Republicans’ campus gag rule means free speech for me, not for thee – Wisconsin Gazette

State Representative Terese Berceau, D Madison, is the ranking Democratic member of the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities. She issued the following statement regarding the Assembly's passage of AB 299, the legislation to gag campus protestors:

I find the claims by some of my Republican colleagues that they are the vaunted defenders of free speech and the First Amendment laughable given the way they do business in the Capitol.

Theyve gone on fishing expeditions with professors emails.

They place arbitrary limits on the amount of time we can debate bills on the floor.

Theyve so restricted expression in our galleries that people cannot even sit silently with small signs taped to their shirts.

They routinely end public hearings while people are still waiting to testify. They hold floor votes on bills that have never had committee hearings.

They tried to gut the open records law in their last budget.

Now Republicans want to abrogate the UWs existing free speech policy entirely in favor of a big-government, legislatively-mandated, ill-defined gag rule.

Students could be accused of violating free speech rights and hauled before an Orwellian, kangaroo court based on allegations from any two people, who dont even have to be students.

Multiple offenses result in mandatory suspension or expulsion a draconian penalty that isnt currently imposed for any other violation, not even harassment, stalking or rape.

In McCarthyite fashion, the authors spoke of intimidation on campuses, but offered only anonymous, anecdotal evidence. They pointed to unruly protests at other universities, but dont have any substantive examples from Wisconsin.

The only case here they could cite was a speech by Ben Shapiro that was interrupted for about 5-7 minutes. Mr. Shapiro was then able to continue and gave his remarks in their entirety. UWMadison decided that disruption didnt constitute a sanctionable offense. But some paternalistic members of the Republican caucus seem to think they know better than the university what discipline students deserve.

But even this bill isnt extreme enough for some of my colleagues. One of the authors said students who organize protests should be punished. Not disruptive protests. Not violent protests. Apparently ANY kind of protest whatsoever. I think that speaks volumes about his true feelings regarding protecting the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. This is Big Brother at its worst.

Are conservative speakers so fragile they need a cocoon of protection, where their ideas are never subject to criticism or protest, where they dont have to face how unpopular some of their beliefs might be with a wider audience, or how unsupported they are by the facts? With AB 299, Republicans now want to disrupt campuses and divide students the same way theyve successfully polarized our communities and our country.

See more here:

Republicans' campus gag rule means free speech for me, not for thee - Wisconsin Gazette

Atheism, Women’s Rights, and Human Rights with Marie Alena Castle Q&A Session 2 – The Good Men Project (blog)

Marie Alena Castle is the communications director for Atheists for Human Rights. Raised Roman Catholic she became an atheist later in life. She has since been an important figure within the atheistmovement through her involvement with Minnesota Atheists,The Moral Atheist,National Organization of Women, andwroteCulture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom(2013). She has a lifetime of knowledge and activist experience, explored and crystallised in an educational series.

Following is the second half of an interview of Ms. Castle by Scott Douglas Jacobsen. The first part of this interview can be found here Session 1

.

Jacobsen: With your four decades of experience in activism for atheism, human rights, and womens rights, you earlier described the victory for womens right to vote and pursue careers and for reproductive rights. Who has formed the main resistance to the massive pro-life lobby from Catholic and other Christian religious groups?

Alena Castle:Groups such as NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood have been the most publicly visible opponents of the Catholic/Protestant fundamentalist assaults on reproductive health care. However, the most effective has been the political organising within the Democratic party. I was extensively involved in getting the Democratic party platform to support abortion rights and in getting pro-choice candidates endorsed and elected. Having a major political party oppose the Republican partys misogynistic position was key to holding the line against them.

Jacobsen: In the current battleground over abortion, reproductive health and rights,modern attacks on Margaret Sangers characterhave been launched to indirectly take down abortion activists and clinics, and argueagainst such rights for women. What can best protect abortion access and Sangers legacy and work?

Alena Castle:The attacks on Sanger amount to alternative facts and seriously distorted history. Womens rights leaders of the past, including Sanger as well as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are sometimes quoted in opposition to abortion but their concern was that so many women died from abortions that were either self-induced or done by incompetent quacks or because of the inadequate medical knowledge of the time.

Sanger has been accused of favouring eugenics (birth control to prevent the birth of genetically defective babies). These viewshave been deliberately misconstruedregarding their intent when in fact they were intended to save womens lives and help ensure a better life for the babies they gave birth to. Today the anti-abortionists arestill making upfake horror stories about foetal development and abortion and its effect on women that are outright lies. Nothing will stop this dishonest distortion of history and the absurd lies but more should be done to assert, often and vigorously, the actual medical facts about abortion and the moral rightness and integrity of Sangers and other feminists views and of the women who have abortions.

Jacobsen: What would you say has been most effective as a preventive mechanism against the encroachment on the rights of women from the hyper-religious Right, or the religious Right?

Alena Castle:Political activism! That is the only thing that will work. We need to focus on putting a majority of elected officials in office at all levels who support womens rights and the rights of the nonreligious. You cant make changes by just talking about them it takes laws and their enforcement. Only politicians make laws not NARAL or NOW or atheist organisations or people who march in the streets.

Jacobsen: As an atheist and feminist, what have been the most educational experiences in your personal or professional life as to the objectives of the anti-atheist and anti-feminist movements in North America and, indeed, across the world?

Alena Castle:I have personally experienced the effect of the religious rights political agendaon my life and on the lives of others. The first funeral I went to was when I was 10 years old. Our lovely 22-year-old neighbour had died of a botched illegal abortion. (At the time, such deaths were listed as obstruction of the bowels to save the familys embarrassment and I only learned several years later what the true cause was). And then there were the funerals of good friends who were gay and died of AIDS while the religious right did everything to hinder medical research for treatment. And almost worse was seeing the total lack of compassion by advocates for that agenda for the harm it causes. Example:

I had a discussion with a very nice, polite woman about a news report of how an 11-year-old girl, somewhat retarded, had been raped by her father, was pregnant, begged for an abortion, and was denied by a court order. Soon after she had the baby, she was back in court on a charge of being an unfit mother. I asked this nice woman if she thought that girl should have been allowed to have an abortion. She said no, that forcing her to continue the pregnancy was the right and moral thing to do. Her religious beliefs had hardened her heart and I told her so.

How do we talk to people with such a warped sense of morality? This woman also believed in personhood from the moment of conception. At that moment, her person is a microscopic fertilised egg undifferentiated at the cellular level, and no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. The anti-abortion people put up billboards with a picture of a year-old real baby and a statement that the babys heartbeat is detected at a foetal age of a few weeks. They dont explain that it is then a two-chambered heart at the lizard level of development. (The adorable always white baby on the billboard has the fully developed four-chambered heart). Abortion never kills a baby; it just keeps one from forming. The religious right thinks preserving that development outweighs any harm it is causing the women. We have the words of the Pope and the Protestant reformers to thank for this inhumanity. Martin Luthers associate, Philip Melancthon said, If a woman weary of bearing children, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it. Pope Pius XI said, However we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperilled by the performance of her natural duty, there yet remains no sufficient reason for condoning the direct murder of the innocent.

There is no baby, biologically speaking until the beginning of the third trimester the rhetoric about innocence skips that convenient fact. After that, its a medical emergency affecting the woman, the fetus or both, that requires removal of the fetus. If these anti-abortion hard-hearts have a problem with this, they should go ahead and die from bearing if they find themselves in such a situation, but leave the rest of us alone.

Thank you for your time, Ms. Alena Castle! Your words and experiences are of even greater relevance at this time withwomens lives under attackagain.

This post was originally published at conatusnews.com and is republished here with permission from the author.

Do you want to be part of creating a kinder, more inclusive society?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In: Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. He works as an Associate Editor for Conatus News, Board Member and Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Executive Administrator for Trusted Clothes, and Councillor at the Athabasca University Students Union. He contributes to the Basic Income Earth Network, The Beam, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Check Your Head, Conatus News, Humanist Voices, The Voice Magazine, and Trusted Clothes. If you want to contact Scott: [emailprotected]; website: http://www.in-sightjournal.com; article publciation: http://www.conatusnews.com; Twitter: https://twitter.com/InSight_Journal.

Read the original here:

Atheism, Women's Rights, and Human Rights with Marie Alena Castle Q&A Session 2 - The Good Men Project (blog)

Islamic parties intimidate, fear atheists in Iraq – Al-Monitor – Al-Monitor

Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Iraqi National Alliance party, speaks during a news conference with Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani in Baghdad, Iraq, Sept. 29, 2016.(photo byREUTERS/Khalid al Mousily)

Author:Ali Mamouri Posted June 22, 2017

NAJAF, Iraq Iraq's Islamicmovements and political parties have intensified their rhetoric in recent weeks against atheism,warning Iraqisabout its spread and the need to confront atheists. Suchmovements and parties worry that public sentiment is turning against Islamicparties in politics and that this could be reflected in upcoming elections, scheduled for the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018.

