Pop music moves a step closer to eternal life – The Columbian

A A

Today, well be discussing how a Selena Gomez song might foreshadow humanitys triumph over biological death but first, raise your hand if you remember EDM. It was short for electronic dance music, a style once poised to eat the planet for lunch, and then eat itself for dessert.

Five summers ago, as a new league of superstar DJs were being paid astronomical amounts of money to perform at packed festivals the world over, the musics sustainability didnt appear to be at the forefront of anyones mind. In 2015, Forbes reported that the EDM bubble was about to burst. In 2016, Pitchfork made the case that it had.

But this unofficial collapse hasnt forced the star producers of EDM to unplug their laptops and register for the GRE. In fact, plenty are faring exceptionally well this summer, taking up residence on the Billboard Hot 100 after partnering up with an array of willing pop vocalists Calvin Harris with Pharrell, the Chainsmokers with Coldplay, David Guetta with Justin Bieber.

These kinds of genre-splicing collaborations arent anything new, but with EDM now in decline, theyve quietly reversed their polarity. Instead of making dance tracks that behave like pop songs, these producers now appear to be making pop songs that behave a little more like dance tracks.

In most instances, the result is just a mirror-image of the same old thing, but for a certain class of pop singers, it seems to be changing the way they apply their physicality to a geometric dance rhythm. You can hear it on the radio this summer whenever Gomez goes hopscotching across the grid of Kygos It Aint Me, or when Alessia Cara leans hard against the right-angles of Zedds Stay, or in the way Halsey seems to be gasping for air in the digital vacuum of her solo single, Now or Never. All three songs are delivered with mechanical clarity, with all three vocalists making direct lyrical references to eternity. Are they singing about transhumanism?

Not long after our species learned how to dream, we were probably dreaming of ways to exceed the limitations of our bodies. Its the stuff of religions and comic books. Now, its the work of Silicon Valley, where a growing number of transhumanists believe that mankinds next evolutionary leap will occur once we figure out how to convert consciousness into code, allowing for a digital transmigration of souls.

In his recent book, To Be a Machine, author Mark OConnell describes transhumanism as a liberation movement advocating nothing less than a total emancipation from biology itself. That emancipation means eternal life inside a supercomputer. Heaven is a hard drive.

The idea isnt so shocking if you watch Black Mirror, or if you listen to pop music. For well over a decade now, Auto-Tune software has been narrowing the musical gap between humans and machines, generating signature hooks for everyone from T-Pain to Future.

However, whether we as listeners embrace Auto-Tune as a tool or denounce it as a crutch often depends on whos singing through it. When Kanye West uses computer software to manipulate his voice, hes an artist. When Britney Spears does the same thing, shes a girl who cant sing.

That double standard helps to explain why Ellie Goulding hasnt been recognized as one of the more significant pop vocalists of our time. The British singer always had bright ideas about phrasing, but it wasnt until she loaned her voice to a few juggernaut EDM singles that her singing began to feel totally frictionless. And it had more to do with Gouldings inflection than whatever digital processing she was applying to it. By the time she released her 2015 album, Delirium, Goulding was weaving the curves of her voice through a world of clean-edged rhythms as if drawing a map to the future.

With Now or Never, Halsey has that map folded-up her back pocket. Its a slower, stronger, smarter, more spacious song than Closer, her massive EDM hit with the Chainsmokers, and it gives the 22-year-old the opportunity to do some captivating things with her breath. When shes breathing in, shes all human, taking sharp little hits of oxygen that dramatize the ballads sustained romantic ache. But when shes breathing out, shes at least half-machine, singing about pain with precision. Listen close to how she lingers on the words now, time and forever. The grain in her voice sounds like its pixelating.

Alessia Caras Stay a collaboration with the German EDM producer, Zedd addresses the gap between data and soul in the form of a simple duet, with a refrain thats delivered in two parts. First comes Cara pushing her voice especially hard into the songs rigid architecture. Then comes a gush of synthesized melodies pantomiming what the 21-year-old just sang. Its a game of call-and-response, but the call sounds big-hearted, and the response sounds no-hearted, giving the dialogue a sinister glint. Cara is singing about forestalling a separation, but she might as well be teaching the HAL 9000 how to sing Daisy.

With It Aint Me, Norwegian producer Kygo isnt playing a game so much as conducting a test one in which Selena Gomez must first coo alongside a gently-plucked guitar, and then over the relentless thuds of sub-woofing bass. As the song builds its graceless crescendo, the coffee shop turns into a rave, with the most promising 25-year-old in pop showing us how she can make her voice feel artificial in an intimate setting and expressive in an anonymous one.

See the rest here:

Pop music moves a step closer to eternal life - The Columbian

Nocturnes Mist announce Sept 15th release of "Diabolical Baptism" – The Gauntlet

On September 15th, Seance Records is proud to present the highly anticipated third album of Nocturnes Mist, Diabolical Baptism. Following quickly on the heels of last year's scorching second album, March to Perdition, Diabolical Baptism completes an unholy trinity of albums that forever establishes Nocturnes Mist as one of the darkest and most uncompromising antipodean forces. More savage, more immediate, and more engaging, the band goes from strength to strength here, heralding a new era for their characteristically Aussie black metal.

Nocturnes Mist's Diabolical Baptism is a work of traditional black metal inspired by the occult and Satan. After watching The Omen trilogy, the band was inspired to write a song based upon the iconic film score, "Ave Satani," and in doing so, this song influenced the tone of the album. Diabolical Baptism is a work inspired by high Satanism, both its medieval origins as well as the presence of Satan and the occult in the contemporary world: from The Omen trilogy to Ken Russels classic The Devils (from which a sample is used on the song "Barbs of Sadism) to the illustrations from the works of Lord of De Lancre, the infamous French witch-finder and demonologist of the 17th Century. His image of the Black Mass, the witches Sabbath in addition to horror, both fictional demonic terror and the real life terrors of the medieval age and inquisition, coupled with a fascination for clandestine ceremonies of the left-hand path - all come together with each song representing another page of Nocturnes Mists musical grimoire, a tale written in homage to Satan and the vivid imagery that he has inspired throughout the ages.

The lavish artwork throughout Diabolical Baptism, by the hand of modern master Jenglot Hitam, is a re-imagining of Lord of De Lancres Black Mass and Witches Sabbath - and here, from Satanic inspiration emerges a new level of primal energy and brutality for Nocturnes Mist. Harsh compositions and raw fury have engulfed symphonic elements, with keyboards only momentarily emerging to highlight mood and atmosphere. The transition of style was not intentional; rather, it's a subconscious evolution reflecting the bands collective energy whilst writing the album. As a result, Diabolical Baptism is a natural manifestation of evil and hatred, a return to the raw, unadulterated energy of early '90s black metal and a vehement outpouring sparked by frustration with the continued dilution of the genre. Diabolical Baptism is a rekindling of Nocturnes Mist's devotion to black metal, its roots, the feeling and conviction stemming back to the origins of the band, their influences, and the energy that originally galvanized them in the '90s.

Nocturnes Mist was formed in Adelaide, South Australia in 1997 and have since remained veiled in mystery and fog. The band was ignited amidst a strong movement of bands from South Australia such as Stargazer, Cauldron Black Ram, Mournful Congregation, Darklord, and Beyond Mortal Dreams among others. However, Nocturnes Mist remained undeservedly underrated and overlooked, as black metal had yet to reach the peak of its popularity in Australia and Australian bands were hindered by isolation, great distance between states, and poor distribution in the days before the internet was widely available in households.

Embodying the spirit of '90's black metal, Nocturnes Mist's music unites ferocity with darkness, cold vengeance with symphonic poetry, and chilling atmospheres with sheer heaviness. Truly borne from the '90s and the influence of first- and second-wave black metal, early on, Nocturnes Mist created symphonic black metal in the style of early Emperor, Satyricon, Abigor, and Nazxul. Denying the lightweight flourishes of what symphonic black metal evolved into by the end of the '90s, Nocturnes Mist remained firmly rooted in the traditional style and ideals of black metal, incorporating rawness, heaviness, dark atmosphere, and a true feeling of aggression characterized within the Australian scene.

The Southern Storms demo EP was released in 1998 by the band and limited in availability, only being traded via mail and sold at the few shows which the band played between 1999-2000. These shows were some of the first black metal shows in South Australia and are now legendary landmarks in the evolution of OZBM. Armed with a full lineup and instilled with the aesthetic ideals of traditional black metal, these shows were impressive rituals of dark, intense heaviness as the band performed in full corpsepaint, gauntlets, and created a lavish scene of gothic candelabras and candlelit atmosphere. Two self-titled demos followed in 2000 and 2004, but these were not widely circulated, and the songs were later reworked & re-recorded in 2009 to become part of what is now the As Flames Burn album, which remained unreleased until 2013.

