Wisconsin ‘Campus Free Speech Act’ risks stifling free speech … – RT

Posted on by

Wisconsin legislation to protect free speech on college campuses would force the states university system to discipline students who disrupt speakers. Opponents warn that the bill will silence those who protest harmful speakers.

Wisconsin state Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) introduced the Campus Free Speech Act last month to ensure that free speech is not only welcome, but encouraged throughout Wisconsin academia.

In recent decades, attacks on free expression have become commonplace and in-vogue at institutions where ideals and truths should be challenged the American university, Kremer said in a statement. This most recent degradation has been at the behest of the leftist elite who promote their own progressive, opinionated beliefs as gospel while touting a bumper sticker slogan of coexist.

The Campus Free Speech Act would require any student who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others to attend a disciplinary hearing. Any student that has more than one hearing would be suspended for at least one semester or expelled.

The bill comes after free speech has become an issue on college campuses across the country. In February, protests at the University of California-Berkeley turned violent when Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak.

In November, UW-Madison students also interrupted former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, who was speaking out against safe spaces on college campuses.

After that protest, the Wisconsin Assembly approved the Campus Free Speech Act with an 8-6 vote, sending it to the Assembly floor. All six Democrats voted against the bill, warning it would stifle free speech relating to the research and scientific pursuits of the facility.

Democrats questioned the bills neutrality clause, which states that universities must remain neutral and not take action on the public policy controversies of the day.

During a committee hearing on May 11, Rep. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) questioned if the bill would allow a professor to correct a student that was arguing the Biblical theory that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Read more

The earth is 6,000 years old, Kremer stated, according to the Cap Times. Thats a fact.

But, Kremer said the bill stays out of the classroom and would only be intended to deal with students who disrupt speakers.

However, Kremer said that any student who felt they were unable to express their opinions in class could bring their complaints to the Council on Free Expression, an oversight board created in the bill.

The council on free expression would submit annual reports to the Board of Regents, the governor and the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, detailing any disruptions of free expression that occurred throughout the institution.

How are we to be taken seriously as an institution of higher learning and research if our professors can be called before a Council on Free Expression to defend their teaching of geology? said Dave Vanness, an associate professor of population health sciences, according to the Cap Times.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), one of the sponsors of the bill, said the biggest debate is going to be around global warming.

A lot of people think its settled science and an awful lot of people think it isnt, Vos said, according to the Cap Times. I think both sides should be brought to campus and let students decide.

Vos wrote an article in 2016, where he complained that a large number of the guest speakers invited to speak at UW-Milwaukee were easily identifiable as being liberal. He challenged the UW system to find more ways to ensure that all perspectives, including conservative ones, are present in the classroom.

Many Democrats questioned whether the bill was necessary at all, since the UW system already has policies that deal with protests.

State Rep. Dana Wachs (D-Eau Claire) called the bill a substantial overreach for a problem that frankly does not exist.

Instead of supporting free speech for all students, the authors of this bill have created a broad, vague proposal that could chill speech and ultimately silence those who want to respectfully share their beliefs on an issue, Wachs said in a statement.

Read more:

Wisconsin 'Campus Free Speech Act' risks stifling free speech ... - RT

Judge OKs trial in Middletown free-speech case – recordonline.com – Times Herald-Record

Posted on by

James Nani Times Herald-Record @JamesNani845

MIDDLETOWN - A federal judge hasruled that there areenough questions to warrant a trial onwhether the Middletown school boardand superintendentrestricted free speech at a contentious school board meeting in 2010.

Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, denied a motion on Tuesday by Middletown School District Superintendent Ken Eastwood for summary judgment inthe First Amendment claim.

The long-running lawsuit that's dogged Eastwood was brought in April 2010 by Francis Hoefer.

In March 2010, Hoefer, who lived inOswego at the time, tried to speak at Middletowns meeting but was cut off by board President Will Geiger.

Hoefer was removed from the building and handcuffed by Middletown police.

Hoefer had come to air complaints about Eastwood, dating back to the time when Eastwood was in charge of Oswegos schools.

Hoefer, a former Oswego school board member, filed the lawsuit regarding that ejection, naming three parties Geiger, Eastwood and the Middletown district.

He's represented by Goshen civil rights attorney Michael Sussman.

Hoefer said his civil rights were violated, including the right to free speech.

The parties came pretty close to a settlement at one point. Geiger and the board signed it, but Eastwood refused because he had a defamation suit against Hoefer.

Hoefer had put his comments in an online blog post soon after the 2010 board meeting.

Eastwood sued Hoefer for defamation in state court, won,and last year a state appellate court upheld the decision that Hoefer defamed him in part ofthat statement.

In Ramos' June 6 opinion, he saidcourtsmust construe facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in motions for summary judgment.

"Based on the facts before the court, a reasonable fact finder could determine that Eastwood engaged in a viewpoint-based prior restraint by suppressing statements that were critical of him while conversely allowing statements that praised him," Ramos wrote.

Ramos also ruled that just because Hoefer was able to publish his statement in a blog post after the meeting "does not do away with the fact that his intended speech was chilled, indeed frozen, at the board meeting."

Finally, Ramos found that Eastwood doesn't have immunity. A defense attorney has appealed the opinion on the immunity grounds.

In an email, Sussman said the trial will begin on July 7 and called the order "a stirring affirmation of the First Amendment."

The case will now likely go to trial, Eastwood said.

"Settlements are for when you think you've done something wrong," Eastwood said.