TranslatorSahar Ghoussoub

In alecture this month in Baghdad, Ammar al-Hakimhead of the mostly Shiite Iraqi National Alliance party, whichholds the overwhelming political majority in parliament and governmentwarned against the prevalence of atheism.

Some people resent Iraqi societys adherence to religious principles and its connection to God Almighty, hesaid. Hakimcalled for confronting these extraneous atheistic ideas with good thinking and with an iron fist against the supporters of such ideasby exposing the methods they use in disseminating their ideas.

Hakims message is contrary to the Iraqi Constitution, which guarantees freedom of belief and expression and criminalizes incitement against others and against compelling others to adopt or reject a specific faith.

During Ramadan,religious lectures in Shiite cities in Iraq's center and south the main base of the Islamic parties attackedthe spread of secular and atheistic ideas, which are viewed as threats to Iraqi society.

Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikihas extensive influence among the politically ambitiouspro-Iranian factions within the Popular Mobilization Unitsmilitary organization. Hewarned May 30 of a supposeddangerous conspiracy by secular and nonreligious movementsto take power from Islamic parties and gain control for themselves.

Atheism in Arab culture, as described by contemporary Egyptian philosopher Abdel Rahman Badawiin his book, The History of Atheism, covers a vast range of ideas and behaviors. To Badawi, atheism includes agnostics, emerging secular movementsthatrejectthe political role of religion, andthose who criticize various aspects of religion.Secularism and atheism are thus often intertwined in the discourse of political Islam through the use of terms such assecular atheist trends and ideas.These ideas inspire fear in manypolitically-oriented Islamic movements.

According to Sayyid Qutb, a founderof political Islamwho is widely studied by Islamists in Iraq, separating religion frompolitical rule is tantamount to infidelity to Godanddenying divine governance.

DefunctKurdish news agencyAKnews conducted a nonscientificpoll in 2011about faith. When asked if they believed in God,67% of respondentsansweredyes;21%, probably yes;4%, probably no;7%, no;and 1% had no answer.

In a country that has not seen a national census for three decades, it's not possible to provide official numbers for members of different faiths and beliefs. It isespecially difficult to know the size ofthose communities thatholdtaboo beliefsin a conservative society such as Iraq, which views these outsiders with disdain and wherethey are threatened by military groups andpoliticalleaders, some of whom demand theybe beaten "with an iron fist." Much of what information can be gleaned comes inanecdotal form. Since 2014, after the Islamic State swept through Iraqi territory, many reportsfrom various quarters have observed that more people are skeptical ofIslamic beliefs and are rejecting Islam altogether,influenced by the negative image of Islam portrayed by extremist groups.

A prominent book storein Baghdad has seen more young people buying books on atheism fromprominent nonbelievers such as Saudi writer Abdullah al-Qasemiand British philosopher Richard Dawkins.Even in a holy city like Najaf and within the Shiite religious establishments, Al-Monitor spoke to several religious students who not only have begun to question the fundamental beliefs of Islam, but the basic principles of religionin general. They would be ostracized by society in a heartbeat if they expressed their views freely.

Human rights activist, writer and satirist Faisal Saeed al-Mutartold Al-Monitor that atheists in Iraq face very difficult circumstances under a government with a majority of Islamic parties and with the dominance of Islamic militias over society.

Faisal, who followsIraqi atheists'activities on social media, said, I clearly see that the numbers of atheists is rising in different areas in Iraq. Faisal recently founded the Ideas Beyond Bordersorganization, which defendsIraqi atheists and helpsthem organize and claim their rights.

Many atheists have been forced to flee Iraq because of harassmentand threats.Jamal al-Bahadly, an atheist who is vocal about his views on social networking sites, said he received death threats from Shiite militias in Baghdad, forcing him to leave the country in 2015. He emigrated to Germany.

As an atheist, I was deprived of the most basic civil rights in Iraq. I feel that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not include me and my fellow atheists in Iraq,"Bahadly told Al-Monitor.Iraq voted in favor of the declaration in 1948 at the United Nations General Assembly.

Leaders of Islamic movements repeatedly say they've seen a rise in the number of atheists in Iraq. Their statements of concernfuel even more concern amongthe ruling Islamic parties, who feara decline in their political power.

Read More: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/iraq-atheism-political-islam-human-rights.html

Read more from the original source:

Islamic parties intimidate, fear atheists in Iraq - Al-Monitor - Al-Monitor

Don’t Get Cocky, Kid – Patheos (blog)

I want this. Wikimedia Image.

Star Wars had me at the moment Luke Skywalker blew up some fighters and the response of Han Solo was Dont get cocky, kid. This was a perfect line because by that time, I was Luke Skywalker, whirling around shooting fighters with him, and rejoicing in his/our skills.

This is the power of great movie making! When Han (Harrison You Will Soon Be My Summer Movie Hero Ford) took young Luke down, he was reminding me of something: I had not done much. I was fourteen that year and not quite too old for toys if they were viewed as collectibles. Safe to say, I was no hero and had accomplished nothing. Going to school and doing fairly well was in my own interest and was less an accomplishment for me than for my school and for my parents.

I needed to hear dont get cocky, kid, since blowing up fighters vicariously was no accomplishment what so ever.

This advice has served me well whenever I get excited about something I have done. First, that something I have done is always a team effort or partly the result of the good things that my family, community, and nation have done for me. Second, success is easy to exaggerate: there are many bad fighters to shoot down in life. Winning is not forever.

The other get a clue is howlittle most of what I do matters in the big picture. The fate of the galaxy does not depend on my mad skills, not even a bit. It is good to rejoice, and any excuse for a party, but winning a debate online is not a sign of Big Things.

Dont get cocky, oldster me!

This advice comes to mind as I look at the secular or non-religious community just now. The community is in a civil war between old-school atheists and more post-modern types. Like the Bolsheviks who took the name majority, old school atheists (mostly white, male, into scientism) took the title new atheists. They are my age! Real new atheists are more post-modern than scientistic and dislike the conference atheism of the 1990s almost as much (though not quite) as they dislike theists. Yet when dealing online with old atheists, one is struck by an odd triumphalism.

Small growth in the US (NONES!) (papering over global decline) has apparently gone to their heads. Those of us who have lived through the Christianity in America is doomed media narrative at least three times are not so concerned. Of course, fear sells so those interested in selling have latched on to the NONES phenomena almost as much as old/new atheism! Still for a movement that mostly sells books to itself, has little academic standing (even in a secularized academy!), pop atheism is oddly triumphant.

Recently, one old school atheist suggested that he was needed at apologetics conferences so we could see how to talk to seculars. That would be great if we wanted to talk to seculars my age with no relevant training in any discipline, but that would make us cocky. Shooting down that TIE fighter is too easy . . . and not particularly relevant. The all religious people are idiots or evil school of thought rejoices at having shot down a few theists who were going about their business before being blindsided by secularists armed with street epistemology.

What is street epistemology?

It is epistemology by people with little training in epistemology.

Why the panic? Why not just use academic philosophy of religion? After all, most philosophy departments are secular and no philosopher who is religious in such a department is insulated form counter-arguments to religious belief.

Sadly, for old/new atheism there has been a considerable academic revival of interest in philosophy of religion by religious and non-religious people. On seeingacademic dialog in secular philosophy of religion programs turn against them over the last fifty years, I have seen (and now sadly) read people with little training at the PhD level of philosophy in any sub-field who call for an end to philosophy of religion! When shown that this call is being ignored bysecular scholars, we are told that new ideas (such as integrating findings from other fields) are slow to penetrate philosophy.

This shows no knowledge of how a university works. Interdisciplinary work is the goal of every department. For example, when I was in graduate school, the philosophy department was involved in cognitive science and the human genome project. The philosophers interested in religious ideas (including Christian Edward Weirenga) were constantly looking at the research and ideas from other fields.

Thats what professors do. Yet these old/new atheist books, blurbed by the usual suspects*, are taken seriously by . . . the same community that bought the last one.

Is there an older Han Solo to say to these atheists: Dont get cocky, kid?

I dont know. Perhaps, I should not care, though when people call my friends dumb, uneducated, or foolish, I do want to care. We are not persecuted (really!) in the US, but Christians are murdered or put in camps in the name of secularism in places like China and North Korea. Millions of us were murdered in the last century by folk who claimed the atheist mantle. We know that American folk atheists are notthat sort of atheist, but when we see the same sort of agitprop now used in such regimes to demonize the religious used here . . . we do need to respond.

Maybe.