Nocturnes Mist predated most of the bands that form the current Australian black metal scene, but in a case of being ahead of their time, they slowly slipped into obscurity. Seance Records reignited the flame in 2013 with the first official release of As Flames Burn. The songs were remixed and mastered yet stylistically represent the early era of this band and their body of work to date. The CD also included the Southern Storms tracks as a bonus. Forging ahead, the band soon recorded their second full-length, March to Perdition, released in 2016 by Seance Records. The ten new songs comprising the album were characteristic of the bands style: unpretentious and atmospheric, yet instilled with a raw, savage element to surpass what has come before. Each song was crafted with skillful writing and musicianship while not losing the energy and spontaneity that fortified the band's lofty position as forerunners of OZBM.

Whereas March to Perdition solidified their style within classic, '90s-rooted symphonic black metal, on Diabolical Baptism, Nocturnes Mist strip back everything to the rawest, blood-red essentials, maintaining exemplary songwriting and their established identity whilst uncovering new, previously-unexplored territory by, paradoxically, going more primitive. Subtle synth touches still exist, of course, but Diabolical Baptism is aptly fucking titled: this is a torrential rebirth.

MORE INFO: Facebook: HERE! Seance Records: HERE! Seance Facebook: HERE! Seance Bandcamp: HERE!

See the article here:

Nocturnes Mist announce Sept 15th release of "Diabolical Baptism" - The Gauntlet

FAMILY AND MARRIAGE: Where are you in the tree? – Aiken Standard

You can't build marriage on a foundation of selfish hedonism, because that would be to promise people only roses, and marriage is also thorns. Alan Keyes

the tree of life [was] also in the midst of the garden, Bible

All of us live and make our decisions according to some rationale. Perhaps its arbitrary and capricious, changing day by day. Or maybe we have a stronger set of standards that we have developed and utilize because they seem to work for us. At the extreme, we may accept and adhere to a more rigid set of rules established by a higher authority, which may include consequences for both good and bad behavior.

Our life-behavior is like a tree. This tree has three basic components: the fruit and leaf-bearing branches, the trunk, and the roots.

The branches (fruits, leaves) are what we enjoy in life. They may be all those blessings God gives us (whether or not we know God), such as health, success, happiness, etc. They may be the fruits of our own labors. They may be our family and friends. They are frequently the consequence of obeying the rules of society, adhering to common-sense rules and life styles, or following the Bible.

These branches are subject to the storms of life, however. We remember the ice storm of a few years ago. I lost lot of branches out of my trees. And then there was the late freeze this spring. The peach crop is not nearly as plentiful this year.

The trunk is also exposed to the tempests and vagaries of life. But its a lot sturdier. I didnt lose any tree trunks during the ice storm, and the peach trees will live to see another year.

The root is the foundation of the tree. The branches may be gone, and the trunk may be destroyed, but the roots are HARD to permanently remove if they are firmly entrenched in the soil. I tried to destroy an undesirable tree by cutting the trunk off at the base, but the next year I see little tree sprouts coming up from the base of the tree its not dead!

Our lives are a lot like the tree. If our life choices are based on our own definition of whats OK, we may get along for a while, but the storms will come. If we live in the branches we will get blown away. Divorce, abuse, and untold distress come from the storms because our way doesnt work it has no authority, no basis.

Now if we live in the trunk we have a lot better chance for surviving the storms. Society provides us with significant help if we are willing to seek it. Doctors are there to help with physical healing. Therapists are available to deal with emotional turmoil. We may have decided to follow some set of rules that seems good to us.

Our best chance for survival, however, (let me assert the only chance) is to live in the root. We have an established foundation that isnt affected by the surface storms of life. That foundation must be something that doesnt change. It isnt based on our opinion. It comes from a much higher authority. For example, it doesnt come from knowing whats in the Bible (or some arbitrary rule book). It comes from knowing the authority behind the rule book. The Bible is the only rule book with the authority that we need, that being the Word Jesus Christ.

If you are living your marriage in the branches, look out. The storms will come and the branches will fall and so will you.

If you are living in the trunk, you will benefit from much of the help available in the world, and may survive for a while. But a forest fire will destroy the trunks as well as the branches.

Choose to live your marriage in the root and make it the Bible. It doesnt change, and the storms dont affect it. In fact it becomes stronger, and so do you.

Roger Rollins is the executive director of The Family and Marriage Coalition of Aiken, Inc. Contact him at 803-640-4689, rogerrollins@aikenfamco.com or http://www.aikenfamco.com.

Read the original post:

FAMILY AND MARRIAGE: Where are you in the tree? - Aiken Standard

Facebook Apologizes To Black Activist For Censorship – News One

Tech giant Facebook has issued an apology to a Black activist and writer who claims the social media site suspended her account for bringing attention to racism, USA Today reports.

According to the outlet, Ijeoma Oluos visit to Cracker Barrel with her two children sparked the controversy. During her visit, she jokingly tweeted At Cracker Barrel 4 the 1st time. Looking at the sea of white folk in cowboy hats & wondering will they let my black ass walk out of here?'

Her tweet prompted several racist attacks on both Twitter and Facebook. Twitter swiftly removed the hateful posts and suspended the accounts associated with them, the outlet reports. After Oluo posted images of the derogatory tweets on her Facebook page, her account was suspended.

I write and speak about race in America because I already see this hate every day, Oluo wrote, according to USA Today. Its the complicity of one of the few platforms that people of color have to speak out about this hate that gets me.

Facebook issued a statement extending an apology to Oluo; claiming that suspending her account was a mistake and that they are working on ways to maneuver through these important issues. According to the outlet, an apology wasnt enough for Oluo who claims that her online incident wasnt isolated and that shes witnessed other Black activists have their accounts suspended for calling out racism.

The only reason my ban was reversed was because of the outrage it generated, but so many other marginalized people in similar situations are simply forced out, she said.

The censorship of Blacks has been an ongoing issue on the social platform. USA Today reports that civil rights groups have called out Facebook for being racially biased with their targeting and removing posts and temporarily suspending the accounts of Black activists like Shaun King.

According to the outlet, the social networking site removes thousands of posts that evoke hate each week.

SOURCE: USA Today

SEE ALSO:

Louisiana Assistant Police Chief Resigns After Racist Facebook Post

Republican Leader Apologizes For Offensive Facebook Attack On Keith Ellison

Go here to read the rest:

Facebook Apologizes To Black Activist For Censorship - News One

Apple removes VPN apps in China as Beijing doubles down on censorship – CNBC

Beijing appeared to have doubled down on its crackdown of the internet in China, with news emerging that over the weekend, Apple pulled several virtual private network (VPN) services from the local version of the App Store.

Multiple VPN service providers, affected by the decision, slammed the move online, calling it a "dangerous precedent" set by Apple, which governments in other countries may follow.

VPN service providers received notification from Apple on July 29 that their apps were removed from the China App Store for including "content that is illegal" in the mainland, according to a screenshot posted by ExpressVPN.

VPNs let users in China bypass the country's famous "Great Firewall" that heavily restricts internet access to foreign sites. It also allows for privacy by hiding browsing activities from internet service providers.

Manjunath Bhat, a research director at Gartner, told CNBC that a VPN could circumvent government censorship.

"VPN creates a private tunnel between you (the user) and the service you want to consume," Bhat said, explaining that such a connection escapes government censorship, hiding a user's true origin. It also encrypts communications so that users can be confident others aren't reading their information when connected to public internet services.

Data on GreatFire.org, a site that monitors censorship activity in the mainland, showed 167 of the top 1000 domains are blocked in China. Those include YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Instagram among others.

Golden Frog said its VyprVPN service is still accessible in China, despite the app's removal from the App Store. ExpressVPN said users can stay connected to the open internet with the company's apps for Windows, Mac, Android and other platforms.

Apple has recently stepped up business efforts in China. Earlier this month, the company announced the appointment of Isabel Ge Mahe in a new role of vice president and managing director of Greater China to provide leadership and coordination across Apple's China-based team. Apple is also setting up its first data center in the mainland by partnering with a local company, in order to comply with tougher cybersecurity laws in China.

In a blog post, ExpressVPN said it was "disappointed" with Apple's decision. It "represents the most drastic measure the Chinese government has taken to block the use of VPNs to date, and we are troubled to see Apple aiding China's censorship efforts," the post read.

Golden Frog also said in a blog post that it was "extremely disappointed" in Apple's decision. It added, "If Apple views accessibility as a human right, we would hope Apple will likewise recognize internet access as a human right (the UN has even ruled it as such) and would choose human rights over profits."

The move was also criticized by others, including U.S. whistle-blower Edward Snowden in a tweet.

"Earlier this year China's (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology) announced that all developers offering VPNs must obtain a license from the government," an Apple spokesperson told CNBC. "We have been required to remove some VPN apps in China that do not meet the new regulations. These apps remain available in all other markets where they do business."

On Tuesday, during Apple's earnings call, CEO Tim Cook added, "We would obviously rather not remove the apps, but like we do in other countries we follow the law wherever we do business. We strongly believe participating in markets and bringing benefits to customers is in the best interest of the folks there and in other countries as well."