"I didn't do anything wrong, so I'm not going to roll over and take it."

jnani@th-record.com

Here is the original post:

Judge OKs trial in Middletown free-speech case - recordonline.com - Times Herald-Record

Redl Commits to Internet as ‘Engine of Free Speech’ | Multichannel – Multichannel News

Posted on by

David Redl, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, promised to work with stakeholders to identify underutilized government spectrum that can be repurposed for commercial use and said U.S. interests in the multistakeholder ICANN internet body would continue to be represented 'vigorously.'

Redl's commentscame duringhis nomination hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last week, a hearing thatwas overshadowed by another Hill hearing on the same day -- fired FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Redl's hearing lacked fireworks.

Redl is former senior staffer on the House Energy & Commerce committee, whose former boss, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the committee, was instrumental in the legislation to free up broadcast spectrum for commercial wireless.

Redlsaid a core mission of NTIA, the White House's chief telecom policy advisor as well, is to balance the need for spectrum for government to meet its needs, like protecting the country, with the need for added commercial spectrum. He said he was committed to working with the FCC to prioritized 5G.

Redl said his experience was in looking for bipartisan solutions to telecom issues and "focusing on things we could agree on."

He said he would commit to some things he hoped would find similar bipartisan agreement: (1) balance the government's need for spectrum with that of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum users; (2) try to improve access to broadband for all Americans; (3) work to advance the digital economy; and (4) work to advance the internet as an engine of free speech, the free market and economic opportunity.

Asked by Commerce chair Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) how he would balance those, Redl said NTIA had a process in place, including a policy and planning steering group he hoped to work with, as well as the Interagency Radio Advisory Committee (ARAC), to try tofind synergies and efficiencies.

Redl was asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)whether he thought the Obama Administration's decision to allow the contract for domain naming and numbering conventions oversight to lapse in the interests of migrating it to a multistakeholder model was a "wise and prudent" one.

Redl cited the debate, but said the reality is "this is the situation we are in." Walden and other Republicans had concerns that the multistakeholder model was an opportunity for some bad actors to get new power over the internet.

Redl said the administration supports the multistakeholder model, but said he also would be a vigorous representative of the U.S. before ICANN.

Cruz was not satisfied, asking the question again about the wisdom and prudence of the administration finding itself in the position it was in thanks to the last administration. Redl said that once the decision was made to move to that model and end the contract, it would have been hard to "put the genie back in the bottle."

He said he had tried to protect the U.S. interest throughout that process, and that given the changes made to the accountability process, the country was in a position to protect those interests.

Asked about broadband infrastructure in rural areas, Redl committed to allocating capital "efficiently."

Redl likely didn't hurt his chances of a warm welcome at his new digs by telling the senators that NTIA staffers were the "unsung heroes" of the digital economy.

See original here:

Redl Commits to Internet as 'Engine of Free Speech' | Multichannel - Multichannel News

Trevor Noah on Bill Maher: Free Speech Has ‘Consequences’ – Daily Beast

Posted on by

Comedians typically dont like to publicly condemn other comedians. But that principle was challenged over the past week after Bill Maher casually dropped the n-word on his HBO show Real Time.

Asked about the backlash last week on The View, Kevin Hart said he doesnt believe Maher is a racist, but should have known the consequences of using the word. It was stupid, he added. Maher discovered those consequences as people began calling for him to be fired and on Friday night both Michael Eric Dyson and Ice Cube took him to the woodshed, so to speak, for his transgression.

It took about 10 seconds for the topic to come up once again on Mondays episode of The View, when The Daily Shows Trevor Noah joined the hosts. It seems like its a dangerous time to be a comedian right now, Joy Behar said, citing not only Maher, but also Kathy Griffin, who was let go by CNN for her anti-Donald Trump stunt, and Stephen Colbert, who faced his own backlash for joking about the president.

You know what, to be honest with you, I think its good, Noah said. I genuinely think its good. I wont lie, as a comedian, I look back and I go, there are things I said that I shouldnt have been saying. Were progressing, were moving forward. Theres things that we said about women that we shouldnt have been saying.

Thats one way to look at it, Behar said, in clear disagreement with Noahs point of view.

Noah was speaking from experience. When he was hired to replace Jon Stewart in 2015, he found his Twitter history subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny with reporters digging up and highlighting any joke from his past that could be construed as sexist, anti-Semitic or just generally offensive.

If you look at what youre trying to do as a comedian, essentially what Im trying to do, is Im trying to move forward, Im trying to think progressively, Im trying to push the boundaries, Noah added on The View. I remember a time when I loved making fat jokes, because I thought, oh, look at this, this is edgy. But it wasnt.

Noah made a distinction between censorship and backlash, asking, Shouldnt there be consequences for free speech?

There should not be consequences for free speech, Whoopi Goldberg countered. People dont have to like what you say, but there should not be consequences.

In America, Noah said he finds that people conflate free speech as consequence free, but coming from South Africa, a country where the government could come after you for something you say, he sees a clear difference. You are free to say what you like, somebody may still punch you, though. Thats a consequence.

Losing your job can also be a consequence, one that Kathy Griffin, and subsequently Reza Aslan, suffered at the hands of CNN. But not, so far at least, one that Bill Maher has been dealt by HBO.