Mostly, though shooting down those TAI fighters is not relevant, we should keep dialog going with responsible atheists and academic atheism. Otherwise, easy wins might make us cocky.

_____________ *Lest Christian apologists get cocky, we have our own problem with mass blurbs and lightly armed apologists. If you cant give a contemporary version of an argumentstop using it.

Continued here:

Don't Get Cocky, Kid - Patheos (blog)

Surprise: People Who Claim They Don’t Eat or Drink Are Probably Liars – ATTN:

This month a British tabloid published a story about Akahi Ricardo and Camila Castillo, a self-styled "breatharian" couple who claimed they have "barely eaten for the last nine years" and are "sustained solely by the energy of the universe."

The couple spoke of how they "have survived on little else besides a piece of fruit or vegetable broth just 3 times per week" over the last decade. At one point, they claimed, they went three years without eating or drinking anything. Claiming "humans can easily be without foodas long as they are the connected to the energy that exists in all things and through breathing," the duo are portrayed as living only on light and air, whilepossessing an "understanding [of] cosmic nourishment (not just physical nourishment) and living without limits.

Castillo even claimed that she carried two children while staying breatharian, knowing her "son would be nourished enough by my love and this would allow him to grow healthily in my womb."

Like many outrageous medical woo stories, the Sun's tale was picked up by other tabloids, including the New York Post, and fringe alternative medicine websites, all of which re-printedRicardo and Castillo's claims without contrasting them with basic science.

New definition for "dangerous" and "bullshit" = this story, which cites 0 experts & promotes a concept that'd kill: https://t.co/SP2uM6emBs

If anyonehad checked, they'd quickly learn that the couple's claims defy everything we know about how both thermodynamics and the human body work. Their claims fall under the logical fallacy known as "special pleading," or asking for an unwarranted exception to established knowledge.

The couple's claim of going "three years" without eating or drinking violates every known principle of human nutrition and physiology. The maximum amount of time a person can go without water is aboutthree or four days, and aroundthree weekswithout food.

Unsurprisingly, Ricardo and Castillo aren't the first people to claim they live a "breatharian" lifestyle, subsisting only on the life-giving energy of the universe, as opposed to food and drink like the rest of us suckers.

It's bullshit and free viral publicity for a dude who sells, amongst other crap, 8 days of video calls for $500. Breatharian my arse. pic.twitter.com/Ql1Ev0wEeL

In March, Broadly profiled two of what they described as "thousands" of breatharians who say they are sustained only be energy and occasional liquids.And a Ukrainian model gained a reputation as a "human Barbie doll" for her many plastic surgeries andoutlandish claim that she subsists only on "air and light" in her effort to become "the most perfect woman on the internet."

It's incredibly dangerous, these stories: multiple people have died from trying to live breatharian beliefs.A teacher inScotland, a mother of nine inAustralia, and another person in Switzerlandhave all died grizzly deaths from starvation while attempting to subsist on light and air.

Beatharianism comes with a grab bag of religious tenets, taking bits fromIndian mysticism, Hinduism, andBuddhism, and combining them with pseudoscientific concepts like sungazing (staring directly at the sun). It's a favorite of self-styled gurus who have gotten rich off people seeking mystical enlightenment, all of whom have failed to prove their claims.

The foremost practicitioner, an Australian woman who goes by "Jasmuheen," haswritten a slew of books about living off light, but has failed to demonstrate her abilities in several filmed attempts. Indeed, she was found to have a refrigerator full of food in her home.

Another guru, Wiley Brooks, calls himself the "founder of breatharianism." He sells breatharian workshops ad was interviewed on the Tom Snyder Show in 1981. He alsowas caught buying Twinkeesat a 7-11, and has concocted an elaborate mythology that allows him to eat cheeseburgers and Diet Coke while simultaneously living off air and light.

Yet another, an Indian mystic named Hira Ratan Manek, runs a "solar healing center" and claims to obtain all of his nutrition by staring at the sun. He was caught by a documentary crew eating at a restaurant in San Francisco.

It's here thatAkahi Ricardo and Camila Castillobear a second look, because they too are monetizing their fringe beliefs, which they may not actually believe.

Ricardo's website hawks books, DVDs, $1,000 tickets to week-long retreats, and video courses, all of which promise to "correct damaged DNA, generate and rejuvenate emotional, mental and physical well-being, regulate the oxygen intake in the body and align the nervous system in the best interest of the overall health of human body."

Likewise, Castillo has a website called "Pranic Woman" where she sells video courses and books about "conscious evolution" and "living on light." The only hint from either that none of this has the slightest evidence to support it is a brief disclaimer on Castillo's sitethat what she sells is "for information purposes only." Ricardo, however, claims his program is "scientifically proven."

After exposing the Sun's story as having originated with a British content company, CNN contacted the duo to follow up. Ricardo stood by all of his ridiculous claims, saying the exposure has led to "thousands" of people contacting him. He reiterated that "we all know the air is light. We all know there is energy in nature. So there's no way this can be dangerous."

The people who have died from breatharianism were unavailable for comment.

Visit link:

Surprise: People Who Claim They Don't Eat or Drink Are Probably Liars - ATTN:

What’s Love Got to Do with Transhumanism? – First Things

Nothing you can make that can't be made. No one you can save that can't be saved. Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time. It's easy. All you need is love.

The Beatles

Transhumanism is all the rage among the nouveau riche of Silicon Valley, who are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into research they expect will launch The Singularity. What is that, you ask? The Singularity is an anticipated pointas important to transhumanists as the Rapture is to Evangelical Christiansat which the cascade of scientific advances will become unstoppable, allowing transhumanists to recreate themselves as post-humans.

The transhumanist quest has two primary goals: radical life extensionwhich we will not discuss hereand the exponential increase of human intelligence (perhaps because it would better enable them to achieve the first goal). Transhumanists are obsessed with increasing cognitive functioning. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla Inc., has started a company dedicated to developing neural technologies to cure disease and increase human intelligence by way of a direct cortical interfaceessentially a layer of artificial intelligence inside the brain. The company is also reported to be exploring cosmetic brain surgeries to make us smarter.

Musk is not alone in putting his money where his futuristic dreams are. Last year, the New Scientist reported:

The company,Kernel, was launched earlier this year by entrepreneur Bryan Johnson. He says he has spent many years wondering how best to contribute to humanity. I arrived at intelligence. I think its the most precious and powerful resource in existence, says Johnson.

Johnsons belief exemplifies why I find transhumanismessentially neo-eugenicsboth morally deficient and philosophically sterile. Theres nothing wrong with intelligence, of course. It is one of the attributes that make humans exceptional. Indeed, our speciess extraordinary intelligence enabled us to leave the caves.

But intelligence is hardly the most precious and powerful resource in existencenot even close. That place of honor belongs to love. And I find it striking how rarely transhumanists speak about love or how to enhance our capacity to express itexcept, perhaps, in the most carnal sense.

Many animals love, of course. Some birds mate for life. A mare will mourn the death of her foal. A mother bear will kill without hesitation if she thinks her cub is endangered. A dog may sacrifice his own life to save his master. But only humans have the inherent capacity to giveand apprehendLove with a capital L.

Perhaps transhumanists have little interest in the human capacity to love because its full expression transcends carbon molecules and the firing of neurons. It is no coincidence that a deeply faithful theist gave us perhaps the most profound description of loves boundless scope:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, it is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.Love never fails.

The purer the love, the less the regard for self. And lack of self-regard conflicts with materialistic transhumanism, which is steeped in solipsism and hyper-individuality.

Heres the tragically ironic thing: The people among us who are most innately capable of loveat least, in the full sense described by St. Paulare those with Down syndrome. Every person I have ever met with that genetic condition is better than I am because of his or her greater capacity to love.

But they are not intelligent, at least not in the particular ways that transhumanists value. And sad to say, we are in the midst of a pogrom to wipe these beautiful and gentle people off the face of the earth. Denmark has the stated goal of becoming Down syndrome free. Ninety percent of fetuses diagnosed with Down in the U.S. are aborted, while Iceland brags that its abortionists dispense with 100 percent of diagnosed fetuses. France recently prevented Down syndrome associations from running TV advertisements about the joys of parenting Down children, because they could make those who aborted their Down babies feel guilty. These awful statistics indict us for lack of love.

Besides, love is not a quantifiable quality, as many consider intelligence to be. There is no quick fix for the love-challenged. Our hearts cannot be enhanced through brain implants or other futuristic tinkering. On the contrary, learning how to love usually requires being loved. It expands through unquantifiable human connections. Transhumanism, on the other hand, is all about effortless improvements. Its adherents seek to become extraordinarylonger life, smarter brains, superhuman capacitieswithout having to really work at it.