Apple's decision to remove the apps comes at a time when businesses and individuals inside the mainland are finding it harder to connect to the so-called open internet outside China via VPN. A business executive told CNBC that connecting through VPN in cities like Hangzhou is becoming far more difficult, as compared to bigger places such as Beijing and Shanghai. People using an international SIM card or apps downloaded from App Stores outside China are still able to use VPNs on the mainland, according to the executive.

Some of the remaining VPN companies that have yet to face Beijing's crackdown could end up collaborating with the authorities, according to Martin Johnson (a pseudonym) from GreatFire.org. He told CNBC that some of those companies may hand over user data when requested and be allowed to operate without restrictions. "Those that protect their users security will be removed."

Johnson added, "Apple is now an integral part of China's censorship apparatus, helping the government expand it's control to a global scale."

To be sure, Apple's removal of those apps is not the first time Beijing's cyber regulators have gone after VPN providers. Recent reports said two popular providers GreenVPN and Haibei VPN stopped their services following a notice from the regulators. In fact, a number of VPN apps are still available on the local App Store as of Monday.

In January, the MIIT embarked on a 14-month campaign to "clean up" China's internet connections by March 31, 2018. In a notice, the ministry said that, while China's internet access service market is facing "a rare opportunity for development," there are also signs of "disorderly development" needing to be rectified.

Among other services, the move also affected VPNs: The Ministry said those connections cannot be created without the approval of the relevant telecommunications authorities.

State-owned news outlet Global Times reported that a spokesperson for MIIT said at a press conference last week that foreign companies or multinational corporations that need to use VPN for business purposes could rent special lines from telecom providers that legally provide such services.

Previously, the Ministry had denied a Bloomberg report that it ordered major telco operators China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom to block individuals' access to all VPNs by February 1, 2018.

Johnson said the authorities would "prefer to divide users such that businesses can continue to access the global internet, while ordinary users can only access the filtered internet."

"The Chinese government does not care at all about freedom of speech, but they do care very much about economic growth and China's economy continues to be very dependent on the outside world. Apple should use this leverage and stand up for the principle. Sadly they don't," he said.

CNBC's Barry Huang contributed to this report.

Continued here:

Apple removes VPN apps in China as Beijing doubles down on censorship - CNBC

ACLU Sounds Alarm Over Trump Administration’s ‘Threat’ To Free … – HuffPost

Attorney General Jeff Sessionsplan to crack down on leaksfrom the Justice Department and intelligence community by subpoenaing reporters would constitute a serious threat to free speech, the American Civil Liberties Union warned Friday.

Sessions announced earlier in the day that the DOJ would be reviewing its policy on issuing subpoenas to members of the press as part of an effort to prevent such disclosures.

We respect the important role the press plays and will give them respect, but they cannot place lives at risk with impunity, Sessions said. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in the intelligence community, the armed forces and all law-abiding Americans.

The ACLU, which has frequently criticized the Trump administration for encroachments on the First Amendment, said Sessions crackdown constitutes a threat to journalists and whistleblowers.

President Donald Trump has frequently spoken out against leaks he sees as damaging to his presidency, and has threatened to come down hard on government officials speaking to the press. He also previouslycriticized Sessions in public for not being tough enough on leaks, and reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to consider jailing reporters who publish classified information.

The presidents war on leaks reportedly led him to hire Anthony Scaramucci, an outspoken former Wall Street financier, as his communications director. Scaramucci immediately set out to find and fire White House staffers who had leaked to the press, even accusing then-chief of staff Reince Priebus of leaking. (Priebus ultimately resigned one week after Scaramuccis hire.) Scaramucci, however, was immediately fired by Priebusreplacement, Gen. John Kelly.

Trump has also frequently attacked the media as fake news, and has fiercely criticized reporters for covering the FBIs investigation into whether members of his campaign team colluded with Russian officials to influence the election, a probe he has called a witch hunt.

Read the original here:

ACLU Sounds Alarm Over Trump Administration's 'Threat' To Free ... - HuffPost

NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law – Campus Reform

The state of North Carolina has officially enacted the first free speech law based on the legislative proposal by the Goldwater Institute.

The final version of North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act passed the state Senate by a vote of 34 to 11 in late July, with all 11 Democrats voting against the legislation, National Review reported.

In the House, however, 10 Democrats joined their Republican colleagues to pass the bill by an 80 to 31 margin. The Democratic Governor Roy Cooper also allowed the bill to pass by taking no action on the legislation.

[RELATED: Growing number of states consider free-speech bills]

According to the report, the new law prevents the University of North Carolina administrators from disinviting speakers on campus. It also creates a system of sanctions that is designed to discipline individuals who suppress the right to free speech of others.

Moreover, the law authorizes the Board of Regents to create a special committee that will issue annual reports detailing administrative handling of matters related to free speech.

Stanley Kurtz, one of three authors behind the original Goldwater proposal, praised the passage of the bill and the support that it received from some elected Democrats.

That proposal, which I co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states, Kurtz wrote in National Review.

Given the intense party polarization in North Carolina, the substantially bipartisan House vote was impressive. Governor Coopers decision to let the bill become law with no action is also interesting and instructive.

Kurtz also notes that the university successfully weakened several aspects of the bill, including the cause of action provision which would have allowed anyone whose expressive rights under the new law were violated to recover reasonable court costs and attorneys fees.

The university also succeeded in weakening the provision that designates public areas of the campus as public forums. Potentially, this would allow the university to cabin free speech to restricted zones, he argues while noting a special committee within the UNC Board of Governors should still serve as a check on administrative abuse on issues like free-speech zones.

[RELATED: Prof: college campuses are not free-speech areas]

Kurtz further stresses that the law does not contain a provision that would have suspended students who were found responsible for silencing other individuals more than once.

That provision is important for a number of reasons. First, the punishment is just. A student who twice silences visiting speakers or fellow students obviously hasnt learned a lesson from the initial punishment, he writes.

Second, since universities regularly ignore shout-downs or hand out meaningless punishments, the mandatory suspension for a second offense is the only way to prevent schools from undermining the law by handing out wrists-slaps ad infinitum.

Kurtz maintains, however, that any lax enforcement of the law will be documented in the annual report from the Board of Governors and could further lead to consequences for the administration.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @nikvofficial

See the original post:

NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law - Campus Reform

Star Wars’ religious imagery is more than just coincidence – Catholic Herald Online (blog)

Darth Vader and Stormtroopers at a Star Wars display during the Disney D23 EXPO 2015 held at the Anaheim Convention Center (Getty Images)

The franchise is a tale of love, sacrifice and fatherhood against hate, domination and tyranny

In our look at prominent anniversaries in 2017, the 40th anniversary of Star Wars bears noting as a significant cultural moment. The series is the most commercially successful movie franchise ever. Later this year, four decades after the first film was released in May 1977, the ninth major motion picture will be released. Its called Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. In any case, it wont be the last film, not by a long shot.

Why has it lasted so long, this series which for generations of children has provided the fantastical architecture of their imaginary play? Despite mediocre writing, it has hosted enduring stars James Earl Jones, Sir Alec Guinness and launched others, such as Harrison Ford.

From the beginning, many fans noted the religious imagery in Star Wars, far too abundant to be accidental. Sir Alec Guinness wore the garb of a monk in his turn as the elderly Obi-Wan Kenobi; Luke Skywalker, when he finally makes it as a Jedi, dresses like a young priest. Darth Vaders helmet is a stylised mitre, all the better to evoke the corrupt bishop he has become. The wicked emperor carries a staff and is attended by a court that includes attendants decked head-to-toe in cardinalatial red. The Jedi temple is a mosque-and-minaret construction. The Force itself is pantheism made palatable for a secular generation that likes to pretend that it is spiritual but not religious. Now, as the saga nears its (supposed) end, the physical setting is actually Skellig Michael, the redoubt of the Irish monks who saved civilisation.

Star Wars endures because it is an ancient story about the deepest human dramas a tale of love, sacrifice and fatherhood on the one hand, and the tragedy of hate, domination and tyranny on the other. It tests which account is a more authentic description of the path to human flourishing.

The central character is Anakin Skywalker, a young boy of preternatural abilities who has no father. The mystery of fatherhood, natural and spiritual, therefore marks the entire saga. The Jedi present the boy with the ideals of honour and duty and sacrifice in which those who have been given much are required to serve the good of all.

As a young man, Anakin rejects his Jedi masters, and the evil Emperor Palpatine offers a different vision to Anakin: those who have been given much have the power to seize more even the ultimate power to create life and cheat death. It is the way of domination, not sacrifice.

Star Wars thus poses a Hegelian question: is the primordial reality the one of the master and the slave? Does man have to choose between being dominant or dominated, in which case the purpose of life and the engine of history is the struggle between those who would be masters and those who would be slaves?

