people in the small square of Emancipation Park in the center of town. The city, in the interest of public safety, asked them to move to a larger park, where they could exercise their first amendment right to speak their mind. They sued the city to keep the protest in the center of town. There was no way that number of people in such a small space would end peacefully, especially after the alt-right told their people to bring shields and weapons. They came with assault rifles and bullet-proof jackets, ready for battle.

Third, at a peaceful prayer meeting I attended Friday night, where citizens from every faith, denomination, race and sexual orientation, were gathering together to pray, support each other and reaffirm the American values of liberty and justice for allthe white supremacists came with torches. Screaming that they will not be replaced, sieg heil and end immigration, they barred peaceful parishioners from leaving the church where they congregated.

Fourth, mobilizing early in the morning on Saturday, long before their noon-sanctioned assembly time, they started walking the streets toward the central square with guns, AR-15s and shields. Before the demonstration could even get underway, they started punching counter protestors in the face. Violence escalated and Virginia declared a state of emergency. Fearful that the torch-bearing neo-Nazis would come back to campus, the University of Virginia was forced to cancel an entire day of peaceful, civil dialogue programming organized to promote a peaceable democracy.

And then a white supremacist drove full speed into a crowd of peaceful anti-racist counter demonstrators, murdering one citizen and wounding 19 more.

Every American has a right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. The alt-right white nationalists want to deny Americans that right. Carrying firearms to rallies, blocking peaceful counterprotestors from leaving the place where they are gathered, and driving full-speed into a crowd are all distinct choices aimed at inciting fear and making Americans stay silent, afraid to leave their homes. Now white supremacists are trolling counterprotestors online and posting the home addresses of witnesses. These people are not calmly expressing their beliefs about fiscal conservativism or small government. They believe that their fellow Americans are lesser citizens, and they are trying to take our rights away. The white supremacists must be held accountable.

Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Neo-Nazis have the right to free speech. They don't have the right to deny it to the rest of us - Quartz

In Defense of Lance Armstrong and His Freedom of Speech – Outside Magazine

No matter your opinion on his personal character, Lance Armstrong is the baddest-ass bike racer of all time. There are maybe five other people alive today who know the ins and outs of road-bike stage racing better than he does. Which is why there were so many fans of Lancesindependent podcast, called Stages, in which he weighed in as an insider-turned-permanent-outcast on the strategy, grit, idiocy, mayhem, beauty, drama, and athleticism that is the Tour de France.

At least five million fans downloaded the Stages podcasts that Lance dictated from home. Thats a massive audience for U.S.cycling in the post-Lance-racingworld. Like it or not, Lance was once again singlehandedly making cycling cool again in America.

Intrigued, the organizers of the Colorado Classic, Americas newest stage race, whichkicked off August 10, partnered with Lance to issue podcasts from a custom Airstream at the races. The organizersformer ski shop guys from Colorado with a huge love of cyclingtold the Denver Post that they were blown away at the potential audience they could reach with Lances help. Naturally, Lance would get paid for his work.

Thats when, after fielding calls and emails from Lances many detractors, the United States Anti-Doping Agency informed race officials that, Under the World Anti-Doping Agency Code, an ineligible individual [Lance] may not have an official role in relation to a sanctioned event such as the Colorado Classic. In other words, if Lance so much as workedat a bake sale at theevent, they'd shut itdown faster than you can say erythropoietin brownies. Without UCI, WADA, and USADA backing, there is no high-level professional bike race. Understandably, the race organizers quickly broke their ties with Lance.(Lance has decided to still cover the Coloradorace via Stageshe's just not getting any money for it. The first dispatch went live Thursday.)

USADA, in its attempt toplacea gag order on LanceArmstrong,trampledon the spirit of the First Amendment. And inthe process, it did everything in itspower to quash cycling in the U.S., a sport that needs every bit of help it can get.

That last bit is the bigger issue:Why wouldthe UCI engage in such flagrant self-immolation at a time when bikes sales are down worldwide, independent bike shops in America are struggling, and interest in bike racing in the U.S. is as thin as a Team Sky muscle calendar?Baseball has loads of stars, so even if its morally wrong to banish Pete Rose, it can afford to do so, economically. As much as many of us would like to deny itmyself includedcycling in the U.S. only has Lance. Hes the sports only household name. He brought the cycling boom in the late 1990s and sustained it through the aughts. And now he might just be able to staunch the bloodletting. Let him.

Maybe Lance Armstrong upsets your sensibilities and you dont want to hear him commenting on the rebirth of clean cycling. Its understandable. He did wicked things to good people and the black mark he left on the sport is indelible. But, as an American, he has a right to both earn a living and speak his mind. Hes also charismatic, and if given a chance,just might win over his detractors and help make cycling relevant to a wider audience than weekend racers.

Go here to read the rest:

In Defense of Lance Armstrong and His Freedom of Speech - Outside Magazine

Nights Of Fire: A Conscious Evolution Festival Preview – NYSMusic

It is officially time to prepare for this years Nights Of Fire: A Conscious Evolution. Hosted by Spun Out Productions, the annual music festival kicks off on Thursday, August 17, and runs through the morning of Monday, August 21. Located at The Woods at Bear Creek, a glampingglamorous campingground in Franklinville, NY, Nights of Fire will offer its patrons an educational exploration through fire dancing, art, live music, and workshops.

As eloquently described on the Nights Of Fire Event Page:Nights Of Fire is a FIRE, Art, Music, & EDUCATIONAL RETREAT. We invite all likeminded individuals and those who seek to learn and do more to improve themselves and the world around US. NIGHTS OF FIRE is an educational retreat where YOU can come study many different forms of FIRE SPINNING, FLOW, DANCE, DRUMMING, PAINTING and much more. Evolve with us at night as we will teach you how to celebrate life and simply being alive through song and dance with live music.

Pre-sales for the festival are no longer online, however, you can pick up a $75 ticket thru a ticket rep, or grab one for $100 at the gate! The ticket includes camping and parking.

Take a peek below and click the play button. Youll find a Rochester Groovecast podcast episode. This episode is a preview of the upcoming Nights Of Fire Music Festival. During the episode, youll listen to Roots of Creation, Freekbass, The Mantras, Madam Bliss, Dixons Violin, Stereo Nest, Subsoil, Space Junk, Haewa, and Flux Capacitor. All of these artists are performing at this years Nights Of Fire Music Festival.

If you peek even farther below, youll find an episode timestamp, and Nights Of Fires daily schedule.

Enjoy!