Read the original post:

Trevor Noah on Bill Maher: Free Speech Has 'Consequences' - Daily Beast

Alt-Right targets women in attack on free speech – People’s World

Posted on by

Redemmas.org

President Trump has spent the last several months keeping his campaign promises. From the ongoing push to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the numerous executive orders targeting immigration, abortion care funding, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies, the Trump administration has not eased up.

Many have voiced outrage over the turn the country has suddenly taken, as direct action is one of the few methods of dissent still intact. However, Assistant professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, recently faced death threats after FOX News aired a segment from a commencement address at Hampshire College.

A leading organizer and scholar on Black politics and racial inequality, Taylor is the author of the critically acclaimed book; #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. She spoke on a number of topics, including the growing threat of the Trump administration. From the terror-inducing raids in the communities of undocumented immigrants; to his disparaging of refugees in search of freedom and respite; he has empowered an attorney general who embraces and promulgates policies that have already been proven to have had a devastating impact on Black families and communities.

Taylor called the President a racist sexist megalomaniac and stated that Donald Trump has fulfilled the promises of a campaign organized and built upon racism, corporatism, and militarism. While the speech received backlash after being featured on a number of conservative platforms, including during, conservative news anchor, Glenn Becks The Blaze, it is far from the first time the African American professor has spoken out about the injustices that marginalized communities face. In a statement released on Facebook through the Haymarket Books page, Taylor stated that she was cancelling appearances to various universities due to ongoing threats against her and her familys safety, Since last Friday, I have received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails. Some of these emails have contained specific threats of violence, including murder.

While there has been a long history of white institutions silencing black academics, it seems that the increasing popularity of alt-right movements has encouraged censorship from outside influences as well. Taylor has claimed that the segment on FOX was framed as an anti-POTUS tirade that was meant to incite violent intimidation from the right-wing viewers, Fox did not run this story because it was news, but to incite and unleash the mob-like mentality of its fringe audience, anticipating that they would respond with a deluge of hate-filled emails or worse. The threat of violence, whether it is implied or acted on, is intended to intimidate and to silence.

Similar incidents around the country have featured the same type of censorship patterns towards women activists and political voices. In Iowa, Democratic candidate Kim Weaver abandoned the race against Republican Congressman Steve King (IA). Weaver cited alarming acts of intimidation, including death threats and stated that her safety and personal health had become a growing concern.

Across the country, in New York City, Muslim-American activist Linda Sarsour faced death threats before she even had a chance to get on stage. While her speech ended up being well received at the New York City commencement ceremony, the discourse surrounding her in the weeks leading up to the delivery was hostile, with messages like A good Arab is a dead Arab and Youre getting two bullets in your head being sent to Sarsour on an hourly basis.

The white nationalist movement has long used acts of violence and intimidation to manipulate public discourse. In the past the Klan played a critical role in preventing people from reaching the election polls, and harbored their extensive social network to control facets of the media. Nevertheless, the rise in the mob mentality of cyber-bullying has become a frequent tactic of the Republican partyand provides tools for doing harm to their ideological opponents.

This may seem to some to be ironic, given the anger and outrage that emerged when activist shut down Milo Yiannopoulos was forced to cancel his visit to the University of California/Berkeley after anti-fascist activists caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus in protest. Yiannopoulos however, had threatened to out undocumented and Trans students during his Dangerous Faggot tour. Such potential for harm is a far cry from Taylors voice of dissent towards an existing government that has enacted several harmful policies in a matter of months. One speaker demands non-violent liberation and the other uses their platform to doxx, and thus endanger, local students.

It seems there are clear patterns to the way in which conservatives chose who they target; women, and specifically women of color, are frequently in the crosshairs of attacks from the right. These individuals are often spammed with misogynistic comments, intertwined with a threat of sexual and/or physical violence. For black and brown women, Like Taylor and Sarsour, these threats are also frequently coded with racism and Islamophobia. It makes it possible for white nationalist to masquerade their attacks as part free speech campaign as opposed to confronting the reality of the hate speech they utilize to enact violence.

While free speech is often lauded as one of the main talking points of the right, they remain surprisingly silent when it comes to the rights and liberties of marginalized voices. As long as womens dissent poses a threat to the predominantly white-male dominated GOP, then they will feel the need to retaliate towards any potential threat. This is a status quo that Taylor directly challenges: this system is led by a billionaire president and a Congress composed mostly of white men who are millionaires, Despite the setbacks, the fight against the alt-right and their methods of censorship continue. The brilliant women of the movement will continue to be at the front lines.

***When reached out to for comment Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor stated that they are not doing interviews at this time***

Here is the original post:

Alt-Right targets women in attack on free speech - People's World

Should Constitution be amended to make Freedom of Speech a direct Fundamental Right? – The Indian Express

Posted on by

Written by Manish Tewari | New Delhi | Published:June 13, 2017 7:55 am Are newspapers, broadcasting, radio and even social media an exercise in freedom of speech and expression or are business or trade subject to restrictions under Article 19 (6)?

The Constitution of India does not formally recognize the Freedom of the Press. Article 19 of the Constitution proclaims the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc. (1) All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression; to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations or unions; to move freely throughout the territory of India; to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The Constitution caveats the freedom of speech and expression with the following all encompassing restrictions that are prone to expansive, ambiguous and self-serving interpretations.

(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, it says.

There is a further joker in the pack and that lies in the form of Article 19 (6) that circumscribes the right among other things to carry on any trade or business. The question, therefore, that remains open to malicious construal is whether newspapers, broadcasting, radio and even social media are an exercise in freedom of speech and expression or are business or trade subject to restrictions under Article 19 (6).