That is the way of the Dark Side, in which the desire to avenge ones own pain fuels the lust for power. Power is the only remedy for pain to hurt others before they can hurt you. In Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, the Emperor attempts to seduce Luke Skywalker, Anakins secret son, to the Dark Side. Luke is invited to kill Vader and take his place at the side of the all-powerful Emperor. It is the Hegelian dynamic of master and slave again. The slave either remains a slave to be destroyed at the masters command, or he kills the master and takes his place. It is the way of the gun or, if you will, the lightsaber.

Show no mercy is the first lesson the Emperor teaches Anakin-cum-Vader in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. There is no room for mercy in the Hegelian master-slave telling of the human story. Kill or be killed it is: the new Lord Vader massacres the innocent younglings in a slaughter that echoes the biblical figures of the Pharaoh and King Herod. Eventually the Emperor makes the same offer to Luke: kill Vader and take his place or be killed. But Vader is Lukes father, so the master-slave dynamic meets the father-son relationship.

It is striking that for a saga saturated with violence, Luke Skywalker survives into this third trilogy because of mercy and the witness of suffering. It is the suffering of the son that inspires the conversion of the father, and Vader turns against the Emperor and destroys him, at the cost of his own life. The show no mercy domination of the tyrant is finally defeated only by the medicine of mercy and the power of filial suffering to move the paternal heart.

St John Paul II observed in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that the only alternative in human relations to the Hegelian master-slave dynamic is the father-son relationship. Either the powerful oppress the weak, as tyrants oppress slaves, or the powerful one sacrifices himself for the weaker, as a father will give his life for his son. This clash of archetypes is at the heart of the Star Wars mythology.

The revelation of the Trinity teaches us that the father-son relationship is more powerful for it lies at the heart of reality. Thus the radiation of fatherhood in St John Pauls words touches all creation, even a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Fr Raymond J de Souza is a priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, and editor-in-chief of Convivium.ca

This article first appeared in the August 4 2017 issue of the Catholic Herald. To read the magazine in full, from anywhere in the world, go here

Excerpt from:

Star Wars' religious imagery is more than just coincidence - Catholic Herald Online (blog)

Dark Matter Season 3 Episode 10 Review: Built, Not Born – Den of Geek US

This Dark Matter review contains spoilers.

For longtime viewers of Dark Matter, the story that unfolds in Built, Not Born is one that had been anticipated for quite awhile, and the payoff is quite satisfying. Tying the Dwarf Star transhumanist efforts with Two (whom they know as Rebecca) together with the origins of the Android seems obvious in retrospect, but it was a great resolution to one of the most enduring mysteries of the series so far. Although the season-long arcs were again put on hold just like last week, the interlude was a welcome one, and if previous experience holds true, it may all just relate in the end anyway.

To start off, Threes reluctance to help Androids robot friends must be applauded for several reasons. First, it reflected what would otherwise have been an awkward pivot from seemingly more important matters, like following up on Sixs idea of taking sides in the corporate war. Second, it allowed Three to have an ironic and painful discussion with Sarah about machines not being alive. And third, his later apology to Android for his prejudicial attitude and tendency to speak without thinking gave her the smile-inducing line, Its one of the things I like about you.

Of course, Android borrowed that line from Six who reminds her, and simultaneously the audience, that despite what we learn of her origins in this episode, shes far from an imperfect imitation but rather her own being with unique variations. When Six says, Youre more than just a series of programmed responses. Youre an original. And thats what we love about you, he might as well be speaking on behalf of the viewer.

Thats especially true once we find out that her creator and the creator of Victor and the others looks just like the Android we know and love for a reason. Dr. Irena Shaw was not only a disgruntled Dwarf Star employee who felt the super-soldier program that designed Rebecca was inhumane; she also grew to love the woman she helped create (fans of Zoie Palmer in Lost Girl were likely all a-flutter). That love likely allowed her to see the potential in giving emotional, self-aware androids the one last ingredient they needed to make them people: free will. The mystery of Androids origin could not have been more poignant, a story filled with romance and tragedy.

The latest episode of our Sci Fi Fidelity podcast:

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Soundcloud

The part that Victor plays is also wonderfully nuanced, both in his helpfulness in unlocking some of Androids memories and in his secretive motivation for calling for help in the first place. The first red flag that Victor wasnt telling the whole truth should have been when Ruac, who had been shot in the head, was revived and shouted, It was wrong! Clearly he had objections to Victor killing Anyas former owner. Did he remove Ruacs emotion chip to force the required self-termination? It even throws into doubt whether Anyas suicide was preventable! Does Victor have justification for his actions, or is he going down a dark path?

This is especially troubling given that he now has a Sarah android at his side. It wasnt his idea to use Dr. Shaws technology this way, but he obviously sees it as an opportunity. And the Galactic Authority wouldnt pop away from the corporate war or the conflict between Zairon and Pyr for no reason. So what is it about Sarah having a human mind combined with a stronger superior physical construct that will further Victors cause, whatever it might be? A truly compelling new mystery!

It was also a nice touch to have Dr. Shaws caretaker, Chase, look exactly like Arrian, the diplomatic android who had a bit of a crush on the blonde Five in Dark Matters season 2 finale. Chases suggestion that Android could be tweaked elicits an enjoyable defensiveness in Five, who rightly says that she likes this version better. So do we, Five; so do we.

But what do we make of the memories Victor unlocked for Android? Seeing Portia excited about Emilys nano-virus that initially woke up Androids hidden subroutines is an interesting transition point from the emotional Rebecca to the malevolent outlaw she became in Portia Lin. And Android telling Ryo-of-yore, You and the rest of the crew are self-seeking, ethically deficient, and morally barren, yet youre incongruously kind to me, gives us insightful character moments, but will it mean something more down the road? Time will tell.

In the meantime, this episode of Dark Matter was another welcome distraction from the corporate war and Ryos villainy. With three episodes left, those elements are sure to return with a vengeance, but it will be interesting to see how the time travel story and the android history lesson will inform the impending finale. If they were simply character building and tying up of loose ends from earlier seasons, great; if they end up tying in to what happens next, even better. Either way, Dark Matter fans cant help but be pleased although theyd be even happier with a season 4 renewal.

Read the original here:

Dark Matter Season 3 Episode 10 Review: Built, Not Born - Den of Geek US

The ethics of creating GMO humans | The Spokesman-Review – The Spokesman-Review

(PHOTO)

Los Angeles Times (TNS)

The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Friday, Aug. 4:

-

In a process that can be likened to the creation of GMO crops, scientists have edited genes in human embryos in order to eliminate a mutation that causes thickening of the heart wall. The embryos were created solely for the scientists study and will not be implanted. Nonetheless, the research offers hope that in years ahead, science could prevent many serious genetic diseases at the stage in which people are a microscopic cluster of cells in a petri dish. Whats more, because those edited genes would be carried forth into new generations, the disease might eventually be eliminated altogether.

Is this a glorious new frontier or a troubling situation? Unequivocally, the answer is yes to both.

The research results by an international team of U.S., Chinese and South Korean scientists were enormously exciting medically. Beyond the technical achievement involved, the teams work hastened the arrival of a revolutionary form of treatment: removing genes that can lead inexorably to suffering and premature death.

Public policy and the field of bioethics have not caught up with the science of genetic intervention.

But there is also a great deal we still dont know about how minor issues might become major ones as people pass on edited DNA to their offspring, and as people who have had some genes altered reproduce with people who have had other genes altered. Weve seen how selectively breeding to produce one trait can unexpectedly produce other, less desirable outcomes. Remember how growers were able to create tomatoes that were more uniformly red, but in the process, they turned off the gene that gave tomatoes flavor?

Another major issue is the ethics of adjusting humans genetically to fit a favored outcome. Today its heritable disease, but what might be seen as undesirable traits in the future that people might want to eliminate? Short stature? Introverted personality? Klutziness?

To be sure, its not as though everyone is likely to line up for gene-edited offspring rather than just having babies, at least for the foreseeable future. The procedure can be performed only on in vitro embryos and requires precision timing.

But even with this early study, problematic issues already are evident. Gene editing isnt the only method to protect against certain hereditary conditions such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which was edited out in this study. Children stand a 50 percent chance of inheriting the condition; if a couple produces several embryos through in vitro fertilization, half of those already would theoretically be free of the mutation, and those are the ones that would be selected for implantation. Gene editing made the process more efficient, but it did not offer hope where there was none, Jennifer Doudna, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California at Berkeley, observed.

In fact, six months ago, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine recommended that scientists involved in germline editing that is, making changes that would be passed down to future generations should limit their work to diseases for which there are no other reasonable treatments. The most recent embryo study began before that recommendation was delivered.

Thats emblematic of the real problem: Public policy and the field of bioethics have not caught up with the science of genetic intervention. Yes, federal money cant be spent on research involving human embryos even when they are still at the stage of a clump of undifferentiated cells. FDA approval would be needed for any actual human therapies, which would be years off.