Timestamp:00:00: Roots Of Creation- Different 04:12: Episode Introduction09:56: Roots Of Creation- Row Jimmy15:23: Freekbass- Put It In A Letter18:42: Freekbass- Milkhunt23:25: The Mantras- Here We Go29:27: The Mantras- Dirt Nap35:26: Madam Bliss Remix- Notorious BIG Dead Wrong39:15: Madam Bliss Remix- Erykah Badu On And On44:10: Dixons Violin- Ignition (Correction! Jade Dragon is the album name)!46:31: Dixons Violin- Night Spirit50:56: Stereo Nest- Gradient Peak55:03: Stereo Nest- Elder Ladder59:39: Subsoil- Joe Rogan1:03:24: Subsoil- Great Unknown1:07:34: Space Junk- Ascension1:14:31: Haewa- Chem De-Vision1:18:15: Haewa- Swampin1:23:35: Episode Closing Comments1:26:46: Flux Capacitor- Big Bad1:36:29: Flux Capacitor- Unite

Continue reading here:

Nights Of Fire: A Conscious Evolution Festival Preview - NYSMusic

Human Genetic Engineering Facts

Names of a lot of scientists come to notice whenever there are talks about Human Genetic Engineering Facts. Two scientists namely Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer discovered a technique for cloning using DNA. These two have contributed a lot in Human Genetic Engineering studies. This stage was the discovery of science for historians. It was also the beginning of advanced sciences.

Two other popular scientists involved in studying Human Genetic Engineering Facts were Cohen and Boyer. They made proper use of enzymes with the purpose of cutting bacteria plasmid in slices.

A different DNA strand was required for placing these slices. DNA strands can be obtained from that particular bacteria plasmid. Cohen and Boyer, together with their efforts, proved that it is quite possible to manipulate or mix the genes. DNA mapping has made it easier for the scientists to do the genes manipulation.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts have emerged a lot in this area of work. With the emergence of these facts it became possible for scientists to develop insulin that can be used in the treatment of patients that suffer from diabetes. The technique can also be used for creating insulin that can be given to patients suffering from ailments in their kidney.

The invention of genetic therapy also involves the use of this technique. White blood cells present in humans can be altered genetically. This is the situation in people that have defects in the immune system. Altered blood cells can easily be reinserted for improvements in the immune system.

Agricultural benefits of Human Genetic Engineering

Crops can be modified with the help of genetic engineering. This is an important advantage or factor contributing in the vast scope of Human Genetic Engineering Facts . Gene therapy will alter or change the genes, and this will keep the vegetable and fruits resistant from any kind of disease. Human Genetic Engineering Facts have inspired many scientists. Farmers have also been impressed with the effect that it lays on the growth of fruits and vegetables. Many additional benefits are there for using gene therapy in agricultural activities. It will increase the production by making minimum investment.

Many otherHuman Genetic Engineering Facts are there that can leave positive impact on agricultural development. This can be done in order to fulfill the demand of food items. It will also result in reducing the use of insecticides, and fertilizers at the same time convenient. All these factors will contribute together for reducing the amount of pollution caused from the fertilizers. It will also increase the level of health among people.

Other benefits

Human Genetic Engineering Facts can also lead to generate breeds that will bring diversity among the animals that have been modified genetically. It will keep animals away from any kind of danger. Gene therapy will increase the strength of the animals to a great extent. This will also enable them to cope with the ever changing environment. Animals that have genetically altered genes will stay away from deadly diseases.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts

1.86 (37.22%) 388 votes

Read the original here:

Human Genetic Engineering Facts

Other Views: NATO troops can’t fight while stuck at border – Yakima Herald-Republic

The following editorial appears on Bloomberg View:

The D-Day landings in 1944 were the most complex military operation in history, but at least the GIs didnt need to get their passports stamped on Omaha Beach. It sounds absurd, but today U.S. and NATO forces have to contend with such formalities, and more besides, as they go about their business of defending Europe.

Obviously, in the event of war, these bureaucratic impediments would be lifted. But so far as possible they should also be lifted for the purpose of preparing for war. Better coordination and compatibility among the allies requires a good hard look at the current arrangements.

Under U.S. leadership, NATOs military partners recently completed Operation Saber Guardian in Eastern Europe; involving 25,000 troops over 10 days, it was the largest such exercise this year. For militaries that have spent more than a decade focused on fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and the Middle East, it was a vital refresher course in conventional warfare. It also helped assure the Eastern European members that the West has their back.

Along the way, forces ran into all manner of speed bumps, literal and metaphorical. For example, when the commander of U.S. forces in Europe, General Ben Hodges, was flying from Bulgaria to Romania to oversee a live-fire exercise on the Black Sea, he was told to land at a Romanian air base and clear customs. He endured a similar situation involving passports in Hungary.

Forces moving eastward were unable to use roads and bridges with strict vehicle weight limits. Others ran afoul of summer-travel rules and noise ordinances. Some airports, railways and tunnels proved unable to handle newer military planes and trucks. In general, NATOs 28 members require an average of 15 days for diplomatic clearance before troops or military equipment can move across their borders.

All this has led Hodges to call for a military Schengen Zone, modeled on the European Union agreement allowing unhindered travel across borders. At a NATO meeting in June, Dutch Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert called for this to be done. It isnt straightforward: For one thing, some EU members arent part of NATO. But Schengen is an apt model. As Hodges puts it, NATO needs something that would allow a military convoy to move across Europe as fast as a migrant is able to move across Europe.

Russia, emboldened by its easy annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, is about to stage an exercise involving as many as 100,000 troops on its western border. The alliance and the U.S. have also stepped up their presence lately, rotating an additional four armored combat brigades, some 4,500 troops each, through Poland and the Baltic states. Still, NATOs easternmost members are feeling increasingly vulnerable.

Nobody wants war, but projecting a credible response is a vital part of deterrence. The Kremlin can hardly feel imperiled by a NATO force hemmed in by customs officials.

Continue reading here:

Other Views: NATO troops can't fight while stuck at border - Yakima Herald-Republic

NATO, the Med, Iran: study details extent of cyber attacks on Italy – The Local Italy

More than 1760 messages from Italy's office at the EU in Brussels and from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs were stolen between 2013 and 2016 by hackers linked to Russia and China, according to an investigation by Italian daily Repubblica.

The cyber attacks occurred at times when key decisions were being taken on Iran and the Ukraine in the last few years.

According to a special investigation by Repubblica, several confidential diplomatic cables on Syria and Libya were also intercepted or hacked by the Russian hacker group Apt 28, which cyber experts say has links to Russian government security forces.

Other hacks were effected by K3chang and Zegost, both groups believed to have links to the Chinese government, claims the report.

Information about NATO exercises, migration policy in the Mediterranean and energy pipelines were hacked, according to the Repubblica investigation. Discussions about Russia sanctions were also stored on the same servers.

According to another study by Italy's largest daily Repubblica, more than 100,000 computers used by the Italian army could have been penetrated. The computers' software 15-years-old and not updated since 2015 is run by Araknos Srl.

Araknos became part of the Italian military industrial complex in the early 2000s, effectively becoming the partner of choice for cyber security in the Italian army, claims Repubblica's report.

Up until 2010 the company's AKAB software fought off most cyber attack attempts. But when the Italian government decided to sign a contract with a new cyber security firm, Araknos slowly fell into decline and finally closed in 2015.

Italy's Ministry of Defence claimed all its networks were "well protected" in response to the Repubblica investigation, arguing that it's AKAB-dependent softwares are not in active use.