This is precisely the insidious distinction that the CBI sought to draw when they put out a press release stating they had raided the office and business premises of the promoters of NDTV and not the Newsroom.

In other words, attempting to suggest that they were not interfering in the freedom of the press but merely trying to probe/ investigate/ regulate the backend or the business end of the commercial enterprise called NDTV. The relevant excerpt from the statement reads as follows; It is clarified that searches have been carried out at the premises of the promoters and their offices based on search warrants issued by the Competent Court. CBI has not conducted any search of registered office of NDTV, media studio, newsroom or premises connected with media operations. CBI fully respects the freedom of press and is committed to the free functioning of news operations.

As a lawyer and a former minister of Information & Broadcasting, I can only say with a reasonable degree of authority that not only is this the most vile hairs-plitting, it is also hilariously side-splitting. When you have to squeeze a media company you do not attack its news operations; instead, you go for the jugular by cutting off its revenue streams and put its business activity under a microscope, all the while sending it private messages that if your news coverage falls in line then the government will make the bad stuff go away. This is the Executives standard operating procedure when it lets its hounds loose on a media organization.

But the Supreme Court has held in a catena of decisions that the business end of a media enterprise is intrinsically and organically linked to freedom of speech and expression. As far back as 1961 regarding the Sakal newspaper, a Constitution bench of the court laid down the law that holds the field even today.

It reads as follows : The only question that would then remain would be whether the impugned enactment directly impinges on the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. It would directly impinge on this freedom either by placing restraint upon it or by placing restraint upon something, which is an essential part of that freedom. The freedom of a newspaper to publish any number of pages or to circulate it to any number of persons is each an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression. A restraint placed upon either of them would be a direct infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression.

It therefore is evidently clear that any unwarranted attack on the commercial aspect of a media enterprise that is based upon obtained complaints and actuated by malice, paranoia or executive schizophrenia is a direct, unmitigated and sledgehammer assault on freedom of speech and expression.

Now contrast the Indian constitutional scheme with the American constitutional position. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the Freedom of the Press in its entirety. It reads as follows : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thus the estoppel is absolute. The US Congress can enact no law that abridges the freedom of the press in any manner much less let loose the hordes of Chengiz Khan - the law enforcement and investigative authorities to bludgeon a media house into subjugation. The US Congress passed this amendment along with eight others making up the Bill of Rights as far back as 15th December 1791.

These forty-five words encompass the most basic of American rights: Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and the right of petition.

The First Amendment was not important in American life until well into the 20th century. The meaning was not clear even in 1791 but the intent was. Notwithstanding such unambiguous intent the words still are the subject of continuing interpretation and dispute even in the 21st century.

Therefore, to obviate any sinister sophistry about Article 19 (1) (a) in the Indian Constitution, which the CBI craftily came up with, perhaps the time has come for India to amend its Constitution and include the Freedom of Press as a direct right in the chapter on Fundamental Rights, rather than a derivative freedom of the Right to Speech and Expression . This would obviate any attempts by right-wing, left wing or centrist authoritarian figures to endanger this basic, natural and inviolable right.

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

More:

Should Constitution be amended to make Freedom of Speech a direct Fundamental Right? - The Indian Express

Atheism, or agnosticism, ends in meaninglessness and despair – Kawartha Media Group

Posted on by

Kawartha Media Group
Atheism, or agnosticism, ends in meaninglessness and despair
Kawartha Media Group
Atheism, or agnosticism, promise enlightenment and freedom, but followed to their logical conclusions, must end in meaninglessness and despair. To acknowledge the existence and, perhaps inconceivably, the wisdom of God may mean the end of our own ...

Excerpt from:

Atheism, or agnosticism, ends in meaninglessness and despair - Kawartha Media Group

‘Knights of Sidonia’ is the Pinnacle of Gritty Mecha Anime – Inverse

Posted on by

Anime fans in the U.S. who grew up watching Gundam Wing on Cartoon Networks Toonami block will love the darker, more mature take on the mecha subgenre of anime theyll find with Netflixs Knights of Sidonia.

Whereas series like Power Rangers, Voltron, and various Gundam iterations are lighthearted in their tone and small in their stakes, Knights of Sidonia is a dark post-apocalyptic story of mecha vs. kaiju that feels an awful lot like Battlestar Galactica meets Pacific Rim and its not afraid to depict some truly grisly deaths.

In Knights of Sidonia, the year is 3394 and the half-million remaining humans live aboard a massive arc named Sidonia as it hurdles through space. As the series begins, Sidonia has already spent 1,000 years fleeing from the gauna, the monstrous shapeshifting alien race that destroyed Earth. A select few Knights pilot Gardes, Sidonias name for giant mechs.

The protagonist Nagate Tanikaze grew up hidden underground with his grandfather, training daily in a Garde simulation. He emerges from hiding to join a society he never knew, and he eventually becomes one of humanitys greatest defenders. Its a job he trained his entire life for, and through his eyes, the viewer slowly learns truly how desperate existence is on Sidonia.

Special humans piloting giant mecha is a tried-and-true premise for an anime that could very easily be a bore here, but rather than just throw mecha pilots into an endless war with flashy fight scenes, Knights of Sidonia deftly explores the practical implications of its setting.

What would humanity really look like after a thousand years aboard a massive space arc? What technologies or innovations would be invented for the sake of survival? How dangerous and gritty would their lives be? Knights of Sidonia has a lot to say about these questions and so much more.