Heres the bottom line: No matter how much we strive to engineer ourselves into post-humanity, no matter the fortunes invested by transhumanist venture capitalists in increasing our intelligence, exponentially expanding our capacity to love is the only way we will ever truly enhance the human species.

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institutes Center on Human Exceptionalism. His most recent book isCulture of Death: The Age of Do Harm Medicine.

Become a fan ofFirst ThingsonFacebook,subscribe toFirst ThingsviaRSS, and followFirst ThingsonTwitter.

Read the original:

What's Love Got to Do with Transhumanism? - First Things

Taliban leader: Afghan war will end only when NATO leaves – ABC News

The leader of the Afghan Taliban said on Friday that a planned U.S. troop surge will not end the protracted war in the country and vowed to fight on until a full withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan.

The remarks by Maulvi Haibatullah Akhunzadah came in a message ahead of the Muslim holiday of Eid al Fitr, which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan something the Taliban do every year to rally followers.

It also followed a horrific suicide car bombing claimed by the Taliban in Afghanistan's Helmand province that targeted Afghan troops and government workers waiting to collect their pay ahead of the holiday.

By Friday, the death toll from that attack rose to 34 people, most of them civilians, provincial government spokesman Omar Zwak told The Associated Press.

In the Taliban message this year, the militant leader seemed to harden his stance, saying the Afghan government is too corrupt to stay on and warning of another civil war in Kabul along the lines of the 1992 fighting when mujahedeen groups threw out the Communist government in Afghanistan and turned their guns on each other. That conflict killed more than 50,000 civilians and gave rise to the Taliban.

The Taliban say they are waging war against the Kabul government and not targeting civilians. In their claim of the Helmand attack, they insisted no civilians died.

Zwak, however said, most of the dead in the attack in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, were civilians, although there were soldiers inside the bank at the time of the explosion. Witnesses said children were among the dozens wounded.

Earlier, the Defense Ministry had urged soldiers to collect their salaries from banks located inside army bases. If they do go to banks elsewhere, they should refrain from wearing their uniforms, the ministry's deputy spokesman Mohammad Radmanish told the AP.

Outside a hospital in Lashkar Gah, Esmatullah Khan, 34, said Friday he had donated blood to help some of the nearly 70 wounded in the attack.

Akhunzadah, the Taliban leader, also boasted of allegedly growing international support, saying "mainstream entities of the world admit (the Taliban) effectiveness, legitimacy and success," an apparent reference to reports of overtures by Russia and China to the Taliban amid concerns of an emerging Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan.

While the IS affiliate's stronghold is in eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, the branch has managed also to stage high-profile attacks in Kabul and other cities. The presence of battle-hardened Uzbek militants in the ranks also further worries Moscow.

After urging Afghans to embrace holy war, or jihad, to oust foreign troops, Akhunzadah's rambling message went on to touch upon the conflict between Gulf Arab states and Qatar, saying he was "saddened" by the feud.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt have accused Qatar of supporting extremists, a charge that Doha denies.

Associated Press Writers Kathy Gannon in Islamabad and Abdul Khaliq in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

See the rest here:

Taliban leader: Afghan war will end only when NATO leaves - ABC News

How NATO is getting serious about Russia – Macleans.ca

German Army soldiers dismantle a bridge over the Neris river during the 2017 Iron Wolf exercise in Stasenai, Lithuania, June 20, 2017. (Ints Kalnins/Reuters)

The 2001 Lithuanian general census found the population of Stanai, a dot-on-the-map village whose existence is barely perceptible amid flat and verdant farmland northwest of Vilnius, to be 66 souls. By the next census, a decade later, the figure had fallen to 45. Earlier this week the population of Stanai and the fields around it swelled, suddenly and temporarily, to hundreds of soldiers from 11 NATO countries.

At 10 a.m.on Tuesday staff cars rolled up to a tent and disgorged a dozen dignitaries, including the President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskait, and the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg. A few minutes later the crowd, which included a multinational throng of journalists decked out in bright yellow MEDIA vests, crossed the street to observing stands on the bank of the meandering Neris river.

This is still a residential neighbourhood, albeit sparsely populated, so a few families left their farmhouses to peer curiously at what came next, which was a low-key but unmistakable show of force.

Seven M3 amphibious rigs, ungainly vehicles that can drive on roads or float on water, had joined together to form a bridge across the Neris. Three of the rigs were operated by the US Army, four by the German Bundeswehr.

On a signal delivered by a signal flare, heavy vehicles started rolling across the land bridge: armoured personnel carriers, tanks, motorized heavy equipment. Eventually dozens of vehicles had crossed the makeshift bridge. Combat helicopters hovered overhead. At one point a boat appeared, motoring up the river toward the bridge. This obliged the M3 operators to halt the motor traffic that had been rolling across their rigs, dismantle the bridge within a few minutes and chug upriver separately, allowing the boat to pass. Then two of the rigs returned to the landing and, operating together this time as a raft instead of a bridge, carried the last two tanks across the river.

In the final minute of the exercise, a roar in the eastern sky announced the arrival of an American B-1 bomber, which flew over the site of the exercise at low altitude. The amphibious bridges and tanks, their crews armed with weaponry ranging from personal sidearms to cannon, can deliver a certain amount of havoc and destruction. That single bomber could, if needed, deliver many multiples of the same. The point having been made, everyone repaired to white tents for news conferences and canaps.

The river crossing was a highlight of Day 9 of Multinational Exercise Iron Wolf, the summers major NATO training effort in Lithuania. Iron Wolf in turn is one part Exercise Saber Strike 17, a month of exercises across Poland and the Baltic countries, designed to build interoperability among 20 armies with widely varying capabilities, equipment, lore and traditions.

Saber Strike in turn is a bigger version of exercises that have been taking place with increasing frequency and intensity across Europe in recent years: Six Allied Spirit exercises since 2015. Atlantic Resolve exercises operating almost continuously. The immense Anaconda war game last year in Poland, the largest since the Cold War with 31,000 troops.

NATO has been adding muscle and stepping up its exercise tempo since 2014, when Russian-backed troops and irregular fighters invaded Eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Those operations took a giant step forward last summer: NATO heads of government met in a Warsaw soccer arena for a summit meeting at which they decided to set up multinational battlegroups across the region.

Those battlegroups are now in place. Canada commands the battalion in Latvia, with troops and equipment from Spain, Italy, Poland, Albania and Slovenia. The battlegroup in Poland is led by the United States; Great Britain commands the force in Estonia; and Germany is in charge of the battlegroup in Lithuania.

These soldiers, 4,530 in total as the spearhead of a 29-nation alliance, have set up shop with a clear mission. In the aftermath of Russias invasion of parts of Georgia in 2008, and parts of Ukraine in 2014, it has never been clear whether Vladimir Putin wants to take back any more of the territory that used to be part of the old Soviet Union. The most obvious targets are the Baltic countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. For a generation they were constitutionally part of the USSR. When they asserted their independence in late 1990, even so mild a Soviet ruler as Mikhail Gorbachev tried briefly to block their departure, sending tanks into Lithuania.

Unlike Georgia and Ukraine, the Baltic countries and Poland are members of NATO, whose central tenet is that an attack against one member will meet a response from all of them. But by 2014, almost a quarter-century after the Cold War ended, it was hardly obvious what that might mean in concrete terms, on NATOs home turf in Europe: A response from whom? With what manpower, equipment, doctrine and strategy?

In Warsaw the heads of government concentrated long enough to sketch answers. Now their soldiers are filling in the details. And soldiers tend to be attentive to detail. Iron Wolf was all about detail.

The exercise began with the American-led battlegroup rolling up from its base in Orzysz, in northern Poland, into Lithuania. That involved getting to know a crucial bit of real estate in intimate detail. The land bridge between the two countries is narrow, only 105 km of open land between the authoritarian-ruled country of Belarus and Kaliningrad, an isolated pocket of Russian jurisdiction on the Baltic Sea. This stretch of land is called the Suwalki Gap, after the Polish town in the middle of it.

If Russian troops, working alone or in concert with Belarusians, managed to seize control of the Suwalki Gap, the Baltic region would be cut off and vulnerable. So in part, Iron Wolf was about getting to know this crucial neighbourhood, learning how invaders might try to take it, and how defenders might need to cross it under fire.

After the bridge crossing show, the commander of the U.S.-led battlegroup that had come up from Poland, Lt.-Col Steven Gventer, 47, paused to discuss the mission with reporters. A broad-shouldered former high-school teacher, wearing camouflage face paint and with a 9mm pistol strapped to his chest, Gventer described in intricate detail the web of interactions his troops have already had with their colleagues, German, Lithuanian and other.