Still, the technology is advancing more rapidly than societys discussions about human genetic engineering, the specter of eugenics and even the seemingly mundane topics of who will own the patents on customized genes and who will have access to gene editing once it is approved.

The answers arent easy, but the discussions have to take place and decisions need to be made, probably through an international convention that includes governments, researchers, physicians and consumer advocates. Taking the research to the next level should mean experimentation with animals rather than humans. They should then be followed for generations to see whether unexpected health issues arise. Gene editing on humans should be introduced one step at a time, starting with the most disastrous diseases and conditions that cannot be tackled in any other way, then tracked long term to ensure safety.

We all would love to eliminate disabling deformities, painful conditions that shorten lives or genetic mutations that predispose us to various fatal diseases. Although science has a long way to go before such miracles are achieved, research is moving fast. Its paramount that we get human gene editing right rather than just getting it soon.

-

)2017 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

-

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194):

Topics: t000026911,g000065558,g000362661,g000066164

AP-WF-08-04-17 0109GMT

Published Aug. 5, 2017, midnight

More here:

The ethics of creating GMO humans | The Spokesman-Review - The Spokesman-Review

NATO soldiers suppress attempted insider attack in Afghanistan – Reuters

KABUL (Reuters) - Romanian soldiers from the NATO-led Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan killed an Afghan policeman who was trying to carry out an insider attack after a training session in the southern province of Kandahar on Saturday, officials said.

One Romanian was wounded in the attack while an Afghan policeman was wounded in the crossfire, a statement from Resolute Support headquarters in Kabul said.

"The advisers had completed a scheduled law enforcement training and were preparing to return to base when they were attacked by a member of the Afghan National Civil Order Police," the statement said.

Romanian soldiers providing security returned fire and killed the attacker, it said.

The attack, which came as the United States is considering increasing the number of troops it has in Afghanistan, was the latest in a series of so-called "green-on-blue" incidents that have complicated the training and assistance mission.

In June, three American soldiers were killed and seven wounded in two separate incidents, a week apart. In May last year, two members of the Romanian special forces were killed and a third was wounded when a local policeman opened fire on them.

Reporting by James Mackenzie; Editing by Stephen Powell

The rest is here:

NATO soldiers suppress attempted insider attack in Afghanistan - Reuters

HMCS Charlottetown to deploy Tuesday in support of NATO mission – Ottawa Citizen

Published on: August 5, 2017 | Last Updated: August 5, 2017 2:03 PM EDT

File photo of HMCS Charlottetown. DND photo.

A departure ceremony for Her Majestys Canadian Ship (HMCS) Charlottetown will be held Tuesday morning in Halifax. The ship will join Standing NATO Maritime Forces (SNMF) in the North and Mediterranean Seas, according to the Royal Canadian Navy.

The ship`s deployment is in support of the military activities undertaken by Canadian Forces to support NATO reassurance operations for Central and Eastern Europe.

Sign In

Your account has been deactivated.

Sorry, we could not verify that email address.

Your account has been reactivated.

Please confirm your details below.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

Birthdate{* birthdate *}

Gender{* gender *}

Attention Print Newspaper Subscribers For verification of Print Subscriber offers (e.g. epaper, Digital Access, Subscriber Rewards), please input your Print Newspaper subscription phone number and postal code.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Market to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

{* backButton *}

Please confirm your details below. Already have an account? Sign In.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

Birthdate{* birthdate *}

Gender{* gender *}

Attention Print Newspaper Subscribers For verification of Print Subscriber offers (e.g. epaper, Digital Access, Subscriber Rewards), please input your Print Newspaper subscription phone number and postal code.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

{* backButton *}

We have sent you a confirmation email to {* emailAddressData *}. Please check your inbox and follow the instructions to confirm your email address.

We've sent an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

{| existing_displayName |} {| existing_provider_emailAddress |}

Created {| existing_createdDate |} at {| existing_siteName |}

{* backButton *} Sign In

Check your email for a link to verify your email address.

Thank you for verifiying your email address.

Your password has been successfully updated.

We've sent you an email with instructions to create a new password. Your existing password has not been changed.

Read more:

HMCS Charlottetown to deploy Tuesday in support of NATO mission - Ottawa Citizen

Judge: Accused NSA leaker’s lawyers must watch what they say … – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)

The federal judge presiding over the case of accused National Security Agency leaker Reality Winner has come down on prosecutors side in a dispute over rules of evidence, which defense attorneys have said could jeopardize her right to a fair trial.

In a ruling Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Epps said defense attorneys cannot talk about classified information in open court, even if it has already been published in the news media. Epps granted prosecutors motion for a protective order designed to keep an alleged leaker from leaking further, and to force those defending her to tread lightly, lest they leak by accident.

Reality Leigh Winner leaves the Augusta federal courthouse after a bond hearing in June. She is charged with leaking a top-secret record to The Intercept, an online news outlet specializing in national security issues. HYOSUB SHIN / HSHIN@AJC.COM

Epps order says prosecutors only want defense attorneys to comply with the Classified Information Procedures Act, which means being hypervigilant. From his order:

Defendant fears there is great peril lurking

Defendant fears her counsel may, for example, forget information within the governments discovery is classified and inadvertently cite a published article discussing the same information. Defense counsels generalized fears of accidentally mishandling classified information is no reason for the Court to relax otherwise strict and well-settled procedures in cases involving classified information.

According to the protective order, an attorney who violates the terms could be subject to a contempt of court charge or referral for prosecution.

In arguing against the order, Winners defense team said it could prevent her from reviewing evidence in the case, including classified information. That, they said, would amount to a violation of the 25-year-old former Air Force linguists Sixth Amendment right to confer with her attorneys.

But prosecutors countered that she will be given access to the records she is entitled to see. Her attorneys just have to ask the court first.

On that point, the judge directed prosecutors to revisit the issue of whether Winner will be given access to all of the classified evidence in the case, and whether her defense attorneys must disclose the identities of any experts they hire to look at the top-secret evidence.

Winners trial is set for Oct. 23.

Winner, who lived in Augusta and worked for the National Security Agency at Fort Gordon, is accused of mailing a top-secret report to an online news outlet detailing the Russian governments attempts to hack into U.S. elections systems last year. With her arrest in June, she became the first person prosecuted for leaking by the Trump administration.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday that the Justice Department under Trump is now pursuing three times as many leak investigations as it did under Obama, according to a report in The New York Times.

Previous

Under pressure to reconcile racist past, Wesleyan College joins slavery studygroup

See the rest here:

Judge: Accused NSA leaker's lawyers must watch what they say ... - Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)

Posted in NSA

Success Story In Groveton:NSA Industries Poised To Surpass 100 New Jobs – Caledonian Record

GROVETON Its a success story by any measure - one of the areas largest employers establishing a satellite location in a North Country town struggling from the loss of its paper mill a decade ago and the hundreds of jobs lost with it.

kAmx? ~4E@36C a_`e[ }$p x?5FDEC:6D x?4][ E96 AC64:D:@? >249:?:?8 2?5 >6E2= 723C:42E:@? 4@>A2?J 7@F?565 😕 $E] y@9?D3FCJ 😕 `hga[ 2??@F?465 :E H:== 36 D6EE:?8 FA D9@A 2E E96 7@C>6C (2FD2F !2A6C >:== 😕 vC@G6E@?]k^Am

kAm(:E9 E92E 2??@F?46>6?E @7 2 ?6H =@42E:@? 42>6 H92E H2D 6IA64E65 E@ 36 a_ E@ b_ ?6H 9:C6D] xE H2D?E =@?8[ 9@H6G6C[ 367@C6 E96 vC@G6E@?32D65 }$p H@C<7@C46 8C6H E@ >@C6 E92? e_]k^Am

kAm%96 DE@CJ[ E9@F89[ 5@6D?E 6?5 E96C6]k^Am

kAm}$p 😀 ?@H 6>32C<:?8 @? 2? 6IA2?D:@? 2E :ED vC@G6E@? D:E6[ 2?5 H:E9 :E 4@>6D >@C6 ;@3D]k^Am

kAm(6 2C6 AC6EEJ 6I4:E65 23@FE E96 @AA@CEF?:EJ 2E E96 724:=:EJ 2?5 😕 E96 2C62[ }$p rt~ y2>6D |@C@?6J D2:5 E9:D H66<] (6 H6C6 8=25 H6 H6C6 8@:?8 E@ 9:C6 a_ A6@A=6[ 2?5 :ED 6I4:E:?8 E92E `a >@?E9D =2E6C H6== AC@323=J 36 C6249:?8 `__]k^Am

kAmuC@> c E@ f A]>] |@?52J[ 2 ;@3 72:C H:== 36 96=5 2E E96 vC@G6E@? =@42E:@?[ 2?5 E96 :?E6?E E@ 9:C6 d_ A6@A=6]k^Am

kAmpD 2 C6DF=E @7 D2=6D 677@CED[ D6G6C2= >2;@C :E6>D }$p 92D 366? H@C<:?8 @? 7@C E96 A2DE J62C 2C6 4@>:?8 E@ 7CF:E:@?[ 96 D2:5]k^Am