Much like the recently released Blame! anime film, Knights of Sidonia is adapted from a manga by Tsutomu Nihei and produced by Polygon Pictures. Both anime feature a very similar dystopian sci-fi design aesthetic with 3D character animations (at times its even implied that both series exists in the same universe). Whereas many sci-fi anime can come across colorful and refined, both these series make a point of presenting worlds with a uniquely weathered look that conveys how grim and desperate these dystopias really are.

Sure, both Blame! and Knights of Sidonia present high-tech settings in the worlds of tomorrow, but after millennia, even our future could become the distant past. High-tech gadgets are transformed into ancient relics by the passage of time. Even Sidonia itself is of brutish, practical design, built right into a massive asteroid.

In Sidonias society, innovations like human cloning, asexual reproduction, and human genetic engineering are commonplace, along with an adaptation that allows most humans to gain nutrients via photosynthesis rather than actually eating. And one of the shows most interesting characters is Izana Shinatose, who is actually a nonbinary third gender. She has androgynous features and, like all third genders, her body can shift into either male or female when she finds a mate.

These adaptations do not arise out of creative or inspired feats of innovation; they arise out of necessity in a resource-starved and highly volatile existence. Much of it is very cool, but as a whole the series does a great job of communicating how bleak life is on Sidonia.

Starvation might be a concern, but the real threat comes from the gauna, which are faceless, emotionless, formless blobs that are nearly impossible to kill. Because theyre so grotesquely inhuman, theyre that much more of an absolute terror.

Not only are the fight scenes in Knights of Sidonia truly horrifying even with Gardes, humanity is hopelessly outmatched and the frequent deaths are truly gruesome but the despair permeates throughout and beyond the militarized portion of society.

Humanity is totally screwed. If you dont die from a gauna attack of some kind, then youll probably just die of starvation at some point. In this, Knights of Sidonia is a lot like Attack on Titan in space.

Knights of Sidonia is easily one of the best anime available on Netflix right now, and you cant watch it anywhere else. Sure, its overwhelmingly dark and gritty, but at least theres a fun and hilariously cute momma bear that takes care of Nagate:

Because what would an anime be without some bizarre comic relief?

See more here:

'Knights of Sidonia' is the Pinnacle of Gritty Mecha Anime - Inverse

NATO partners with Polish university for e-learning – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

Cuiavian University in Wloclawek, Poland agreed on 7 June 2017 to support NATOs work with partners on defence education through advanced distance learning (ADL).

Defence education is a key agent of transformation and NATO is using it to support institutional reform in partner countries. Through its Defence Education Enhancement Programme (DEEP), the Alliance advises partners on how to build, develop and reform educational institutions in the defence and military domain in the form of peer-to-peer conversations. E-learning is becoming a global trend in defence and military domains and DEEP is using it to improve efficient military education in some partner countries.

Cuiavian University is supporting Ukraines DEEP programme in building e-learning capacity for the National Defence University in Kyiv. It is also an active institution within the European Higher Education Area under the Bologna Process which sets the basic framework for the three cycles of higher-education qualifications, bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees and in the European Union student exchange programme Erasmus.

Cuiavian University is proud that NATO has acknowledged our strong e-learning capacity and we are keen to expand our mutual cooperation from the DEEP Ukraine to other NATO partners, said Prof. Stanislaw Kunikowski, Rector of Cuiavian University.

Being active in both the European Union (EU) and NATO, the university is keen to bolster joint NATO-EU future cooperation in the ADL area by developing common e-learning modules together with the DEEP Programme and the European Security and Defence College.

Your university has proven to be a reliable provider of knowledge and expertise and the Defence Education Enhancement Programme will work with you for the benefits of NATO partners military education institutions that want to reform their educational system and introduce new teaching techniques, said Mariusz Solis, DEEP coordinator at NATO.

Visit link:

NATO partners with Polish university for e-learning - NATO HQ (press release)

Is the Old NATO Dead? – The National Interest Online

Posted on by

When President Donald Trump travels to Poland this week to meet with its embattled president Andrzej Duda, the two will have a lot to talk about. Both are alternately ridiculed and pilloried in the international press and both are intensely disliked at European Union headquarters in Brussels. Both have been labeled nationalists, demagogues and even dictators-in-the-making. And both of them question NATOs capacity to act as an effective defensive force.

Since taking office in 2015, Duda has consistently pushed for a stronger NATO presence in Poland. He used his first major English-language interview as president to push for Poland to replace Germany as the real eastern flank of the alliance, and his government has put real money on the table toward that end. Poland is one of only five NATO members to meet its 2 percent of GDP military spending commitment.

By comparison, Germany spends 1.19 percent of its GDP on defense, sixteenth among the twenty-nine NATO members. Poland also meets the less well-known NATO target that at least 20 percent of defense spending should be on equipment, with 25.8 percent of its budget going to procurement. Germany, by contrast, spends only 13.7 percent of its defense budget on equipment, with the result that some German units are armed with broomsticks instead of guns.

What a change a century makes. Until its virtual dismantling in the 1990s, the German Bundeswehr was NATOs main fighting force. While France cowered safely behind a line of American bases in the United Kingdom, West Germany and Italy, the Bundeswehr contributed the majority of NATOs frontline troops, tanks and airplanes. In the darkest days of the Cold War, West Germany was the bulwark of European defense. No longer. With Germany now lacking the capacity to mount any serious military operationand no other European country ready to step into the breachNATO's vaunted Article 5 commitment to collective defense has become, in effect, a unilateral U.S. security guarantee. Trump has now publicly accepted the mantle of that responsibility. But that doesnt change the fact that all for one and one for all only makes sense if all have the capacity to help the one.