We start to run into one another over and over again, he said. So as large as NATO isgeographically, militarilywe are a small community that gets to know one another through these exercises. And that provides us with the common operating picture that weve already developed. That provides us with secure FM commsdependable radio frequenciesthat weve already trained. That allows us to use our fires capability army jargon for the ability to find and hit targets across international lines. For a sensor from the United Kingdom, a scout out front, to identify a target; call it through a U.S. battlegroup headquarters, who call it and clear it through a brigade fire direction centre that might be Italian or Lithuanian or Polish; and then call it right back down to guns that might be Polish, United States, it doesnt matter; and those guns reach out and put effects on the target.

Putting effects on a target is another way to talk about destroying it, but what Gventer was really discussing was an extended and methodical effort to iron the bugs out of a gigantic fighting machine.

NATO is starting to see the fruit of that long-term relationship that we start to build across national lines, he said. An understanding of what each others capabilities are. But also our weaknesses. The United States comes to the fight, at a battalion level, without air defence. But the Romanians provide us air defence. The United States doesnt necessarily have bridging capability the river-crossing equipment that was the focus of the days demonstration to the extent that we might want. But the U.K., the Italians, the Germans have bridging capabilities.

Gventer was turning into the best kind of source, the kind that talk a lot, so I googled him on my phone while he kept talking. He has had an eventful career. In 2004 he was in Sadr City, a violent Baghdad district, when an insurgent shot him through the calf with a machine gun. Two weeks later a rocket-propelled grenade hit a wall behind him and sent shrapnel into his shoulder.

It was a great time to be a commander, and to learn the trade, I guess, Gventer said when I asked him about his Iraq experience.

Now heres the thing. After the decade and a half the alliance has been through since 9/11, most of NATOs military leadership in central and eastern Europe has personal experience fighting under fire in Afghanistan or Iraq.

At Camp Adazi in Latvia I was surprised to learn that I know the commander of the Canadian-led battlegroup there. He came up to say hello. His name is Lt.-Col Wade Rutland, a red-haired guy with a ready smile. These days he is the commanding officer of 1st Battalion, Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton. In 2010 I spent two days visiting Rutland and the 200 soldiers he commanded inside a Soviet-built mountain fortress at Sperwan Ghar, in one of the most inhospitable corners of Kandahar province in Afghanistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan were deeply frustrating work for many of the soldiers who were deployed there. Every soldier I asked has already watchedWar Machine, the highly entertaining new Netflix movie that stars Brad Pitt as a lightly fictionalized version of the disgraced U.S. army general Stanley McChrystal. Some have seen it two or three times, and recited lines from the movie with relish. Its a parable about the futility of command in an environment where victory may not be possible. So these guys arent naive about the limitations of their craft.

But they also grew up in an environment where combat is not hypothetical and where small mistakes in the battlefield can kill. They did not grow up in a world of weekend passes. They are used to taking serious work seriously.

This is a much bigger fight, Gventer said when I asked him to compare Iraq to central Europe. The artillery capability of the enemy there was limited to rockets, very uncoordinated. What they lacked in accuracy they made up for in the number of rockets they would fire. But that said, the enemy didnt have the ability to counterbattery that is, to use sophisticated equipment to discern the origin of incoming fire and send accurate fire back to destroy the launchers. The enemy didnt have air forces. This enemy does. Large amounts of artillery and counter-artillery, those are the things that we now would be concerned about.

In Iraq, in other words, Gventer was fighting determined and inventive irregulars armed, for the most part, with what they could carry. Here in Stanai he was preparing to fight people whose methods and equipment much more closely match his own. A near-peer or peer template, as he put it.

There are other differences. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a near-permanent base would serve as the starting point for short-haul expeditions and raids. Whatever else soldiers went through, they would normally return to familiar surroundings each night. Now, we dont prepare to fight out of a base, Gventer said. Were gonna leave that base very quickly if we have to fight.

One reporter pointed out that the American battlegroup in Poland is the only one of the four new battalions that doesnt have tanks with it. Thats because the Poles have plenty of their own, unlike the armies of the smaller Baltic countries, Gventer said. The Polish bring a lot of armour. What they need is our ability to put light infantry in the woodline, near that armour, and destroy enemy armour forces coming towards them. We love having their armour; they love having our light infantry and our anti-tank capability. Its not a match made in heaven, but its close.

The goal of all of this deployment and training and even, to a great extent, of the coverage of it, of all those reporters in yellow MEDIA vests at Stanai is to make a great show of readiness so that if does have any thoughts of further military adventures, he will decide against them. In itself, the drum-beating carries its own risks of provocation and escalation.

NATO insists its plans are purely defensive, and every part of the Saber Strike maneuvers is designed to refine techniques for defending NATO territory within the confines of NATO territory. But one effect of the maneuvers was to send hundreds of tonnes of materiel into action in a ring of territory around Kaliningrad, an outpost Russia guards jealously. And NATO is not the only entity that has gotten into the relationship-building business: this month a three-ship Chinese convoy has been conducting exercises with the Russian navy in the Baltic Sea. So on the long list of nightmare scenarios here, one is that Western exercises designed to fend off a Russian attack could provoke one, or at least serve as a pretext for one. No part of this business is without serious risks.

But to Gventer, Rutland and the other battle-hardened soldiers leading the newly augmented NATO effort in Europe, there is no better way to avoid armed conflict than to prepare for it diligently. As Gventer put it: If the deterrence doesnt work, God forbid, then were capable to defend and were capable to be lethal in order to preserve the borders of NATO.

View original post here:

How NATO is getting serious about Russia - Macleans.ca

is calling out the NSA – npr.org

After the WannaCry cyberattack hit computer systems worldwide, Microsoft says governments should report software vulnerabilities instead of collecting them. Here, a ransom window announces the encryption of data on a transit display in eastern Germany on Friday. AFP/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

After the WannaCry cyberattack hit computer systems worldwide, Microsoft says governments should report software vulnerabilities instead of collecting them. Here, a ransom window announces the encryption of data on a transit display in eastern Germany on Friday.

When the National Security Agency lost control of the software behind the WannaCry cyberattack, it was like "the U.S. military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen," Microsoft President Brad Smith says, in a message about the malicious software that has created havoc on computer networks in more than 150 countries since Friday.

"This is an emerging pattern in 2017," Smith, who is also chief legal officer, says in a Microsoft company blog post. "We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on WikiLeaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world. Repeatedly, exploits in the hands of governments have leaked into the public domain and caused widespread damage."

On affected computers, the WannaCry software encrypts files and displays a ransom message demanding $300 in bitcoin. It has attacked hundreds of thousands of computers, security experts say, from hospital systems in the U.K. and a telecom company in Spain to universities and large companies in Asia. And the software is already inspiring imitators, as the Bleeping Computer site reports.

The malware behind WannaCry (also called WannaCrypt, Wana Decryptor or WCry) was reported to have been stolen from the NSA in April. And while Microsoft said it had already released a security update to patch the vulnerability one month earlier, the sequence of events fed speculation that the NSA hadn't told the U.S. tech giant about the security risk until after it had been stolen.

With his new statement, Smith seems to be confirming that version of events.

Two months after Microsoft issued its security patch, thousands of computers remained vulnerable to the WannaCry attack. That prompted the company to issue another patch on Friday for older and unsupported operating systems such as Windows XP, allowing users to secure their systems without requiring an upgrade to the latest operating software.

Urging businesses and computer users to keep their systems current and updated, Smith says the WannaCry attack shows the importance of collective action to fight cybercrime.

But he aimed his sharpest criticisms at the U.S. and other nations.

The attack, Smith says, "represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today nation-state action and organized criminal action."

International standards should compel countries not to stockpile or exploit software vulnerabilities, Smith says. He adds that governments should report vulnerabilities like the one at the center of the WannaCry attack.

Governments "need to take a different approach and adhere in cyberspace to the same rules applied to weapons in the physical world," Smith says, urging agencies to "consider the damage to civilians that comes from hoarding these vulnerabilities and the use of these exploits."

Smith's blog post did not address another factor in the ransomware's spread, one that hints at the difficulty of uniting against a hacking attack: Users of pirated Microsoft software are unable to download the security patch, forcing them to fend for themselves or rely on a third-party source for a solution.

Read the original here:

is calling out the NSA - npr.org

Posted in NSA

NSA Advocates Data Sharing Framework – Threatpost

NEW YORKThe economics of cybersecurity are skewed in favor of attackers, who invest once and can launch thousands of attacks with a piece of malware or exploit kit. Thats why Neal Ziring, technical director for the NSAs Capabilities Directorate, wants to flip the financial equation on bad guys.

We need to conduct defenses in a way that kills an adversarys ROI, Ziring said. I want to get it down to the point where a threat actor says, I better choose carefully where I throw this malware first, because Im not going to get a third or fourth try. Today they dont have that concern.

In order to decimate a cybercriminals ROI on developing tools and attack playbooks, Ziring is calling on public agencies, companies and the security community to radically change the way they respond to cyberattacks.