READ MORE: G7 finance chiefs talk cyber security in Bari after attacks

Originally posted here:

NATO, the Med, Iran: study details extent of cyber attacks on Italy - The Local Italy

Jeremy Corbyn insists UK should NOT help NATO allies by sending troops to Korea – Express.co.uk

Whitehall has ruled out Britain taking part in any military action, but according to Nato treaties, the UK would be bound to defend the US if Kim Jong-un attacked first.

In an article in the Mirror he said: Well over a hundred thousand people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from what were small atomic bombs.

Any nuclear conflict over North Korea today would kill millions of innocent people in the Korean peninsula and beyond, with devastating fallout in China, Japan and elsewhere.

Trump and Kim must immediately wind down the war of rhetoric, as the German chancellor Angela Merkel has demanded. The risks of an unintended escalation into full-blown conflict are too great for the whole world.

GETTY

Mr Corbyn argued that Britain should push for the stalled six-party talks to be resumed with the objective of denuclearising the Korean Peninsula.

For his entire political career, the Labour leader has opposed Trident.

In 2015, during an interview with Radio 4s Today programme, the lifelong anti-war activist confirmed that he would not use nuclear weapons.

The Labour leader said: Sanctions, which the UN security council stepped up on North Korea last week, will not alone resolve the tensions. Diplomacy, security guarantees, and international law are the only realistic route out of the crisis.

GETTY

GETTY

Our government must not drag our country into any military action over the Korea crisis, including joint exercises.

There can be no question of blind loyalty to the erratic and belligerent Trump administration.

US-led regime-change wars and the threat of more to come have made this crisis more dangerous and difficult to resolve.

A Labour government would be committed to achieving a nuclear-free world, as are all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The article came after Labour peer and former head of the Royal Navy Lord West said there is a real risk the current standoff between the US and North Korea could escalate into an actual conflict.

REUTERS

1 of 9

Two U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers fly from Guam with an escort of a pair of Japan Self-Defense Forces F-2 fighter jets near Kyushu

He also demanded the Foreign and Commonwealth Office evacuate Britons from the Korea Peninsula.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said Britain is working with the US and its allies to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff.

Mr Johnson said that North Korea is responsible for the crisis over its nuclear weapons.

He said: The North Korean regime is the cause of this problem and they must fix it.

Read the original post:

Jeremy Corbyn insists UK should NOT help NATO allies by sending troops to Korea - Express.co.uk

NSA enforces regulation in bid to restrict Gaurka Singh’s participation in multiple events – The Kathmandu Post

Aug 14, 2017-

In a decision that would shock country's swimming community, Nepal Swimming Association (NSA) has introduced a regulation barring swimmers from participating in more than four events, which according to NSA insiders serves a sole purpose to deny national teenage swimming sensation Gaurika Singh from participating in multiple events.

NSA intends to implement this new regulation in the upcoming National Swimming Championships scheduled to begin from August 17.

The National Swimming Competition organising committee under Vice Chairman Gita Rana, also a lawmaker, announced the competition dates and the regulation that would bar swimmers from participating in more than four events. The organising committee said such move was aimed at making the competition more inclusive.

Keeping in view the inclusiveness in the sport, we have introduced the regulation that no players will be allowed to participate in more than four events so that only one player will not win all the events, said NSA officials during a press meet on Sunday.

The final date for the submission of event participation form was August 26 and Singh had submitted application for entry form at the NSA, National Sports Council and Sports Ministry.

NSA, however, has also gone a step further and is mulling postponement of the national event in a bid to discourage the youngest Olympian in the history of the sport from participating in the competition. However, the association has not taken a final decision on the event postponement issue.

The associations one of a kind regulation is almost unheard in the swimming world.

Singh, 14, has 30 national records to her name and her competitors fear diving into the same pool with her as some of her timings fare much better even than her national male counterparts.

During the 12th South Asian Games, Singh won a record 4 medalsone silver and three bronze to better her own national recordat the age of 14.

Gaurika, who currently lives with her parents in London, England, arrived in Nepal on August 2 to take part in the national competition. Singh had reached the finals of English Age Group Championship and British Open Water Championship back in England but opted not to take part in it and instead fly to Nepal for the national competition.

Meanwhile, FINA (International Swimming Federation), the regulatory body for administering international competition in water sports, has no such regulation and allows athletes to participate in any events they wish to, even in the Olympics.

Katie Ledecky of the United States had won six medals at the World Swimming Championships that was held on July 30 in Hungary and legendary swimmer Michael Phelps also had won eight gold medals in the Beijing Olympics.

Likewise, in Nepal Karishma Karki had secured 12 gold medals in the 5th edition of national championships and and Shirish Gurung had claimed 14 gold medals in the 7th National Swimming Championships.

Similarly, Singh, during the 19th edition of the national swimming competition had won 8 gold and 1 silver medals along with national record in her belt at the age of 11 and on the 20th swimming championship she had won 6 gold medals.

Meanwhile, Paras Bahadur Singh, Gaurikas father, has said that they may be compelled to search for other options if NSA keeps on obstructing Gaurikas participation in national events.

Gaurika has achieved so much for the country in a small age, said Paras, For her (Gaurika) Nepal and swimming matters the most but if the association keeps on creating hurdles then we have to look for other options as well.

Published: 14-08-2017 13:34

Read more from the original source:

NSA enforces regulation in bid to restrict Gaurka Singh's participation in multiple events - The Kathmandu Post

Posted in NSA

Former NSA Technical Dir: Dems’ Russia Hacking Story Likely Bogus – Fox News Insider

'He Sat On This': Judge Nap Reacts to Reports Obama Knew Russian Meddled in 2014

Antifa Protester: Trump's Denouncement of White Supremacists 'Too Little Too Late'

Former National Security Administration Technical Director Bill Binney told Tucker Carlson he has data showing that the Democrats' narrative regarding Russia hacking the DNC and 2016 election are untrue.

Binney, a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), said the story spread around the mainstream media that Russia is at fault can't necessarily be proven.

He said that during a prior Chinese hack of government systems, NSA agents were able to use "trace route programs" to track the "packets" of information back to a specific building in Shanghai.

Binney said that could be the reason Democrats did not want the FBI to look at their systems- ostensibly because they may not trace back to Russia.

He said a major file that was allegedly hacked from the DNC server was 1,976 megabytes in size and was transmitted in only 87 seconds.

"You made the point that it was moved too fast [that it] couldn't have gone out over the internet," Tucker Carlson surmised.

Binney said it likely was instead transmitted to a storage device.

"Many people are emotionally tied to this agenda, to tie the Russians to president Trump," Binney said.

He said that VIPS is nonpartisan and "tries to look at... the facts."

Watch more above.

Krauthammer: 'Shocking' Trump Didn't 'Reflexively' Call-Out Neo-Nazis on Saturday

Protesters Assemble in Front of Trump Tower Awaiting the President

See the article here:

Former NSA Technical Dir: Dems' Russia Hacking Story Likely Bogus - Fox News Insider

Posted in NSA

FancyBear Use Leaked NSA WannaCry Exploit To Target Hospitality Industry – ISBuzz News

Following the news this that Fancy Bear the hacking group allegedly responsible for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack last year is using the leaked NSA EternalBlue exploit that was used for the WannaCry and NotPetya attacks to target the hospitality industry across Europe and the Middle East. Chris Wysopal, Co-Founder and CTO atVeracodecommented below.