It is becoming clearer by the day that most Europeans now understand Article 5 as a one-way American commitment to their security. It is true that NATO stood by the United States on September 11, with some NATO countries (the UK in particular) making serious commitments and suffering serious casualties in Afghanistan. But the military budgets of Americas NATO allies declined precipitously between 200815. Only a few are now able to defend themselves, never mind come to the aid of others.

In Europe, Poland is now NATOs central front, and the Polish government is aching for a more permanent NATO (read: American) presence in the country. The simple fact is that Poland is now the bulwark of Europe. It needs American help to hold the line. And given its deep involvement in Ukrainian affairs, Poland is likely to be ever more useful to the United States as an outpost at the heart of Eastern Europe.

Neither Trump nor Duda is likely to be impressed by European Commission president Jean-Claude Junckers call for a European defense capability to match those of the United States, China and Russia. Speaking in English at a European security conference in Prague, Juncker proposed what has been called a defense spending spree of 90 million euros over three years. Thats equivalent to just $100 million, or about the cost of a single F-35 fighter. Over three years.

Ironically, European leaders bristled last month in Brussels when Trump publicly and privately berated them for not spending enough on defense. Now, despite their overwhelmingly negative response to Trumps demands, they are calling for more European spending on defense. But calling for and doing are two different things. European leaders specialize in calling for. America is better known for doing.

More:

Is the Old NATO Dead? - The National Interest Online

Director General of the NATO International Military Staff addresses the Black Sea and Balkans Security Forum – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

Lieutenant General Jan Broeks, Director General of the NATO International Military Staff (DGIMS) visited Romania on 9-11 June 2017. During his visit, Lieutenant General Broeks addressed the Black Sea and Balkans Security Forum and held staff talks with Romanian officials.

At the Black Sea and Balkans Security Forum, Lieutenant General Broeks participated in a panel on the Security challenges in the Black Sea area and the Balkans. Other participants in the panel included: Mr. Dan Dungaciu, member of the Scientific Council of the New Strategy Center (Chair); General Nicolae Ciuc, Chief of the Romanian General Staff; Mr. Mustafa Aydin, rector of Kadir Has University Istanbul and president of the International Relations Council of Turkey; Mr. Przemysaw urawski vel Grajewski, advisor for defence issues to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Mr. Robert Bari, Lecturer at the Croatian Defense Academy.

During his address, Lieutenant General Broeks highlighted the importance of the Black Sea as a key strategic intersection linking NATOs Eastern and Southern flanks and the Balkans role as a gateway to Europe from the Southern Caucuses, the Eastern Mediterranean and the broader Middle East. Lieutenant General Broeks also stressed that the Region has become the central focus of Russias larger strategic ambitions and revisionist agenda, making it a potential flashpoint for future conflict on NATOs border.

While in Bucharest, the Director General met with Romanian military officials to discuss the security environment in the Black Sea region and the Romanian Armed Forces transformation process. Lieutenant General Broeks took the opportunity to thank Romania for hosting and activating the Multinational Division South-East Headquarters as well as its role in strengthening NATOs forward presence with a Romanian-led multinational framework brigade on land. They also discussed the deployment of the British Typhoon fighter aircrafts who will be working alongside the Romanian Air Force to help keep the skies over Romania safe, as part of NATOs Air Policing mission.

Finally, Lieutenant General Broeks praised Romania for its valuable contributions to NATOs Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan and to the KFOR peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.

More here:

Director General of the NATO International Military Staff addresses the Black Sea and Balkans Security Forum - NATO HQ (press release)

Morning Joe Bashes Trump for Not Supporting NATO…After Trump Announces Support for NATO – NewsBusters (blog)

Posted on by

NewsBusters (blog)
Morning Joe Bashes Trump for Not Supporting NATO...After Trump Announces Support for NATO
NewsBusters (blog)
Following President Trump's declaration of support for NATO last Friday the cast of Morning Joe denounced and decried the President on Monday for -- not supporting NATO? Nicolle Wallace bemoaned the current state of foreign relations and how Donald ...

View original post here:

Morning Joe Bashes Trump for Not Supporting NATO...After Trump Announces Support for NATO - NewsBusters (blog)

Reality Winner, NSA Contractor Accused of Leak, Was Undone by Trail of Clues – New York Times

Posted on by

New York Times
Reality Winner, NSA Contractor Accused of Leak, Was Undone by Trail of Clues
New York Times
Then came a yearslong debate over warrantless wiretapping during the George W. Bush administration, the leak to the news media in 2013 of hundreds of thousands of documents by Edward J. Snowden, and last year, the theft of N.S.A. hacking tools that ...
The latest NSA leak is a reminder that your bosses can see your every moveWashington Post
How Did Accused NSA Leaker Reality Winner Get Security Clearance?NBCNews.com
Federal contractor arrested after NSA document published on news siteUSA TODAY
NPR -The Hill -The Intercept -Department of Justice
all 1,400 news articles »

See the article here:

Reality Winner, NSA Contractor Accused of Leak, Was Undone by Trail of Clues - New York Times

Posted in NSA

Accused NSA Leaker May Be Treated Harshly As An Example, Experts Say – Task & Purpose

Posted on by

Her family calls Reality Leigh Winner a patriot who may have made some mistakes but acted with conviction for the good of her country. The federal government portrays her as something more sinister a threat to national security.