In a keynote address Thursday at the Borderless Cyber conference, he said the cybersecurity community needs to work cooperatively to collectively respond to attacks in the same spirit they share threat intelligence. He argues, doing so will deprive cyber threat actors of the ability to use tools and tradecraft multiple times and starve criminals financially.

The future of cyber defense is having a shared response or coordinated response, Ziring said. We need to break out of todays enterprise mentality of every person for themselves.

The type of framework Ziring describes doesnt exist today, but two standards come close. Those are STIX (Structured Threat Information Expression) and TAXII (Trusted Automated eXchange of Indicator Information) which both deal with sharing data ahead of an attack. Neither address a key component that Ziring is calling for which is a public-private framework that creates a type of autoimmune system. If one node on the network is attacked, all other connected nodes are warned within seconds to defend against a similar attack.

There is no technological reason why this couldnt work. There are only practical obstacles like the need for interoperable standards that will enable us to do this in todays heterogeneous environments. And thats the bit we are solving right now with STIX and OpenC2, he said.

Still early in development, OpenC2 is a language that would enable the coordination and execution of command and control of defense components between domains and within a domain.

Universal support for that type of framework will take a major shift in industry mindsets. As one conference attendee noted, today breach data is a carefully guarded secret for many companies. Ninety-five percent of the dozens of breaches the attendee said he helped mitigate over the past year were kept private for fear it might hurt share prices and the companies reputation.

Ziring said the industry does not need new regulations to mandate breach transparency. The upside to information sharing is the carrot that he hopes will lure companies, sectors and communities to be part of the sharing framework. He notes there are already several critical infrastructure sectors that are required to report breaches to the DHS.

It would be better if we didnt have to create more regulation. Well have to take a wait and see approach for now, he said.

Currently, the type of framework Ziring describes is extremely rare. Within the financial services sector breach data is shared between members of a FS-ISAC (Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center). When one member is attacked all other members are alerted and can fend off similar attacks before they happen.

Meanwhile, attack surfaces are growing with the rapid expansion of cloud, IoT and third-party services. Ziring said current defenses are not as scaleable as they need to be and cant match the automated nature of cyberattacks.

Using FS-ISAC as a model, Ziring envisions a future where industry-focused communities share visibility into threats. When an attack occurred, top-level community members would analyze the threat and send out counter measures to community members inoculating them within seconds or minutes from similar attacks. Its unreasonable to ask small business to be ready fight off a nation state attack themselves, he said.

To many in attendance, that top-level community member is the government. To that end, Ziring told attendees that NSA and DHS are committed to be a trusted partner in the framework through the development of standards such as OpenC2.

The government has a unique authority in this area. We are doing a lot today within the DHS and FBI. I believe government has a responsibility to share. Culturally, its going to be tough. But we need to do it, he said.

Here is the original post:

NSA Advocates Data Sharing Framework - Threatpost

Posted in NSA

Privileged user management trips up NSA – TechTarget

A recently declassified report revealed the U.S. National Security Agency failed to fully secure its systems since the Edward Snowden leaks in 2013.

The report detailed the findings of the Department of Defense inspector general's 2016 assessment of the NSA's security efforts around privileged user management. The heavily redacted report was declassified after Charlie Savage, a Washington correspondent for The New York Times, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The assessment looked at how the NSA handles privileged access management, and, according to the report, the NSA was found wanting.

After Edward Snowden leaked over a million files in 2013, the NSA began an initiative, dubbed Secure the Net (STN), with seven privileged user management goals. The inspector general's assessment found that the NSA met only four out of the seven goals: developing and documenting a plan for a new system administration model; assessing the number of system administrators across the enterprise; implementing two-factor access controls over data centers and machine rooms; and implementing two-factor authentication controls for system administration.

According to the report, dated Aug. 29, 2016, not all of the four privileged user management initiatives were fully met. "[The] NSA did not have guidance concerning key management and did not consistently secure server racks and other sensitive equipment in the data centers and machine rooms in accordance with the initiative requirements and policies, and did not extend two-stage authentication controls to all high-risk users," the report read.

Additionally, the assessment found that three of the seven STN initiatives for strong privileged user management were not accomplished. The NSA was supposed to "fully implement technology to oversee privileged user activities; effectively reduce the number of privileged access users; and effectively reduce the number of authorized data transfer agents."

There were 40 STN initiatives in total, though the assessment focused on the seven related to privileged access management. The conclusion reached in the assessment was, while the NSA was successful in part, it "did not fully address all the specifics of the recommendations."

Learn everything you need to know about privileged access management in the enterprise

Find out how to manage and monitor privileged user accounts

Test your privileged user management knowledge with this quiz

Visit link:

Privileged user management trips up NSA - TechTarget

Posted in NSA

Obama Ordered The NSA To Prepare For A ‘Retaliatory Cyber-Strike’ Against Russia Before Leaving Office – UPROXX

Getty Image

There may one day be a ticking time bomb buried deep in Russias digital infrastructure. Only a few people at the height of security clearance and confidentiality know where, or when, the cyber weapon could be deployed. It was one of President Obamas final acts, inking authorization for the NSA, CIA and U.S. Cyber Command to develop implants that could give Russia a taste of their own medicine after they were found to have interfered in the U.S. election. However, its not known whether President Trump will ever take action, as Obama left the ultimate decision for him to make.

A new report from the Washington Post details the Obama administrations struggle to effectively warn the U.S. public of Russian hackers lurking about in the voting systems of many states, not to mention the Wikileaks dump and DNC hack. Afraid it would look like he was leaping to Clintons defense, Obama tried to walk a fine line between stopping Russian efforts to hack the election, retaliating for what had already been done, and communicating to the American people that Trumps claims the election was rigged were true just not quite how the Republican candidate meant it.

Limited by partisan politics, afraid of jumping ahead while the government spooks finished their research, and above all concerned about making the situation worse by coming on too strong or too soon, Obama might have appeared hamstrung. But behind the scenes he was crafting a strong response to Russian infringement on U.S. sovereignty. Obama had something up his sleeve that the public couldnt know about yet a major cyber espionage project that would let Russia know the United States could reach as deep into Moscow as the Kremlin had into Washington.

We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized, Obama said in a December, 2016 statement released by the White House.

While the CIA, NSA, and U.S. Cyber Command got started on Obamas cyber weapon, operations started to let Moscow know the United States was watching. Like the submarines that occasionally surfaced off enemy shores during the Cold War as a reminder of proximity and reach, or like Russias recent penchant for buzzing U.S. ships and diplomats cars with various aircraft, the U.S. implanted code that was deep enough to be taken seriously, but relatively easy to find.

If its ever deployed, the cyber weapon would target networks important to the adversary and that would cause them pain and discomfort if they were disrupted, according to one anonymous official. Its a long term project that by all accounts required Obamas signature to get started, but now only needs the spooks to keep running the ball down the field. Unless President Trump calls a time out or countermands the project which is possible, although sources say that Trump hasnt done so yet its only a question of how long it will take to reach the Russian end zone.

(Via Washington Post)

Read more here:

Obama Ordered The NSA To Prepare For A 'Retaliatory Cyber-Strike' Against Russia Before Leaving Office - UPROXX

Posted in NSA

The NSA is now sharing a bunch of code on GitHub – FedScoop

The notoriously secretive National Security Agency has decided to dip a careful toeinto the open source software world by launching an official GitHub page.

The page, which appeared recently, lists 32 NSA-developed technologies that the agency is making available viaOpen Source Software (some are still coming soon). These range from projects like goSecure, a portable Virtual Private Network solution, to Unfetter, a technology that provides a mechanism for network defenders, security professionals, and decision makers to quantitatively measure the effectiveness of their security posture, and beyond.

Much of the technology listed, though, is quite old. For example, one code repository included is forSecurity Enhanced Linux (SELinux), an access control mechanism that has been part of the Linux kernel sinceversion 2.6.0,released in 2003. Another repository containing security enhancements for Android has been a part of Androids operating system since version4.3, which dates back to 2013.

The new GitHub presence is part of the NSAsTechnology Transfer Program, the mechanism by which the military spy agency licenses patented technology for developmentin the private sector space. The NSAspresence on GitHub will allow the developer community to use and contribute to the posted code. Its a win-win, the agency says the public benefits by adopting, enhancing, adapting, or commercializing the software, the site declares. The government benefits from the open source communitys enhancements to the technology.

The NSA has become more amenable to a presence on the social web in recent years. The agency launched a Twitter account in 2013, at a time when it was working to repair its public imagein the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks. Some see the GitHub page as an extension of this attemptto build public goodwill.

The NSA is far from the only federal agency onGitHub the San Francisco-based company lists134 federal government accountsand 11U.S. military and intelligence accounts.