Chris Wysopal, Co-Founder and CTO at Veracode:

After the havoc that arose from the WannaCry and NotPetya attacks, its not surprising that notorious cyber gangs are finding new ways to use the NSAs EternalBlue exploit to support their criminal activities. The EternalBlue exploit has been shown to be extremely effective at spreading malware infections to other unpatched Microsoft systems.

Microsoft has indicated that a number of different versions of Windows are vulnerable to the EternalBlue exploit, even those currently receiving support. It is imperative that IT teams from all businesses across all industries ensure that the version of Windows that they are using is not vulnerable to EternalBlue and, if so, take the necessary steps to remediate it. With three attacks using this exploit having occurred over just the past few months, were likely to see cybercriminals continuing to deploy it until devices are patched and it is no longer an effective vector for them to spread malware.

Visit link:

FancyBear Use Leaked NSA WannaCry Exploit To Target Hospitality Industry - ISBuzz News

Posted in NSA

Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless seizure of cellphone location records, amicus brief argues – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the…

Press Release | August 14, 2017

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a coalition of 19 other media organizations support requiring the government to obtain warrants for access to cellphone location records

The government should not be able to obtain cellphone location records without first getting a warrant, said Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The current ruling makes it too easy for the government to track a persons every move through their cellphone, which is especially worrisome if the location records in question belong to a journalist. This endangers journalists ability to gather information and keep the public informed without the risk of being easily and routinely surveilled.

The coalition brief argues that cellphone location records paint an intimate and comprehensive picture of where individuals go, and thus the people and places they associate with.

According to the brief, a journalists cellphone location data can disclose particularly sensitive details about the journalistic process: It can reveal the stories a journalist is working on before they are published, where a journalist went to gather information for those stories, and the identity of a journalists sourcesExposure of sources and journalistic methods can put sources jobs and lives at risk, compromise the integrity of the newsgathering process, and have a chilling effect on reporting.

The brief also argues that if the government can easily and routinely access detailed information about a persons movements without a warrant, it threatens the ability to freely engage in activities protected by the First Amendment like newsgathering, which now often relies on use of a cellphone.

Cellphones have become a mobile newsroom and a necessary newsgathering tool for journalists. Unfortunately, theres no way to use a cellphone without sharing some location data with a service provider, said Brown. Allowing the government to easily access cellphone location records that paint a picture of where a journalist goes and possibly even who they meet with chills reporter-source relationships, threatens newsgathering, and ultimately harms the flow of information to the public.

More:

Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless seizure of cellphone location records, amicus brief argues - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the...

Defending 4th Amendment Privacy Protections for Digital Property – Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

If youre following along closely, youll recognize a strong similarity between the brief we filed Friday with the U.S. Supreme Courtin a criminal case called Carpenter v. United States and our argument to a District Court in California two weeks ago that the IRS should not be able to access Bitcoin users data willy-nilly. The theme running through both is that people have property rights in data about themselves that is allocated by contract between them and their service providers. Thats true whether the service being provided is cryptocurrency trading or cellular telecommunications.

In an article I published with the National Constitution Center earlier this year, I laid out a fully consistent way to apply the Fourth Amendment in the digital era. The Supreme Court has struggled with constitutional protections for communications and data, but there doesnt need to be different doctrine for physical things and for digital things. Data can be seized under the Fourth Amendment just like people and cars. Data can be searched just like homes.

In a methodical Fourth Amendment analysis, the next question is who can object to those seizures and searches. Today, various third-party services have control of the data, and some think that closes the question, but it doesnt. The right to possession is only one of the property rights. Those contracts have allocated to consumers the right to exclude othersthat is, to keep strangers away from data about them. The data may sit with a telecom provider, a crypto exchange, a cloud service, or an ISP, but our privacy comes from denying them any right to share data other than with parties agreed to in advance under conditions agreed to in advance.

When possession of data is with a service provider but the right to exclude and other rights are held by the consumer, the consumer has a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In all but the narrowest of cases involving exigency and similar circumstances, that means the government has to go get a warrant.

Getting courts to recognize property rights in data is a big effort, and itll take a lot of work over a lot of years. But it is essential work because it will determine the shape of our future world.

Theres a path into the future where the Internet revolution causes the individual to become a pawn of governments and corporationsworking together, as often as not, to determine many, many dimensions of how we live and earn. Down the other path is a future where property rights in data make us even more free and autonomous in the digital realm then we are in our homes, neighborhoods, and marketplaces. Heres to charting our course down that second path.

Read more here:

Defending 4th Amendment Privacy Protections for Digital Property - Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

ACLU Says Des Moines Suburb Has Violated First, Fourth And 14th Amendments – Iowa Public Radio

The ACLU of Iowa says a Des Moines suburb has violated the constitutional rights of two couples, who displayed signs critical of the city on their properties.The civil libertiesorganization is demanding the City of Windsor Heights allow the homeowners to display their signs.

One of the signs opposes recent decision by Windsor Heights to install sidewalks. The second protests the city's removal of the first sign.

ACLU legal director Rita Bettis says Windsor Heights has violated the First Amendment in two ways. First, the city cant treat signs differently based on content. Secondly, Windsor Heights told one of the couples to remove their sign only after an anonymous complaint was filed.

"That is something that the courts call a 'hecklers veto' that regulates the speech that people are able to express, and censures that speech based whether others object to that speech and find it offensive," she explains. "Thats something thats clearly impermissible under the First Amendment."

In addition to the First Amendment violations, one of the signs was removed while the homeowners were on vacation. Because Windsor Heights didnt have a warrant,Bettis says thats a Fourth Amendment violation.

Also by simply removing the sign while the owners where on vacation, Bettis says this deprived the couple of their 14th Amendment right of due process.

Emails and calls to the Windsor Heights mayor, city council and staff were not returned.

The ACLU says the city has until next Monday to respond.

Continue reading here:

ACLU Says Des Moines Suburb Has Violated First, Fourth And 14th Amendments - Iowa Public Radio

There’s no hate speech exception to the First Amendment – The Boston Globe

The First Amendment protects the speech we hate to hear.

Hard as it is to accept, the right to express vile and repugnant thought is guarded by the Constitution. Of course, theres no right to smash a car into others who have gathered to express alternative opinions. But its the job of elected officials and law enforcement to protect both the purveyors of ugly language and those who gather to protest it.

Advertisement

Thats reality for Governor Charlie Baker and Mayor Marty Walsh. Bracing for a free speech rally that might take place Saturday on Boston Common, on Monday they held a joint press conference to send the message that while Boston, the cradle of liberty, recognizes free speech, they really hope the haters choose another time and place to exercise their rights.