kAm%96 4@>A2?J :?G6DE65 23@FE Sb]d >:==:@? 😕 ?6H 6BF:A>6?E 3C@F89E 7C@> $E] y@9?D3FCJ E@ vC@G6E@? 😕 y2?F2CJ 2?5 |@C@?6J 2?E:4:A2E6D 2?@E96C Sb >:==:@? 😕 ?6H 6BF:A>6?E 7@C vC@G6E@? H:== 36 AFC492D65 H:E9:? E96 ?6IE E9C66 >@?E9D]k^Am

kAm$9:7ED 2C6 2=D@ 86EE:?8 3FDJ]k^Am

kAm(6 2C6 :?4C62D:?8 @FC D64@?5 D9:7E 2?5 A@DD:3=J =@@<:?8 2E 2 E9:C5 D9:7E[ 96 D2:5]k^Am

kAm~?6 4@F=5 D2J E96 4@>A2?J 😀 364@>:?8 2 G:4E:> @7 :ED @H? DF446DD]k^Am

kAm(6 2C6 =@@<:?8 2E E96 A@DD:3:=:EJ @7 ?665:?8 >@C6 DA246[ D2:5 |@C@?6J] (6 92G6 fb[___ DBF2C6 766E[ 3FE AC@323=J h_ 52JD 7C@> ?@H :E H:== 36 ``_ A6C46?E 7F==]k^Am

kAm%96 4@>A2?J 4FCC6?E=J @44FA:6D EH@ 6I:DE:?8 7@C>6C A2A6C >:== 3F:=5:?8D[ @?6 c_[___ DBF2C6 766E 2?5 E96 @E96C bb[___ DBF2C6 766E]k^Am

kAm{@42= 2?5 DE2E6 @77:4:2=D 9@A6 }$p H:== 36 E96 2?49@C E6?2?E E92E H:== 2EEC24E @E96C 4@>A2?:6D E@ E96 >:== D:E6]k^Am

kAm%96 4@>A2?J :?:E:2==J 3682? DEF5J:?8 2? 6IA2?D:@? :?E@ vC@G6E@? 😕 pF8FDE a_`e] xE >256 :ED 564:D:@? D9@CE=J 27E6CH2C5[ 27E6C 2 ;@3 72:C E96 7@==@H:?8 >@?E9 5C6H >@C6 E92? b__ 2C62 C6D:56?ED]k^Am

kAm%96 7@C>6C >:== AC@A6CEJ 😀 @H?65 3J q@3 r92A>2?[ @7 v@C92>[ H9@ 92D DA6?E E96 =2DE D6G6C2= J62CD 56G6=@A:?8 :E 7@C 7FEFC6 E6?2?ED]k^Am

kAm}$p 6?E6C65 :?E@ 2 7:G6J62C =62D6 H:E9 r92A>2?[ H:E9 E96 @AE:@? @7 E9C66 EH@J62C 6IE6?D:@?D]k^Am

kAm(96? (2FD2F !2A6C 4=@D65 😕 =2E6 a__f[ :E AFE 2 E@E2= @7 b_b 2C62 C6D:56?ED @FE @7 H@C<]k^Am

kAmqJ E96 6?5 @7 E96 J62C[ H:E9 E92E >2?J A6@A=6[ 2E =62DE 2 E9:C5 @7 E92E H:== 36 324< H@C<:?8 @? E96 >:== D:E6[ qC6D?292? D2:5 @7 E96 2?E:4:A2E65 }$p ?6H 9:C6D]k^Am

kAm}$p 6>A=@JD 23@FE ab_ A6@A=6 😕 $E] y@9?D3FCJ[ H96C6 :E H2D CF??:?8 FA 282:?DE DA246 4@?DEC2:?ED] {2DE J62C[ :E 3682? D66<:?8 2 =@42E:@? 7@C 6IA2?D:@?]k^Am

kAmv@:?8 7@CH2C5[ E96 4@>A2?J H:== 36 DEC:<:?8 2 32=2?46 :? vC@G6E@?[ @?6 E92E DE2CED H:E9 86?6C2E:?8 D2=6D]k^Am

kAm}$p H:== 2=D@ =@@< 2E E96 2G2:=23=6 =23@C A@@= :? E96 vC@G6E@? 2C62 2?5 9@H E92E 724E@CD :?E@ 2?J A@E6?E:2= 7FEFC6 6IA2?D:@?D :? E96 E@H?]k^Am

kAmxED 23@FE D2=6D 2?5 H96C6 H6 42? 86E E96 H@C<6CD[ D2:5 |@C@?6J]k^Am

kAm&?:BF6 7@C E96 2C62[ E96 H286D @7 }$p ;@3D[ H9:49 😕 vC@G6E@? :?4=F56 H6=56CD >249:?:DED[ >2E6C:2= 92?5=6CD[ =2D6C AF?49 @A6C2E@CD[ 2?5 D9:AA:?8 4=6C:?:>F> H286 2?5 E96 >65:2? D2=2CJ 7@C E96 r@@D r@F?EJ 2C62]k^Am

kAm(6 =:<6 E@ E9:?< E96C6 :D 8C@HE9 @AA@CEF?:EJ 7@C 2== E96 A6@A=6 96C6[ D2:5 |@C@?6J]k^Am

kAm}$pD 6IA2?D:@? 2=D@ 4@:?4:56D H:E9 E96 C646?E AFC492D6 3J |~|$ }@CE9 r@F?ECJ 2 A@H6CDA@CED 4@>A2?J E92E @A6?65 FA 2 {2?42DE6C =@42E:@? 62C=:6C E9:D J62C E@ D6== !@=2C:D D?@H>@3:=6D 2?5 ~w#'D[ AC6@H?65 >@E@C4J4=6D[ A@H6CDA@CED 2AA2C6= 2?5 2446DD@C:6D[ 492:?D2HD 2?5 @FE5@@C A@H6C E@@=D[ 2?5 7:C62C>D 2?5 2>>F?:E:@? @7 E96 7@C>6C t>6CD@? ~FE5@@C ~FE7:EE6CD 3F:=5:?8 😕 vC@G6E@? E92E 92D 366? G242?E 7@C 23@FE 92=7 2 564256]k^Am

kAm%9:D 😀 2 3:8 EFC?2C@F?5 7@C E96 E@H?[ D2:5 qC6D?292?] (6 92G6 4@>A2?:6D A2J:?8 E2I6D E@ E96 E@H? 2?5 255:?8 ?6H =:76 E@ E96 4@>>F?:EJ]k^Am

Excerpt from:

Success Story In Groveton:NSA Industries Poised To Surpass 100 New Jobs - Caledonian Record

Posted in NSA

Why Robert Mueller’s Grand Jury Isn’t Really a Big Deal – Fortune

Special counsel Robert Mueller (L) arrives at the U.S. Capitol for closed meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong Getty Images

Washington is all abuzz that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has empaneled a grand jury in furtherance of his investigation into whether or not Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. In spite of the inevitable speculation this creates, its worth remembering that a grand jury is a powerful investigative tool, but not a criminal charge. So what is the significance of a grand jury convening?

A grand jury has the power to subpoena both witnesses and documents, such as bank records and phone records. Refusal to comply with a subpoena, which has the force of a court order, without a legal basis creates the risk of the subpoena recipient being held in contempt of court and subject to criminal or civil penalties.

Legal privileges, such as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, are a basis for a witness to refuse to testify. The only way to get around a legally applicable privilege would be to seek an order of immunity, which would protect the witness from criminal exposure and therefore render the Fifth Amendment inapplicable. Perhaps the most famous immunized witness in past independent counsel investigations is Monica Lewinsky; its easy to forget that former national security advisor Michael Flynns lawyer offered his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee if he received immunity, where anything said could not be used against him in a criminal proceeding. The Committee, perhaps anticipating a prosecutors eventual interest in Flynn, declined.

Moreover, certain evidence, such asyes, Mr. Presidenttax returns, are considered more private than others, and cannot be obtained via subpoena. Rather, Mueller would need to seek an order from a judge to obtain Trumps tax returns, a wiretap, or a pen register, for instance.

Unlike Congressional hearings, in which sworn testimony is public, grand jury investigations are secret by law. This secrecy rule is demonstrated by the fact that Muellers grand jury has apparently been working for several weeks, but was only reported in the media yesterday. Prosecutors, law enforcement, and grand jury members themselves are barred from discussing grand jury proceedings. The reasons for this are twofold: First, publicity can cripple an ongoing covert investigation; second, grand jury investigations are secret to protect subjects of an investigation who may or may not ultimately be charged.

Grand jury witnesses, however, are not subject to the secrecy rules. So any legal reports from the grand jury room will come from the witnesses.