Read more:

The NSA is now sharing a bunch of code on GitHub - FedScoop

Posted in NSA

Supreme Court decides Takings Clause case as term winds down – Constitution Daily (blog)

The Supreme Courthas ruled on an important test first posed by Justice William Brennan nearly 40 years ago about property rights, as Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the Court's four liberal Justices on Friday.

In 1978, Brennan wrote for a 6-3 majority in the Penn Central v. New York City case that redefined property rights under the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause and also served as a foundation for historic preservation programs at a local level.

The current case in front of the Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, didn't involve a glamorous property such as Grand Central Station, the subject of Brennans opinion. Instead, the dispute was about a vacant vacation property, and if the parcel was part of a combined lot, or a parcel on its own.

On Friday, the majority 5-3 opinion written by Kennedy sided with the state of Wisconsin in the dispute, saying the test devised by Brennan was properly applied by the state, but that the courts also needed to include more than just Brennan's test in deciding similar disputes.

"The governmental action was a reasonable land-use regulation, enacted as part of a coordinated federal, state, and local effort to preserve the river and surrounding land," Kennedy said. "Like the ultimate question whether a regulation has gone too far, the question of the proper parcel in regulatory takings cases cannot be solved by any simple test. ...Courts must instead define the parcel in a manner that reflects reasonable expectations about the property."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent. "State law defines the boundaries of distinct parcels of land, and those boundaries should determine the 'private property' at issue in regulatory takings cases. Whether a regulation effects a taking of that property is a separate question, one in which common ownership of adjacent property may be taken into account," he said.

The Murr family has owned two riverfront lots since the 1960s; one of the lots contained a vacation cottage; the other lot wasnt developed. One lot was in the parents name while the other was in the name of a company owned by the family. The two lots were jointly conveyed to four of their children in 1994 and 1995.

In 2004, when the children began to explore selling the empty lot to pay for improvements in the cottage, they found out that a zoning law established in 1975 barred the children from selling the empty lot separate from the cottage because two adjoining lots were now owned by one entity. The zoning law also prohibited the development of the empty lot because it didnt meet minimum size requirements for an independent lot.

The dispute in front of the Supreme Court involved a concept called a parcel as a whole. In 1978, Brennan fashioned that test as part of the Penn Central decision.

A New York City commission prohibited the Penn Central Railroad from redeveloping Grand Central Station after two plans substantially changed the buildings historic look above the building. Penn Central sued, claiming it should receive full compensation for the air rights about Grand Central Station.

Brennan and the majority disagreed, saying the commissions decision wasnt a taking under the Fifth Amendment and that the railroad still could derive a reasonable economic return from the buildings use. The decision established a four-part test to determine if a property holder should receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment if a government policy or action results in a taking of their property.

One of the four parts was called the parcel of a whole. Brennan said that this Court focuses rather both on the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a wholehere, the city tax block designated as the landmark site. In that context, the Court said the Grand Central building and the air space above it was one property in terms of the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause.

The Murr familys lawyerscited another landmark Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), to support their claim that they should be able to sell the property or seek compensation from the government.

The Lucas decision said that the denial of all economic use of a property by a government regulation was a taking under the Fifth Amendment and required just compensation. The Wisconsin government has argued that the properties should be considered as a whole in the takings analysis, citing the Penn Central decision. The state appeals court ruled against the Murr family and the family filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which was accepted in January 2016.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

Filed Under: Fifth Amendment, Supreme Court

Original post:

Supreme Court decides Takings Clause case as term winds down - Constitution Daily (blog)

Uber admits it knew ex-Google engineer kept trade secrets – Fox Business

Uber admitted that it hired a former Google employee despite being warned that he possessed sensitive documents from the Silicon Valley giant, adding a new twist to a court battle over trade secrets.

Waymo, the self-driving car developer created by Alphabets (GOOGL) Google, has accused Uber of using stolen trade secrets in its own software that would serve as the backbone of autonomous vehicles. Uber has denied the charges. However, the ride-sharing company fired Anthony Levandowski, the ex-Google engineer and Uber executive, for failing to cooperate with an internal investigation.

Waymos lawsuit maintains that Uber then transplanted the intellectual property allegedly stolen by Levandowski into its own fleet of self-driving vehicles a charge that Uber has adamantly denied since Waymo filed its complaint in federal court four months ago.

In May, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered Uber to return the stolen files, writing that evidence indicated the company "knew or should have known that he possessed over 14,000 confidential Waymo files."

Now, Uber has for the first time has acknowledged that Levandowski informed its now-departed CEO, Travis Kalanick, that he had five disks filled with Google's information five months before joining Uber. The disclosure, made in March 2016, lends credence to Waymo's allegation that Levandowski downloaded 14,000 documents on to a computer before leaving Google.

The admission was contained in a Thursday court filing.

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

Uber, though, says Kalanick told Levandowski not to bring any of the Google information with him to Uber. At that time, a deal had been reached for Uber to buy Levandowski's startup, Otto, for $680 million, though the acquisition wasn't completed until August 2016.

The filing asserts that Levandowski destroyed the disks containing Google's material not long after Kalanick told him that Uber didn't want the information on them.

Levandowski's lawyers didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. They have been advising Levandowski to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination since Waymo filed its lawsuit.

Based on the evidence he has seen so far, Alsup has already referred the case to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation.

The scenario sketched by Uber comes a few weeks after the company fired Levandowski for refusing to relinquish his Fifth Amendment rights and cooperate with its efforts to defend itself against Waymo's suit.

Kalanick resigned as Uber's CEO Tuesday week after investors demanded he step down. The investors who have financed Uber's growth had concluded Kalanick had to go following revelations of sexual harassment in the company's office, a federal investigation into company tactics used to thwart regulators, and the threat of even more trouble posed by the Waymo lawsuit.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

See more here:

Uber admits it knew ex-Google engineer kept trade secrets - Fox Business

Jeff Sessions defends new ‘sanctuary city’ law in Texas – Washington Examiner

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Friday defended a new Texas law that punishes sanctuary cities that is facing a lawsuit from pro-immigration officials groups.

The law, which is set to take effect in September, would let local law enforcement question the immigration status of people who are legally detained. It would also punish law enforcement officials who do not cooperate with federal immigration agents by cooperating with federal detainer requests.

The law is being challenged by officials in Maverick County and the city of El Cenizo, as well as the League of United Latin American Citizens. But in a court filing, Sessions argued that the law is not inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment, which limits the reach of the federal government over the states, and also does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

"Texas has admirably followed his lead by mandating state-wide cooperation with federal immigration laws that require the removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes," Sessions said in a statement Friday. "The Department of Justice fully supports Texas's effort and is participating in this lawsuit because of the strong federal interest in facilitating the state and local cooperation that is critical in enforcing our nation's immigration laws."

Sessions has been a vocal opponent of jurisdictions that implement so-called sanctuary policies, and has threatened to pull federal funding from ones that fail to show compliance with federal immigration law.

Opponents of sanctuary city legislation argue that being in the country illegally does not qualify as probable cause to keep someone detained in jail after a judge has cleared them for release after under the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia will hear a motion for a preliminary injunction that would block the implementation of the law on June 26.

See the original post here:

Jeff Sessions defends new 'sanctuary city' law in Texas - Washington Examiner

The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the rights you …

That's it. That's the entirety of our Constitution's First Amendment, the central animus of our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone's banned from Twitter.

There's a lot going on in those few sentences, and it's important to know when and how it applies to common situations -- and, equally as important, when it doesn't.

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert.

If it's a private institution, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

If it's a public institution, the lines can get blurry.

"If you invite someone to speak on your campus and are a public university, you have to respect their First Amendment rights," Nott says. That doesn't mean you can't put regulations on a speech, like dictating the time, place, venue and suggestions for subject matter. It just means you can't do so in a way that discriminates against a certain point of view.

If students protesting play a hand in moving or canceling a speaker, that presents a different free speech challenge.

"If a speaker were to take legal action for being blocked from speaking, they can't do it against the students. You can't take constitutional action against a group of private citizens," she adds.

Such a complaint would have to go against the school, for allowing the constitutional breach to happen.

This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.

This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," Nott says. "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."

However, while it's not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.

If you work for a private company, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

"It's the company's right to discipline their employees' speech," Nott says.

If you're a government employee, it's complicated.

Institutions like police departments, public schools and local government branches can't restrict employee's free speech rights, but they do need to assure that such speech doesn't keep the employee from doing their job. It's definitely a balancing act, and the rise of social media has made it harder for such institutions to regulate their employee's speech in a constitutional manner.

Definitely a First Amendment issue.

But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.

"It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech," Nott says. Even then, it needs to be a true threat -- one that has immediacy and some sort of actual intent.