They are right to be disgusted by the weekend rally in Charlottesville, Va., which was organized by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. They are right to denounce their gospel of bigotry and hatred and the domestic terrorism it spawned. James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio, 20 years old, allegedly smashed his car into people who were protesting the nationalist rally, killing Heather Heyer, 32, and injuring at least 19 others. Thats criminal, and theres no First Amendment protection for that.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

But trying to ban a Boston gathering undermines an underlying precept of our democracy. A corporation like Google can set the parameters of permitted speech in its workspace. Organizers of the St. Patricks Day parade can legally exclude a gay veterans group. But government cant restrict speech just because it sickens or offends others.

I dont want them here, we dont need them here, theres no reason to be here, said Walsh, about a rally planned by a mystery group whose organizers say they have nothing to do with the organizers behind the Charlottesville rally. Freedom of speech isnt about racist remarks and division, the mayor added.

Unfortunately, the mayor has it backwards. Constitutional protection is not needed so much for someone saying, I like you, said lawyer Harvey Silverglate, a staunch defender of First Amendment rights. But it assuredly is needed to protect someone who says, I hate you.

Advertisement

Just last June, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed what it called a bedrock principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. In a case which upheld the right of a band called The Slants to trademark its racially offensive name, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

When it comes to neo-Nazis, the right to promote their twisted thinking goes back to the 1977 case Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Organizers who described their group as a Nazi organization wanted to march through the streets of Skokie, Ill., which was at the time a village where over half the residents were Jewish, somesurvivors of Nazi concentration camps. The residents of Skokie argued the march would incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry. In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the Nazis right to march with swastikas, on the grounds that promoting religious hatred is not a reason for suppressing speech.

We can and should speak up against hate. As the Supreme Court makes clear, theres no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. With that freedom comes a heavy burden for government officials like Baker and Walsh, who must try to keep protected speech from turning into acts of violence.

Originally posted here:

There's no hate speech exception to the First Amendment - The Boston Globe

The First Amendment on the Grounds in Charlottesville – Lawfare (blog)

On Friday, August 11, I traveled to Charlottesville, Virginia to attend my co-clerks wedding. I was generally familiar with the controversy over the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, but was not aware that white supremacist demonstrations were scheduled for the weekend. After the rehearsal dinner wrapped, I drove back to the hotel along Main Street. As we approached the Rotundathe center of the campus designed by Thomas Jefferson himselfthe traffic ahead suddenly slowed to a crawl. In the distance, we saw some lights. At first glance, it appeared to be a candlelight vigil, but we quickly realized what was going on. Hundreds of white nationalists with torches were walking down the steps of the Rotunda, chanting something incoherent, though the word Jews was distinctly pronounced. The sight was surreal; I was more stunned than afraid.

Our hotel was a few blocks away. We drove back to the room, and checked #Charlottesville on Twitter to see what was going on. Moments earlier, the police had declared the gathering an unlawful assembly, and broke it up. (Some reports suggest pepper spray was fired).

This scene, however, was but a mere prelude. Saturday at noon, the Nazis planned to assemble at Emancipation Park, formerly known as Lee Park, to protest the removal of the Lee statue. Unsure of what would happen, we decided to spend the day out of town at Montpelier, the estate of James Madison. There was a strange aspect of visiting the home of the primary author of the First Amendment, while miles away, that same First Amendment was enabling contemptible bigots to inflict violence and, tragically, the loss of life.

The Battle of Charlottesville will be studied in many quarters for many years, but this early entry will focus on the role played by the First Amendment.

Kessler v. City of Charlottesville

On May 30, Jason Kessler applied for a permit to hold a rally on August 12 in Emancipation Park. According to his attorneys at the ACLU and the Rutherford Institute, he chose that location because the Plaintiff wishes to communicate a message that relates directly to the Parkspecifically, his opposition to the Citys decisions to rename the Park, which was previously known as Lee Park, and its plans to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from the Park. (I have been quite critical of the ACLU for its caving on certain free speech issues, but here, and with its defense of Milo Yiannopoulos, the organization is staying true to its historic mission). Kessler estimated that 400 people would attend, and stated that he absolutely intends to have a peaceful rally and his group would avoid violence. Initially, the City of Charlottesville granted Kesslers application, and also those of other counter-protestors. After the application was granted, however, business leaders in Charlottesville urged that the rally be moved to McIntire Park, which was a mile away. McIntire Park is much larger and has far fewer entrances. Thetopic was also discussed at City Council meetings. Members of the Council spoke out against the white supremacists on social media.

On August 7, the City revoked Kesslers permit, modif[ying] the application to allow a rally in the larger McIntire Park. The city cited safety concerns based on the number of people who were expected to attend Kesslers rally. Specifically, the government explained that holding a large rally at Emancipation Park poses an unacceptable danger to public order and safety. No sources were provided to justify those concerns that had come to the Citys attention. The government cited conservative estimates of no less than 1,000, with as many as 2,000 or more counter-demonstrators in attendance based on internet-based marketing efforts by the Plaintiffs. While Kesslers permit was revoked, the city did not revoke the permits of the counter-protestors, who were still approved to rally within blocks of Emancipation Park.

On August 10, Kessler sought a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, barring the City from revoking the permit to protest in Lee Park. The motion stated that the City will suffer no harm to its legitimate interests if preliminary relief is granted. Regardless of where the demonstration takes place, the City has an obligation to secure and protect the safety of the demonstrators and the public. The lawyers added that [t]he City's expressed desire to provide security and protection at an alternative site because it would be easier to do so . . . is not a sufficiently substantial governmental interest to override Plaintiff's First Amendment right.

The following day, the City of Charlottesville filed a brief in opposition to Kesslers motion for a preliminary injunction. The government argued that the decision to move the plaintiffs protest from Emancipation Park to McIntire Park was justified without reference to speech content or the Plaintiffs viewpoint, [] was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and [] left open ample alternative channels for communication. The government added that Kesslers complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to support a claim that the City and Mr. Jones were motivated by fears about how counter-protesters will respond to the Plaintiffs rally.

The judiciary would disagree. After a hearing, on the evening of Friday August 11, Judge Glen E. Conrad issued a preliminary injunction, requiring the City of Charlottesville to allow the white supremacists to assemble in Emancipation Park. (The federal courthouse is about three blocks from that park). The court dismissed the governments speculation about the crowd size, concluding that there is no evidence to support the notion that many thousands of individuals are likely to attend the demonstration. Crucial to Judge Conrads analysis was the fact that Kesslers permit was revoked, but the permits of the counter-protestors were not:

The disparity in treatment between the two groups with opposing views suggests that the defendants' decision to revoke Kessler's permit was based on the content of his speech rather than other neutral factors that would be equally applicable to Kessler and those protesting against him. This conclusion is bolstered by other evidence, including communications on social media indicating that members of City Council oppose Kessler's political viewpoint.

Leave aside for now the significance of the court looking to statements on social media by members of government that conflict with the Citys official position to find animus. The courts analysis focused exclusively on the irreparable harm that would be faced by Kessler. There was scant mention of the possible harms to public safety. The closest the court came to addressing this point was noting that a change in the location of the demonstration would not eliminate the need for members of the City's 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. But beyond these sentiments, the opinion hinged almost entirely on the fact that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits.