Those contrasting portraits, first unveiled last week in a bond hearing in an Augusta federal court, will likely emerge in the months ahead as the central themes in the first leak prosecution under the Trump administration.

Legal experts say prosecutors will want to make an example of someone who allegedly shared secrets in an era where rampant leaks have angered President Donald Trump and damaged his presidency. Winner, meanwhile, will be fighting for her freedom.

Winner, an intelligence contractor who worked at Fort Gordon near Augusta, pleaded not guilty to a single count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. She is charged under the Espionage Act with leaking a top secret NSA document on Russian attempts to hack U.S. election systems to the news media.

Prosecutors won the first sortie on Thursday, convincing U.S. Magistrate Judge Brian Epps that Winner is too great a risk to be released on bond. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari said the government is concerned Winner might have compromised other secrets, and that she had a persistent desire to travel to Afghanistan and researched technology that could be used to cover her digital tracks.

Winner allegedly wrote that she wanted to burn the White House down and in notes appeared sympathetic to the Taliban.

Winners lawyer, Titus Nichols, said his client isnt a flight risk nor a threat.

Friends and her family have described her as an animal lover, a fitness buff and a decorated Air Force veteran. Her stepfather, Gary Davis, said her youth, her liberal views and her high security clearance make her a perfect patsy.

Thats what our biggest fear is political persecution to drive home a political point, Davis said. Thats the unwritten message. If you go against the government, then were going to shut you down. And were going to throw you into prison and throw away the key.

President Barack Obama prosecuted more leakers than all other presidents before him combined, and though the Winner case is the first under Trump, the new president has demanded the Department of Justice find and prosecute more.

Under Trump, even the definition of leaker has expanded. On Friday, the president called James Comey, the FBI director he fired amid probes into Russia election meddling, a leaker, although the contents of the memo Comey told Congress he had distributed to the press do not appear to qualify as classified information.

Joshua Lowther, a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, said Winner could make a sympathetic defendant. Shes a six-year veteran of the Air Force awarded a commendation for her intelligence work, which helped kill and capture hundreds of enemy combatants.

One of Winners potential defenses is to highlight that history of service to her country, including in the decision whether misguided or principled to leak material about Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election that she believed the public needed to know, Lowther said.

In court Thursday, prosecutors sought to shoot down that line of defense with explosive allegations she expressed sympathies to American enemies and wanted to burn the White House, Lowther said.

The government thinks this is someone who deserves to be prosecuted severely, Lowther said.

So far, though, the prosecutions picture of Winner as a danger to the nation doesnt fully square with the material she is alleged to have leaked, said Kenneth Geers, a senior fellow at international affairs think tank Atlantic Council.

Geers, a former NSA and Defense Department analyst, said what Winner allegedly leaked and where she sent the information to the whistleblower website, The Intercept makes it appear she acted out of conscience.

When I read the (original Intercept) article I thought this is a person who might be a Bernie supporter, said Geers, referring to Bernie Sanders, the U.S. senator from Vermont and former Democratic presidential candidate.

Unless prosecutors uncover that Winner compromised more sensitive information, something that would aide an adversary or wound U.S. interests abroad, the case doesnt seem to support the argument that shes a jihadist, Geers said.

I dont know her state of mind or logic, but it seems like if she were a jihadist, only releasing information about the election doesnt make a lot of sense, Geers said.

Prosecutors do not have to prove harm

Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus and Marine Gen. James Cartwright avoided lengthy prison sentences by pleading to lesser charges. Winner fits into the pattern of the Justice Department throwing the book at lower level employees, said Edward MacMahon, a veteran criminal defense lawyer versed in national security cases.

MacMahon was part of the defense team for Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA operative who was convicted of espionage and sent to prison for leaking details of a secret U.S. operation to sabotage Irans nuclear program to a New York Times reporter.

Though the Winner case is slated to be tried in federal court in Augusta, it will be directed from Washington by the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the Justice Departments National Security Division.

The government will put enormous resources into trying this case, MacMahon said.

Prosecutors will attempt to prove that Winner had access to the classified material, gave it to persons without that access and that they can exclude other possible suspects.

The salacious allegations of sympathizing with enemies only ups the ante.

Prosecutors also have a significant advantage: they do not have to prove the leak caused harm to the nation.

They dont have to prove actual harm, they only have to prove the possibility of harm, he said. Its been challenged in court as vague but no court has ever overturned a conviction from it.

2017 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, Ga.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

WATCH NEXT:

Originally posted here:

Accused NSA Leaker May Be Treated Harshly As An Example, Experts Say - Task & Purpose

Posted in NSA

FBI Used ‘Microdots’ to Nab Accused NSA Leaker – Newser

Posted on by

Newser
FBI Used 'Microdots' to Nab Accused NSA Leaker
Newser
The yellow "microdots" formed a coded design on the paper the 25-year-old NSA contractor allegedly provided to the Intercept that purports to detail Russian interference in the November election. The pattern revealed the serial number of the printer ...