It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.

There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

But regulating conversations and posts online is a delicate balance for social media giants like Facebook.

"That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or leave comments, you are not liable for what they do," Nott says. This covers things like obscenity, violence and threats.

The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic community standards.

"Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content, but fake news," Nott says. "And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection."

This is a First Amendment issue, at the very least in spirit.

"Symbolic speech is protected by the constitution," Nott says. "In essence, you have the right to not speak. You have the right to silence."

In theory, a private employer could require you to stand for the anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance, but such a requirement may run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. Even in schools, where there have been some cases of students being singled out for sitting or kneeling for the anthem, it would be hard to provide justification for punishment.

"This is an act of political speech, the most protected type of speech," Nott says. "It's completely not disruptive because it's silent." Plus, it is buttressed by court cases that have decided there is no requirement to salute the flag.

A First Amendment issue -- usually.

You are fully within your rights to record the police doing their job in public. And if you get arrested while doing so, your constitutional rights are being violated.

This is, unless you were doing something unlawful at the time of your arrest.

In a heated situation with police, that can also become a gray area. Physical assault or threats could obviously get you arrested, but what about if you were just yelling at the police while recording, say, to get them to stop an act or to pay attention?

"That's tough," Nott says. "If you were disturbing the peace, you can get arrested for that, or for other things. But the bottom line is it's not a crime to record police activities in a public space."

If it's a student publication, it's a First Amendment issue.

Nott points to a landmark Supreme Court cases from 1969 that has acted as a standard for cases involving free speech at public universities and colleges. That's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which you can read more about below.

Another case, Bazaar v. Fortune from 1973, helps tailor these guidelines to the student press by stating that schools cannot act as "private publishers" just because they fund a student publication or program. In other words, they can't punish the publication -- whether it be through student firings, budget cuts or withdrawals or a ban -- just for printing or broadcasting something they don't like.

Now, a gentle reminder that this is just for PUBLIC schools. All together now: Private institutions can (usually) do what they want!

See the original post:

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you ...

A movie about Hulk Hogan’s court case shows how the First … – Washington Post

Documentarian Brian Knappenberger took a keen interest in the lawsuit Hulk Hogan brought against Gawker. Not because of the tawdry details, though there were plenty of those: The wrestler sued the media company for invasion of privacy over a sex tape it published in 2012 featuring him and the wife of his friend Bubba the Love Sponge Clem.

Knappenberger was more interested in what the trial meant for the First Amendment. As soon as the jury sided with Hogan and put Gawker on the hook for an astounding $140million the filmmaker knew he had to get to work on his next movie.

Of course, that was long before he realized how much deeper the story went. It was before the revelation that Peter Thiel, a wealthy entrepreneur with a grudge, bankrolled the lawsuit that put Gawker out of business; before Thiel supported Donald Trump for president; and before Trump, who promised during his campaign to open up our libel laws, became leader of the free world.

Sometimes documentaries come along at the ideal moment. Chalk it up to luck or a futurists understanding of the zeitgeist, but Knappenbergers Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press is right on time as it begins streaming on Netflix on Friday. Its a crucial moment to consider what it means for the First Amendment, not to mention society, that a billionaire with a bone to pick could use his money to get the legal system to do his bidding.

Thiel had despised Gawker ever since it published a story about him in 2007 with the title Peter Thiel is totally gay, people. And he wasnt alone. Gawker had a well-earned bad reputation. A pioneer of online journalism, the company prized speed over fact-checking and became infamous for its questionable news judgment and snarky, cavalier attitude. Its Gawker Stalker feature was the tip of the iceberg, raising privacy concerns with its crowdsourced map that tracked the movements of celebrities.

But Gawker also broke legitimate stories, including one about the many women who had accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault.

As legendary lawyer and First Amendment advocate Floyd Abrams puts it in the movie: We dont get to pick and choose what sorts of publications are permissible.

And yet, Thiel did. He didnt see his court case as a threat to the First Amendment, he explained, because he didnt view Gawker as a journalistic enterprise. The co-founder of PayPal (and an early Facebook investor) declared putting Gawker out of business his most philanthropic deed. He maintained that the company was a singularly sociopathic bully.

But thats an absurd thing to say in a media environment in which Alex Jones basically says Sandy Hook didnt happen, Knappenberger said in a recent interview, referring to the conspiracy-theory-spewing Infowars radio host, who also spread lies about Pizzagate. Gawker is singularly sociopathic for posting this tape of a public person who had bragged about his sex life? Its not necessarily tasteful, but its certainly not sociopathic.

Nobody Speak shows that the Hogan-Gawker case is only one piece of a worrisome trend. In Nevada, for example, another moneyed magnate and Republican donor, Sheldon Adelson, secretly paid $140million to buy the Las Vegas Review-Journal a newspaper that had been critical of him in the past. Adelson, like the man he supported for president, has a history of suing journalists who write unflattering stories about him.

The wealthiest citizens clearly exert outsize power in our society, which becomes more problematic as the gap between the haves and have-nots continues to widen. The Fourth Estates job is to hold the powerful accountable, and yet the distrust of institutions especially the news media puts free speech in a precarious spot.

Technology and other factors like inequality are shifting and changing the ground we walk on, said Knappenberger, whose films The Internets Own Boy and We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists also deal with technology and society. The way those forces are rubbing up against what you might think of as traditional values freedom of speech and democracy and acquisition of power and money that stuff is really shifting, and I dont think we quite know where its going.

Knappenberger said he could tell at the time that what was happening with Hogan and Gawker was connected to what was happening on the campaign trail.

Trump was always in this film from the beginning, he said. There was a palpable hatred of the media in the courtroom. The judge on the case, Jeb Bush appointee Pamela Campbell, had no sympathy for Gawker. Nor, apparently, did the jury.

Theres legitimate criticism, Knappenberger said of journalism. That its too corporatized or too cozy with power. For too long, [journalists] traded softball stories for access, and people are starting to call bulls---.

But the director is heartened by the response to the new presidency as reporters have been energized by a hunt for scoops that has led to seemingly nonstop breaking-news bombshells.

Meanwhile, Trumps ability to change libel laws appears to be limited, despite a menacing tweet after a New York Times story he didnt like.

That doesnt make the threat against free speech and real facts any less real. Lets not forget what happened in that Florida courtroom.

This became something much, much bigger, and it does point to something critical at the heart of whats going on right now, Knappenberger said. If money is leveraged against civil liberties and speech, what else is important? Its not that thats the only important thing. Its that how do you care about anything else? How do you tackle anything else without speech?

Read the original:

A movie about Hulk Hogan's court case shows how the First ... - Washington Post

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no hate speech …

From todays opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the Slants case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 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.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional. A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register The Slants as a bands trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasnt trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

(Justice Neil Gorsuch wasnt on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated.)

Asian-American dance rock band The Slants talk about their Supreme Court case, including a supporter they'd rather not have: Dan Snyder. (Gillian Brockell,Jesse Rosten/The Washington Post)

Read the original here:

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no hate speech ...

Editorial: Court shores up First Amendment – The Detroit News

The Detroit News 11:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2017

The court ruling upholds the principle that the First Amendment protects even hateful speech.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

Americans shouldnt need constant reminding that under the First Amendment, they can say what they want, when they want and to whom they want, no matter how hateful or offensive.

And yet as longstanding as is that principle, the U.S. Supreme Court had to affirm it again this week when it ruled unanimously that an Asian rock band could trademark its name the Slants even though it is a derogatory term sometimes used to demean Asians.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied the bands request to register and protect its name, deeming it amounted to hate speech. The office similarly stripped the Washington Redskins football team of its trademark because it is offensive to Native Americans.

The courts ruling basically upheld the principle that all speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment and should not be restricted.

Thats the right call. The obvious danger of allowing the federal government to be the arbiter of free speech is that restrictions are easily manipulated to suit political agendas.

And offensiveness is very much in the ear they beholder. What shocks one person may not faze another.

The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, 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.

Alitos opinion provides important clarification for the so-called disparagement clause of federal law, which forbids registration of a trademark that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

Thats an overly broad carve-out that, again, relies on subjective interpretations influenceable by the regulators own experiences and biases.

Its not the appropriate role of the government, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all, Kennedy wrote in concurrence. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

There are, of course, marketplace consequences when speech oversteps societal norms and broadly offends. Products can be boycotted and individuals shunned. Thats the appropriate regulator.

This court has been a good friend to the First Amendment at a time when there are many who would shred it to stifle dissent and control the national political debate.

That the Slants opinion came on an 8-0 vote is a powerful affirmation of the foundational right of free speech and its sacred role in a democratic society.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tUR4iG

Go here to read the rest:

Editorial: Court shores up First Amendment - The Detroit News