Free Speech on the Grounds

In hindsight, the value of the protestors speech was minimal; the cost to public safety was tragic. Shortly after Judge Conrads ruling was issued, the torch-lit demonstration began at the Rotunda. Many were injured as torches and other projectiles were thrown. Roughly twelve hours later, the riots would commence at Emancipation Park. It is rare that a judicial decision can have such an immediate and palpable effect on both public safety and individual liberty.

By the end of the horrific day, there were more than three-dozen injuries. Heather D. Heyer was murdered. Two Virginia State troopers died when their helicopter crashed outside of Charlottesville. (I observed the helicopter hovering over Emancipation park throughout the day). Shortly after the violence began, the Mayor of Charlottesville tweeted, For all watching events in crowded, downtown Cville: this is EXACTLY why City tried to change venue to McIntire-but court wouldnt allow. Had the protest been held at the larger McIntire park, perhaps the police could have kept a stronger control on crowd size, and automobile traffic. Perhaps not.

As a matter of First Amendment law, Judge Conrads opinion is correct. The Citys decision to revoke the plaintiffs permit, but not those of the counter-protestors, gave rise to a very strong presumption that the decision was made based on the content of the nationalists speech. My understanding is that the City merely overlooked revoking the other permits. This blunder, however, provided the basis of the courts decision.

Moreover, there was no concrete evidence that the crowd size would increase, beyond the speculation based on social media traffic. Merely asserting a generalized interest in safety, without more, cannot justify the revocation of the permit in this manner. Indeed, had the permit never been granted in the first place, the City could have avoided the presumption of animus against the plaintiffs bigoted speech. Much attention will be paid to how the Charlottesville Police Department managed the affair. The Citys attorneys also deserve some scrutiny. Had the case been lawyered better from the outset, the analysis would be much closer. If the government could have shown that in the larger park, traffic could have been better cordoned off, the requisite scrutiny may have been met. But here we are.

The Social Costs of the Bill of Rights

The constitutional questions here are difficult and complex. As usual, Justice Robert H. Jackson stated the issue far better than I possibly could. Here is an excerpt from his iconic dissent in very apt case of Terminello v. Chicago:

[U]nderneath a little issue of Terminiello and his hundred-dollar fine lurk some of the most far-reaching constitutional questions that can confront a people who value both liberty and order. This Court seems to regard these as enemies of each other and to be of the view that we must forego order to achieve liberty. So it fixes its eyes on a conception of freedom of speech so rigid as to tolerate no concession to society's need for public order. . . .

But if we maintain a general policy of free speaking, we must recognize that its inevitable consequence will be sporadic local outbreaks of violence, for it is the nature of men to be intolerant of attacks upon institutions, personalities and ideas for which they really care. In the long run, maintenance of free speech will be more endangered if the population can have no protection from the abuses which lead to violence. No liberty is made more secure by holding that its abuses are inseparable from its enjoyment. We must not forget that it is the free democratic communities that ask us to trust them to maintain peace with liberty and that the factions engaged in this battle are not interested permanently in either. . . .

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

The Battle of Charlottesville illustrates, once again, the social costs imposed by the Bill of Rights.

The rest is here:

The First Amendment on the Grounds in Charlottesville - Lawfare (blog)

Legal Insider: Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech and … – ARL now

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry

In the wake of the tragic events this past weekend in Charlottesville, a number of the white supremacists protesting have been identified and outed by social media and then subsequently fired from their employment.

One issue that has arisen is the argument that these individuals have a First Amendment right to speak their minds, however wrong they may be, and to not suffer negative consequences. That is not true. The First Amendment offers almost zero protection for individuals who engage in hate or other inappropriate speech who are then fired from private sector employment.

There are very limited forms of protection for federal and public sector employees under the First Amendment only because the government implements employment actions. Generally, a government employee must be engaging in speech that is considered a matter of public concern to receive some protection.

That protection can be taken away if it interferes with the function of a government agency. In our experience, a public sector employer might need to take additional steps but can usually find ways to fire a public employee for engaging in hate speech.

In sum, not much has changed since the 1892 case McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts when Justice Holmes, in a famous quote involving the termination of a police officer for engaging in politics, stated: The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.

First Amendment

The First Amendment provides the following rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment protects private individuals from government suppression of free speech, but not from other private individuals and/or companies who take action as a result of speech. For instance, there is no First Amendment issue with social media companies selectively banning users from their platform based on their speech. There could be a First Amendment issue if a government entity made a similar type of decision based on speech.

State Laws

Some states, but not Virginia, have offered state legislation that protects employees from being terminated for legal, off-duty speech that does not conflict with the employers business-related interests.

States of note that offer this minimal protection include California, New York, Colorado, North Dakota and Montana. Even under these laws, it would be relatively easy for an employer to establish that off-duty hate speech interferes with an employers business interests (e.g., boycotts). In short, there is no true legal protection for hate speech for private employees in these states.

Recent Issues Relating to the Charlottesville Tragedy

These issues have arisen principally as a result of the identification of far-right protesters by various social media groups that have identified hate-speech protesters and then contacted their employers, schools, and friends.

The principal group that has engaged in this tactic is the Twitter account, YesYoureRacist. The group has apparently had success in convincing employers to terminate employees based on their participation in the Charlottesville protest.

Obviously, employers would much rather terminate an employee involved in free speech than face the consequences of a boycott. Can they do so? Yes, they can. Why? Because the First Amendment protects the right of people engaging in hate speech, but it also protects their employers who do not wish to be associated with them.

As such, First Amendment rights go both ways. Free speech protects the ability of citizens to speak and engage in other forms of hate speech without the government banning it. However, it does not protect individuals who engage in hate speech from the consequences of their actions. In other words, there should be no misconception that the Constitution provides a First Amendment right to engage in hate speech and not suffer the potential consequences of being fired for that very speech.

If you need assistance with an employment issue, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or at http://www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also like and visit us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

Originally posted here:

Legal Insider: Does the First Amendment Protect Hate Speech and ... - ARL now

Can a Court Arbitrarily Conclude That ‘Security’ Overrules the First Amendment? – Reason (blog)

A 3D printer company founded by provocateur Cody Wilson, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, has filed for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case asking that the company be allowed to post on its website instructions for using a 3D printer to manufacture a plastic gun.

Defense Distributed and the Foundation sued the State Department and other government persons and agencies back in May 2015 after the government threatened the company in May of 2013 for hosting the 3D gun manufacturing files.

Defense Distributed

The government maintains that such files are essentially armaments in and of themselves and subject to existing laws against the export of such munitions, with posting them in a place where foreigners could access them constituting such an illegal export.

The plaintiffs have sustained a series of losses in lower courts attempting to get a preliminary injunction against the government. Their plaintiffs contends the government has violated the company owners' First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights with its actions.

Most specifically in this cert petition they have asked the Supreme Court to answer these questions:

1. Whether a court weighing a preliminary injunction must consider a First Amendment plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits. 2. Whether it is always in the public interest to follow constitutional requirements. 3. Whether the Arms Export Control Act of 1976....and its implementing International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR")...may be applied as a prior restraint on public speech.