Grand juries, like Congress, can issue subpoenas. Unlike Congress, they can vote to criminally indict the subjects of their investigations. The purpose of empaneling a grand jury is to gather and assess the weight of the evidence. It does not mean that there exists enough evidence to amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for a conviction, or probable cause, which is the standard the grand jury must find in order to vote to indict. Given the grand jury secrecy rules described above, there is no way for the public to know with certainty how much evidence Mueller has amassed, or its value in a criminal case. So the smart money wont bet on criminal charges by the mere fact of empanelment alone.

In summary, empaneling a grand jury is consistent with Muellers reputation as a lawyer and investigator: a meticulous and thorough officer of the court who is committed to accuracy and the rule of law. But the grand jurys existence doesnt amount to a criminal charge, and it definitely doesnt equate a criminal conviction. As were whipsawed by Washington, its worth taking a page from Muellers book, and following the evidence where it leads.

Juliet S. Sorensen is a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. She is the co-author of Public Corruption and the Law: Cases and Materials (West Academic 2017).

See the original post here:

Why Robert Mueller's Grand Jury Isn't Really a Big Deal - Fortune

Smart guns and SAGA. The Second Amendment fight drags on – Hot Air

A couple of Second Amendment stories to get your weekend started. The first has to do with the apparently endless debate over so-called smart guns and the efforts by #2A opponents to mandate the clunky and still basically experimental technology on the entire country. There was an event in Washington, D.C. this week where a group of gun control enthusiasts enlisted the aid of sympathetic law enforcement officers to push for the use of such technology by the nations police departments. It was organized by Washington CeaseFire and they were pushing the idea that smart guns which recognize the fingerprints of the cops who use them wouldnt be stolen and put to use by the bad guys. Meanwhile, they would work just fine when the police officers need them.

As Dan Spencer at RedState was quick to point out, this may sound nice in theory, but it simply doesnt work that way in the real world.

Smart guns can be hacked. In fact, just last week, a hacker rendered the technology in a leading German-manufactured smart gun completely useless. He could extend the firing range beyond the allowed distance, jam the gun from firing in the hands of its user or even disable the smart mechanism completely to fire it himself

For the IP1, the smart gun offers its owner nothing more than the appearance of security. Yet, the German manufacturers marketing claimed that the gun would usher in a new era of gun safety.

If theres one thing that law enforcement needs in the field, its reliability. Unfortunately, smart gun technology doesnt offer that. Until it does, we cannot even consider it, regardless of the stats or stunts that activists push.

The hacking question is certainly a valid one (and it remains a growing concern in all aspects of IT far beyond firearms) but its hardly the only issue. Plenty of experts have reviewed most of these guns before and found other, more fundamental problems. The time it takes for the weapon to initialize so that it recognizes the owner can be far too long. And a delay in being able to deploy your firearm in a critical law enforcement situation can add up to some dead cops pretty quickly. Also, some models have inherent flaws which allow the safety features to be disabled by someone with very little in the way of expertise. In short, this technology remains far from being ready for prime time. Its bad enough that some legislators want to mandate it for private use, but forcing this on law enforcement is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Not all of the #2A news is bad, however. The National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reports that New York Congressman Chris Collins has introduced new legislation which would standardize gun control laws across the country for popular rifles and shotguns, including specific parts for such firearms. Named the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), the bill will be of particular interest to owners of so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Its a fine idea in theory, but given the Supreme Courts stubborn reluctance to say much of anything about the inherent nature of Second Amendment rights since Heller, its tough to predict how they might react. The entire states rights issue inevitably gets dragged into the question, despite the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to universal. The court has similarly been vague at best when it comes to questions of modifications to firearms such as larger capacity magazines, suppressors and adjustable stocks.

Still, Ill join with the NRA in thanking Congressman Collins and his co-sponsors for at least making the effort. The Senate Democrats will probably doom it to failure before it gets off the ground, but if nothing else it might bring the argument back to the forefront for voters as we approach the midterms.

See more here:

Smart guns and SAGA. The Second Amendment fight drags on - Hot Air

What happens when a Texas 2nd Amendment woman meets New York City? – SOFREP (press release) (subscription)

Ive noticed something about being in the gun industry. Everyone has a story, and more often than not they are more than willing to share it with you. Well I would like you to meet Antonia Okafor and her story. Antonia is a black woman who is often criticized and belittled because of her beliefs. Mainly because she is a major advocate for the Second Amendment. She is the founder of emPOWERed, which is an organization aimed at bringing campus carry to colleges around the country. As a woman who went to college and also as a woman who has had her own experiences where I realized how important self-defense was, I could totally get behind this.

Recently Antonia wrote an article for the illustrious New York Times about why she carries a gun to school. Me being the common sense, gun loving, Second Amendment advocate that I am LOVED it. Even more so that it was attached to something that was near and dear to my heart, New York.

I thought this was awesome, living in New York City, its not often you see a pro 2A article in any newspaper from here. After reading the article I did something I normally do after reading an article, I read the comments.

What I saw in those comments honestly disturbed me on so many different levels. The comments that I read were from mostly men telling her that she shouldnt be able to keep her guns, telling her shes not strong enough and that she would be overpowered anyway and shot with her own firearm so dont even try.

Praying they werent in the same parking lot as her in fear she would accidentally shoot them because of her emotional instability. Men who were envisioning her attack and telling her to be more realistic about her protection choices. Well guess what, THIS IS REALISTIC. This is the reality for so many women.

I consider myself an old age feminist, where I believe I can do anything a man can do. Which includes taking her own self-defense into her own hands. I think what bothered me most about those comments were theyre written by the very people who claim to praise women and respect their choices. But because a WOMAN wants to exercise her Constitutional right that they dont agree with, now shes suddenly weak, uneducated, nave, and even mentally ill.

The women fighting for our Second Amendment right have a much larger fight than we all may realize. Were fighting to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States and were also fighting for our rights as women. Its a disgrace that an educated, respected woman is accused of being a pawn for the NRA and being told to depend on college escort programs, which essentially means relinquishing your ability to defend yourself to some college campus peace officer, which is also probably a male. No thanks. Ill continue exercising my rights how I see fit, which includes the first AND second Amendments.

Antonia, like so many other women in the gun industry are often criticized, ridiculed and belittled often by people who scream womens rights. If theres one thing I have to say to ANYONE who claims they are a feminist or a womans right activist is this; If you want the government to stay out of my body, then dont tell me how to defend my body.

http://www.antoniaokafor.com/empowered

This article is courtesy of The Loadout Room.

We thought this story would be interesting for you, for full access to premium original stories written by our all veteran journalists subscribe here.

If you liked this article, tell someone about it

Originally posted here:

What happens when a Texas 2nd Amendment woman meets New York City? - SOFREP (press release) (subscription)

US Senate Candidate Pulls Out Gun at GOP Meeting to Prove He Is Pro-Second Amendment – Breitbart News

Roll Call reports that Moore was at the club on Thursday responding to a constituents question as to whether he supported the Second Amendment. Moore responded by saying, We carry, and pulling a handgun out of his wifes purse.

UNITED STATES AUGUST 3: GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Roy Moore returns his wifes hand gun to her after displaying it as a way to show support for the 2nd amendment after candidates were asked about their views on gun rights during a candidates forum in Valley, Ala., on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017. The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is running tin the special election to fill the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The gun was a snub-nose revolver that appeared to be made of lightweight materials for concealed carry.

Moore then handed the gun back to his wife so she could tuck it back into her purse. He later said, I will uphold the SecondAmendment.

The 70-year-old Moore is a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice. He is vying for a Senate seat currently held by Republican Luther Strange. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is trying to win Stranges seat as well, which makes the primary election extremely important.

All three men claim to be pro-Second Amendment and Rep. Brooks has released a number of ads focused on his pro-gun stance.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post here:

US Senate Candidate Pulls Out Gun at GOP Meeting to Prove He Is Pro-Second Amendment - Breitbart News

EDITORIAL: First Amendment 2.0 | LoudounTimes.com – Loudoun Times-Mirror

Be careful before you invite Brian Davison to become a Facebook friend. You shouldnt expect warm and fuzzy posts from a tenacious rabble-rouser who wages personal campaigns for free speech, accountability and freedom of information.

Over the last two years, Davison has filed three separate civil rights lawsuits against the Loudoun Board of Supervisors and Chairwoman Phyllis Randall (D), Commonwealths Attorney Jim Plowman (R) and the Loudoun County School Board. They have at times blocked him from their Facebook pages, deleted critical comments he posted and attempted to ostracize him. One needs only to read Davisons online comments to understand why he gets under their skin.

Davison has sought public access to the school systems student growth percentile (SGP) scores. Hes accused Plowmans office of refusing to investigate perjury by school officials. Hes offended Randall with comments about corruption, lack of accountability and conflicts of interest that extend to the families of public officials, some of whom work for county government or the school system. And, yes, Davison pokes at the Times-Mirror for what he sees as a failure to report rigorously on alleged corruption and conflicts by elected officials.