The petition insists that in denying their request for an injunction, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a dangerous stance in balancing the First Amendment against government's insistence that it has very good reason to violate it.

It is also worth noting the files in question, although no longer hosted by Defense Distributed, are universally available on the internet from many other sources.

Defense Distributed is represented in this case by Alan Gura, who won two previous Second Amendment victories at the Supreme Court in 2008's Heller case and 2010's McDonald. Gura and his co-counsels argue in the petition the Fifth Circuit should not have been allowed to have:

simply declared that the government's asserted interests outweighed the interest in securing constitutional rights....considering the merits of preliminary injunction motions is not optional. Of all contexts, the merits cannot be optional in First Amendment cases. It should ordinarily go without sayingand so it must now be saidthat federal courts cannot dismiss the Constitution's primacy in our legal system...

The government can be relied upon to assert the necessity of every prior restraint. The public must be able to rely on the courts to test these assertions for constitutional compliance.

Gura argues the government's rules defining what falls under ITAR are completely ambiguous and confusing. The process for learning whether or not those rules apply to you is a similar mess of ambiguity and overreach. And the government's ability to stonewall drags out cases like that of Defense Distributed for years, Gura writes.

The petition also details the history of interpretation of ITAR over the past decade in the (proper) direction of not using it as a prior restraint on expression or speech on American citizens when it involved non-classified information.

The Fifth Circuit, in its decision on the appeal of an initial district court loss for Defense Distributed, was pretty blatant in saying the First Amendment doesn't count here because the government says so:

Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security.

Gura finds that assertion unsatisfying, leaning on a Fifth Circuit dissent from the panel's majority opinion. Dissenter Judge Edith Jones:

noted that "[i]nterference with First Amendment rights for any period of time, even for short periods, constitutes irreparable injury,"...and that "Defense Distributed has been denied publication rights for over three years,"...She then found it "a mystery" why the majority was "unwilling to correct" the district court's "obvious error" in applying only intermediate scrutiny to the content-based prior restraint at issue...

[Judge Jones believes the State Department's censorship of Defense Distributed] "appears to violate the governing statute, represents an irrational interpretation of the regulations, and violates the First Amendment as a content-based regulation and a prior restraint."

Jones also pointed out how weirdly ineffectual is the government's desired power to violate the First Amendment. The government admits stating or publishing that same information at a conference in the U.S., or in a domestic publication or library, would be protected speech if they somehow could insure no foreigners accessed it. Foreigners could, of course, access such information on the Internet, an act considered a blow against national security so severe it trumps the First Amendment. That is, if "foreigners can't hear this speech" is to be held as true and important, the power to restrict speech applies far beyond the Internet.

The Fifth Circuit's decision to ignore the First Amendment is dangerous far beyond the simple question of publishing files for printing plastic armaments on the internet, Gura argues. That decision:

has unsettled the established norms for adjudicating preliminary injunction requests. Gone is this [Supreme] Court's careful balancing test, with its reliance on the merits. In its place, a wholly arbitrary system: The court will consider the merits, when it wishes to do so. Whether the merits might reveal a constitutional violation is less important, because the court will enforce the Constitution only when it seems to be a good idea.

What are courts, attorneys, and the public to make of this innovation?

Critics of this or that opinion often allege that a court has followed an extra-constitutional agenda. For a court to declare that it has done just thatin ignoring a content-based prior restraint no lessraises basic questions about the judiciary's function. The public is left with no way of knowing when a judge would declare some interest more important than the Constitution, or even bother hearing the merits of plainly significant pleas to enjoin unconstitutional conduct.

Absent a merits inquiry, a court balancing the unknown equities is reduced...to declaring whether an abstract interest in constitutional rights is more or less important than an equally abstract government interest. And if the court then decides, as did the majority below, that security > freedom, that ends the matter. The logic is inescapable; where applied, it bars any injunctive relief.

Expressed that way, the danger of letting the Fifth Circuit decision stand should be clear even to Americans who don't understand why anyone, domestic or foreign, needs a computer file that helps them print a plastic gun at home.

The Supreme Court should take up the case, and let lower courts know they can't, absent a fair consideration of the merits, blithely decide that security beats the First Amendment in court.

Reason TV interviewed Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed last year:

More:

Can a Court Arbitrarily Conclude That 'Security' Overrules the First Amendment? - Reason (blog)

March on Google: Self-proclaimed ‘First Amendment supporters’ to … – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
March on Google: Self-proclaimed 'First Amendment supporters' to ...
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The group, reacting partly to a memo written by ex-Googler James Damore, will meet at Google offices across the country.
March on Google comes to Pittsburgh this weekend , one of eight citiesWTAE Pittsburgh
Planned protest at Google's Pittsburgh office not an alt-right event ...Tribune-Review

all 8 news articles »

Excerpt from:

March on Google: Self-proclaimed 'First Amendment supporters' to ... - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The wild world of cryptocurrencyand how it could make you rich – Mashable

Image: pixabay

By Team CommerceMashable Shopping2017-08-14 18:44:31 UTC

Want to get rich enough to fill bathtubs with dollar bills just for kicks? Could Bitcoin make that happen? Let's dive in.

When Bitcoin debuted in 2009, its early adopters bought up large amounts of the digital currency for pennies. Since then, Bitcoins value has increased dramatically, turning several of those initial investors into millionaires. But the economics surrounding Bitcoin and other forms of digital currency like Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, and most recently, Bitcoin Cash, all dubbed cryptocurrency, can be unpredictable and complicated.

One huge benefit to using cryptocurrency is that it can't be stolen or counterfeit. When digital currencies are exchanged, they're converted into illegible code that not only makes them secure but also makes the sender and receiver appear anonymous. Unlike normal currency, digital currencies are not government regulated. No high bank fees, no fluctuations based on government regulations, and no corrupt bank antics. Sounds pretty nice, right?

Unfortunately, with decentralization comes instability, and cryptocurrencies are known for being highly volatile and unpredictable. Like most high-risk investments, this leaves opportunity for reaching ridiculous levels of wealth (meaning you can finally blow your nose in hundred dollar bills).

For the average person to achieve success in cryptocurrency marketplaces, he or she will need to get learning. Thats where the Beginners Guide to Cryptocurrency Investing comes in. It will give you all the knowledge youll need to make smart choices and turn your physical cash into a sizable digital stash.

Over the course of 27 lectures and 2.5 hours of content, this program will teach you methods for investing in altcoins, how to maximize your return, and how to convert those coins back into real money. Youll learn about the various cryptocurrencies available and which is right for you and you'll dive into the digital currency community, gathering valuable research and insights along the way. Finally, youll be able to estimate the true value of the entire market and decide where and when to make your move.

Now is the time to make your digital fortune. Pick up the Beginners Guide to Cryptocurrency Investing for $15, an incredible reduction from the regular $180 price.

See the article here:

The wild world of cryptocurrencyand how it could make you rich - Mashable

David Sacks: Cryptocurrency fulfills the ‘original vision’ we tried to build at PayPal – CNBC

Jackson: That brings to mind the recent investor letter which Oaktree's Howard Marks sent out in which he said that Bitcoin and other digital assets aren't real. What do you say to that?

Sacks: Marks isn't wrong to raise an alarm bell about speculation, but he's wrong in saying it's not "real." That's like saying software isn't real. Of course it's real.

Did the U.S. dollar become less real when it stopped being backed by gold? Cryptocurrency is the next step in that same evolution to make currency more virtual.

In its purest form, currency is confidence. It's a network effect around an agreed-upon medium of exchange that has some promise of scarcity. Bitcoin enforces its scarcity through a combination of cryptography and economic incentives ("cryptoeconomics"). A lot of people find that more comforting than relying on the good faith of a government. In math we trust.

People in the U.S. and especially longtime participants in the U.S. financial system have tended to underestimate bitcoin because we have long enjoyed relatively stable political and financial systems. People in parts of the world with less trusted systems have gotten it sooner because almost anything would be preferable to having their life's work trapped in a fiat currency that could collapse or be confiscated at any moment.

Jackson: If the current moment with cryptocurrencies is like the dot-com era, does that make it a bubble, and if so are we in 1995 or 1999?

Sacks: The technology is probably 1995 and the pricing is either 1999 or getting close. It's a combination of something real with a lot of speculation.

What I've been trying to figure out is: Who are the good teams and interesting projects in the space? Also I've been trying to understand the future regulatory environment and invest only in companies that have structured correctly and are likely to survive the inevitable crackdown.

I think the trigger for a big correction is more likely to be regulatory than technical. The SEC provided some important guidance in its DAO report a couple of weeks ago, but we will learn a lot more if there's an enforcement action. That's going to be much more important to the future of this movement than the dreaded bitcoin fork that occurred a couple weeks ago and turned out to be a Y2K-like non-event.

Jackson: So is there going to be a similar three-year nuclear winter when the bubble bursts like what happened after the dot-com boom?

Sacks: Hopefully it will be a soft landing rather than a nuclear winter. It could be a positive thing if all the scammers and pumpers get washed out of the space.

There's going to be a correction though. Many of these ICOs are still just slideware but are getting a Series D type of valuation. They don't deserve that type of valuation at this stage of development. That will rationalize at some point.

Jackson: How are ICOs and future SEC regulation going to mesh?

Sacks: Hopefully the SEC distinguishes between "protocol coins" (which have an actual use in a software ecosystem and should not be viewed as securities) and "asset coins" (which are securities). The public policy think tank CoinCenter has done some excellent work in laying out the legal frameworks and policy rationales for this.

Until now, most of the action in ICOs has been in protocol coins. The better projects have worked hard to structure their tokens so they are not securities.

However, I believe we will soon see the emergence of asset coins (aka traditional asset tokens). These will be securities. It must be done correctly, but it's going to be an exciting area.

Jackson: What securities could tokenize?

Sacks: Almost any illiquid asset today lends itself well to moving onto the blockchain and becoming tokenized. It will create a deeper market with improved price discovery and should increase the value of those assets.

In the long run, even liquid assets like stocks could move onto a blockchain because of the benefits of this platform.

Ultimately this is a technology for maximizing the efficiency of every asset, means of ownership, fluidity of markets, and mechanism of payments. The goal is the optimization and maximization of the world economy. That may make it the biggest revolution of all.

Jackson: Are digital assets and tokenization a long-term threat to traditional venture capital?

Sacks: Yes in two ways.

First, a lot of start-ups that would have sought venture capital can now raise money through an ICO. I've called this "crypto capitalism" in contradistinction to venture capitalism.

The terms of crypto capital are more favorable to entrepreneurs than venture capital. So any start-up that can ICO will ICO. Whether a start-up can ICO will depend on technical and regulatory suitability, but it could ultimately be a very large category of start-ups.

If so, that will certainly challenge VC. Larger VCs who would typically invest after the ICO will have to compete with hedge funds, which is not a great place to be. VCs who want to invest before the ICO will have to compete with angels to offer a real value-add.

Second, at the level of the VC's own investors, I think LP interests are likely to be tokenized, along with most other illiquid assets. The prestige VC firms will resist this, but there are already a few new VC firms at the margins that are tokenizing. Soon, a few more will do it. Then a few more. Eventually, illiquidity will be a competitive disadvantage in fundraising that only the top firms will be able to justify.

All of this being said, the SEC's rulings in this area will have a huge impact on how this plays out. If those rulings support innovation, that will lead to a more competitive world for VCs, whose world is already quite competitive. But that world will also be more frictionless and efficient.

Sacks posted a tweet storm about this idea:

Jackson: What are the biggest challenges that still lie ahead for cryptocurrencies?

Sacks: I see three big areas for concern: scalability, slideware and regulatory.

First, the number of transactions per second that either bitcoin or ethereum can handle is still orders of magnitude less than what PayPal or the Visa network can do. It's been estimated that ethereum, which is the main developer platform for decentralized apps, would need a 250x improvement to run a 10 million user app and 25,000x improvement to run a billion-user app like Facebook. That improvement requires real work and involves some risk. There's a product roadmap, but it's going to take years.

Second, most of the ideas out there today for ICOs are still just white papers, or what we used to call "slideware." There is a lot of execution risk in turning these ideas into usable software that actually gets adopted. One fortunate effect of the crypto boom is that it has been helpful in attracting talent to the space. We will need that migration of talent to continue in order to realize the potential.

Third, as we've discussed, will be the extent and nature of regulatory acceptance. The eventual rules governing the application of securities laws to tokens will have a major impact on adoption and innovation in the space, at least in the United States. There is some risk that if the wrong regulatory regime gets adopted in the U.S., then the center of innovation could move to other countries. If blockchains are the next internet, that would be a very unfortunate development for the U.S.

Jackson: We have bitcoin and ethereum plus a number of smaller, lesser-known currencies out there including the new Filecoin ICO. What lesser-known currencies intrigue you most?

Sacks: I prefer to think in terms of use cases, rather than recommending specific currencies. The most promising use cases to date are: store of value, payments, crowdfunding, file storage, identity management and authentication, prediction markets, escrow, title chains, notary chains, provenance, and supply chains. There are 1,500 ICOs already launched or announced, plus many other blockchain companies, so there's a lot more to come. This is an extremely exciting and fast-moving space.

That said, one admonition I would make to your readers is that most probably shouldn't be investing in ICOs directly. We are seeing white papers for technology that doesn't truly belong on the blockchain or, worse, could be pump-and-dump schemes. Many of the scams originate outside of the United States, so they will be harder to regulate. Just like a lot of retail investors lost money in the dot-com era, the ICO era has the potential to do the same unless people really take the time to understand what they are investing in. A number of professionally managed crypto funds, with real technical expertise to evaluate ICOs, are starting to emerge and may be a safer way to participate than investing directly.

So I would just urge everyone to temper their excitement with sound business judgment. Or does that sound too much like Howard Marks?

Sign up for Eric's monthly Tech & Media Email. You can follow Eric on Twitter @ericjackson .

The rest is here:

David Sacks: Cryptocurrency fulfills the 'original vision' we tried to build at PayPal - CNBC