To his supporters, many of whom are members of the anything-goes club of anonymous online commenting, Davison is a valiant campaigner for truth. To his critics, hes a self-righteous insulter. Before last week, few would have characterized him as a patriot. Now hes mentioned in the same sentence with James Madison, the Virginian who wrote the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

The Times-Mirror has consistently campaigned for open government and freedom of information in a county that frequently conducts business behind closed doors and uses Virginias Freedom of Information Act to block disclosure of information rather than provide access to it. Were also wary of anonymous, online comments that can distort stories with bias, prejudice, insults and inaccuracies. We acknowledge that were not always comfortable with the tone of anonymous discussion on LoudounTimes.com, but we regard it as important forum for readers to express their views on stories and discuss them with fellow citizens. When we err, we're more comfortable erring on the side of freedom of expression rather than censorship.

These are uncomfortable times. First Amendment lawsuits now raise the legal argument in which Twitter users claim their constitutional rights have been violated because President Donald Trump the commander-in-tweet blocks them from his personal Twitter handle. The argument about social media rights rages in a day and age when politicians, from the president on down, are using their private accounts to discuss public affairs or socialize their positions with constituents.

Davisons cases may provide a legal precedent. A federal judge ruled Chairwoman Randall violated Davison's First Amendment rights because she briefly banned him from her personal Facebook account.

"The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," U.S. District Judge James Cacheris wrote in the ruling on Davisons suit.

The judge didn't issue punishment against Randall since her Facebook ban only lasted about 10 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."

Somehow that decision was interpreted by the county as a victory for the countys elected officials. The status of social media is a novel question in the law, huffed County Attorney Leo P. Rogers as if Facebook was a passing fad.

Meantime, Randall insists shes a defender of the First Amendment and cites legal confusion. In earnest calls to the Times-Mirror she defended her takedown of Davison as an appropriate response to offensive comments pertaining to family members of public officials. Later, in reaction to the ruling in the School Board case, she acknowledged confusion:

while I blocked the plaintiff overnight for approximately eight hours because he made inappropriate comments, not about the elected official but about the members of their families, and another court finds a First Amendment infraction. It just doesnt make sense to me.

It all makes perfect sense to Davison, who argues that Loudouns elected leaders will go to any lengths -- and at any cost -- to defend arcane rules that enable them to govern behind closed doors, provide cover for conflicts of interest and shut down dissent.

Despite our distaste for bad behavior, online or off, we are inclined to agree.

There is a simple resolution to confusion over public participation in government: Open access to all meetings and information that impacts the welfare of citizens and provides accountability for public decisions.

True leaders have nothing to hide. They lead us out of the dark and into the sun even if it occasionally causes sunburn. Whether in Madisons time or Davisons or Davison's children's, open government, free speech and the First Amendment must stand as the foundations of American democracy and represent the values of our American experience.

You may not like Brian Davison or the democratizing platform of social media that he uses, but how one feels about either is wholly irrelevant. Our leaders should not worry about whether Davison is a pain. They should consider whether he is right.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [emailprotected].

Originally posted here:

EDITORIAL: First Amendment 2.0 | LoudounTimes.com - Loudoun Times-Mirror

No Free Speech for You – Slate Magazine

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen during a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 10.

Eric Thayer/Getty Images

Last year, a police officer in New Mexico arrested an acquaintance of his own supervisor and reported another officers misconduct. In 2014, a city plumber and rental housing inspector in Illinois complained about his citys failure to enforce codes and a lack of accessibility for those with disabilities. In 2009, a port authority officer for New York and New Jersey reported that a tunnel and bridge agent interfered with her police activities and harmed public safety.

Ostensibly all three of these public employees are whistleblowers, who sought to rectify misconduct, code violations, or safety issues. Still, they all suffered the same fatethey were dismissed from their jobs. These employees faced retaliation for their salutary speech and efforts to improve the public good and, if their allegations are believed, should have had valid First Amendment free speech arguments to challenge their dismissals. But, the bleak reality of modern American law is that such employees often have no valid free speech claim at all. As such, these three employees lost their respective cases before the 3rd, 7th, and 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in recent decisions, one as recently as July.

They lost their retaliation claims under the First Amendment, because of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in years. That case is Garcetti v. Ceballos. Its been on the books for more than a decade, wreaking havoc on employees and bastardizing free speech jurisprudence. Those representing employees who have suffered because of the Supreme Court decision have labeled such lower court rulings as being Garcettized.

Garcetti has effectively applauded official oppression, trimmed truth in the public workplace, and done so without moral or workplace-efficiency justification, longtime Texas-based civil rights attorney Larry Watts told me. Garcetti is the greatest, judicial enemy of clean government I have seen in my 50 years at the Bar.

In Garcetti, the Supreme Court created a categorical rule: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. Stated more simply, when public employees engage in official, job-duty speech, they are not speaking as citizens but public employees and have no free-speech rights at all. None. Zero.

For decades, the Supreme Court had a workable standard in such free speech cases.

The case involved an assistant district attorney named Richard Ceballos, who learned of perjured law enforcement statements in a search warrant affidavit. He wrote a memo to his superiors recommending dismissal of the criminal charges. Instead, he suffered a demotion and a transfer to a less desirable work location.

The case was argued twice before the Supreme Courtonce when Justice Sandra Day OConnor was still on the court and once after she had been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. The court ruled 54 against Ceballos, splitting along conservative-liberal lines. The more conservative jurists sided with the district attorney while the four more liberal jurists voted for the employee.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often writes passionately about the importance of freedom of speech and thought, authored the majority opinion in Garcetti. It is the black mark of his First Amendment record, a scarlet letter that he should attempt to finally shed.

For decades, the Supreme Court had a workable standard in such free speech cases. Under that framework, the court asked whether a public employee spoke on a matter of public concern or importance, something of larger interest to the community. In other words, was the employees speech on a matter of public concern or merely a private grievance?

If the speech was merely a private grievance, there was no First Amendment claim. But, if the speech touched on a matter of public concernsuch as speech about racism in the workforce, unsanitary conditions in a school, or brutality against inmatesthen courts had to balance the employees right to free speech against the employers efficiency interests in a disruption-free workforce.

This two-part framework was known as the Pickering-Connick test after two earlier Supreme Court decisions, the 1968 case Pickering v. Board of Education and the 1983 case Connick v. Myers.

But, decades later the Supreme Court imposed the categorical bar in Garcetti, denying any protection if an employee engages in job-duty speech or speaks as an employee instead of as a citizen.

To appreciate the impact of Garcetti, consider the plight of a public school teacher who might be disciplined for classroom speech. Perhaps the teacher speaks about a controversial political matter, offers a different lesson plan, or uses the N-word in an unplanned lecture to students about not using racial slurs.

Lincoln Brown, a sixth-grader teacher in Chicago, learned the power of Garcetti the hard way when the 7th Circuit ruled he had no First Amendment claim for using the N-word in a well-intentioned lecture against such slurs. Brown gave his impromptu [lecture] on racial epithets in the course of his regular grammar lesson to his sixth grade class, wrote the 7th Circuit in Brown v. Chicago Board of Education. His speech was therefore pursuant to his official duties.

Translation: Lincoln Brown, like so many other public school teachers, had zero free-speech protection for speech in the classroom because of Garcetti.

Its not just teachers who have lost their free speech rights from the overly broad, categorical rule of Garcetti. Police officers have faced its wrath arguably more than any other group while firefighters and university-level employees have also had to suffer retaliation without recourse due to the ruling.

There have been a few glimmers of hope in recent years. In the 2014 case Lane v. Franks, the Supreme Court refused to apply Garcetti against a university employee who was terminated after providing truthful testimony in a court case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her opinion, emphasized the importance of employee speech for the public. Citizens, including public employees, are supposed to testify truthfully in court after all.

Furthermore, two federal circuit courtsthe 4th and the 9thhave ruled that Garcetti doesnt apply to professor speech, because of the additional protection of academic freedom. But, that is only two circuits. As I explained in April testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice: Garcetti threatens the speech of college and university employees. Only two circuit courts of appeals have explicitly rejected Garcetti as applied to university professors.

Some lower courts will work around Garcetti, finding that it wasnt part of an employees joband thus not a part of his public roleto set policy or to criticize certain departmental practices. For example, the 2nd Circuit Court reinstated a police officers First Amendment lawsuit in the 2015 case Matthews v. City of New York, finding that the officer spoke more as a citizen when he criticized his departments arrest quota policy.

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

But, these are the exceptions.

Top Comment

So let me get this straight. More...

It has been more than a decade since the Supreme Court dramatically reduced the level of free speech protection for public employees. Various statutory protections are not sufficient to guard against this type of retaliation against whistleblowers. The Constitution is the highest level of law and the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights should not be empty language when applied to public employees. The First Amendment must protect those public servants who have the courage to speak out against corruption, inefficiency, waste, and other problems.

Its time for the court to reconsider one of its biggest mistakes of recent years. In fact, its long overdue.

Read the original here:

No Free Speech for You - Slate Magazine