Continue reading here:

FBI Used 'Microdots' to Nab Accused NSA Leaker - Newser

Posted in NSA

Constitution and Fourth Amendment – Gettysburg Times

Posted on by

The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Pretty straightforward, right? It was, until something labeled the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA). Today, every electronic communication of every kind -- e-mail, telephone conversation, radio or TV communication, in any medium -- is routinely overheard, recorded, stored and available for use against any American citizen by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the IRS, the Social Security Administration and every information and intelligence gathering agency government-wide. Your cell phone isn't just a telephone any more: it's a GPS for government trackers; it stores your phone records and conversations; and the "your" telephone company routinely provides that Government whatever it asks about what we say, to whom, and when. So do our computers. The result? There is no longer any reasonable expectation of privacy, anywhere, anytime, for anyone.

One might ask, "How did this come to be?" In 1978, under President Jimmy Carter, Congress enacted something called the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA), whose nominal purpose was to enable the federal government to eavesdrop, wiretap, or otherwise capture the contents of communications and/or conversations involving people from other nations around the world whom our government believed might be plotting or conspiring to do America harm. Of course, some of those nefarious plotters might also be doing so in conjunction with Americans; therefore, it was necessary to "listen in" on everyone, lest our defenders in the intelligence community not be able to detect all they could. Which in turn meant that a mechanism needed to exist to honor the 4th Amendment - if only in form. Thus came about what is now known as the "FISA Court," whose two-fold purpose was to approve the "listening" while maintaining a cover for violating the 4th Amendment, and appearing to provide protection for American citizens against the very Government behavior things that Court was approving. (No, it doesn't make sense, but it's the way it is.) All this, of course, was long before cell phones, personal computers, laptops and even the internet.

kAmwF>2? ?2EFC6 36:?8 H92E :E :D[ H92E6G6C q:8 v@G6C?>6?E 42? 86E 2H2J H:E9[ D>2== 8@G6C?>6?E H:== 7@==@H] $@ ?@H H6 92G6 2== <:?5D @7 6=64EC@?:4 DFCG6:==2?46[ ac^f[ @? 6G6CJ@?6 E9C@F89@FE E96 =2?5[ 7C@> E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 2== E96 H2J E@ r:EJ w2==] u@C E9@D6 C6256CD 72>:=:2C H:E9 v6@C86 ~CH6==[ Q`hgcQ 😀 2=:G6 2?5 H6==j 2?5[ J6D[ q:8 qC@E96C 😀 H2E49:?8] p?5 =:DE6?:?8] p?5 C64@C5:?8] p?5 H2:E:?8 \ E@ FD6 H92E6G6C 96 92D 282:?DE 2?J@?6] xEVD ?@ =@?86C D4:6?467:4E:@?j :EVD 724E 2?5 56D4C:36D E92E A2CE @7 E96 x?E6==:86?46 4@>>F?:EJ E92E 92D 4@>6 E@ 36 =236=65 E96 Qs66A $E2E6]Qk^Am

kAmp82:?[ 9F>2? ?2EFC6 36:?8 H92E :E :D[ 2?5 9F>2?D 36:?8 E96 :?96C6?E=J 4FC:@FD A@=:E:42= 2?:>2=D E92E H6 2C6[ D@>6 😕 E96 :?E6==:86?46 4@>>F?:EJ 92G6 EFC?65 E96:C 2FE9@C:K2E:@?D 7C@> 8F2C5:?8 282:?DE @FC 6IE6C?2= E9C62ED[ E@ 2EE24<:?8 2?5 56DEC@J:?8 E9@D6 E96J A6C46:G6 2D A2CE:D2? A@=:E:42= 6?6>:6D 7FCE96C G:@=2E:?8 E96 cE9 p>6?5>6?E[ 3@E9 😕 DA:C:E 2?5 😕 724E]k^Am

kAmp== @7 E9:D 😀 ?@E @?=J 😕 5:C64E G:@=2E:@? @7 E96 cE9 p>6?5>6?E[ :EVD E@E2==J 56DECF4E:G6 E@ 2 7C66 2?5 @A6?[ D6=78@G6C?:?8 D@4:6EJ[ :]6][ @FC 7@F?5:?8 AC:?4:A=6D] x7 E96 u@F?56CD 2?5 uC2>6CD 5:5?VE H2?E E96 rC@H? DAJ:?8 @? FD[ H9J 5@ H6 2==@H @FC 8@G6C?>6?E 2E 6G6CJ =6G6= E@n u@C 36EE6C D64FC:EJn q6? uC2?<=:? D2:5 :E H6==i Q%9@D6 H9@ EC256 7C665@> 7@C D64FC:EJ 56D6CG6 ?6:E96C]Qk^Am

kAm(92E 42? (6[ E96 !6@A=6[ 5@ E@ EFC? E9:D 2C@F?5n ~3G:@FD=J[ ECFDE:?8 E96 v@G6C?>6?E E@ 4@CC64E :ED6=7 >2<6D ?@ D6?D6 2E 2== 8@G6C?>6?ED[ 3J E96:C G6CJ ?2EFC6[ 24BF:C6 A@H6Cj E96J ?6:E96C D92C6 ?@C J:6=5] qFE[ H6 DE:== 92G6 😕 A=246 2 WD@>6H92EX C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 8@G6C?>6?E2= DECF4EFC6j H9J ?@E >2<6 :E ECF=J C6AC6D6?E2E:G6n *6D[ :E >62?D A2J:?8 4=@D6C 2EE6?E:@? E@ H92E E92E 8@G6C?>6?E 😀 24EF2==J 5@:?8] p?5 :E >62?D A2J:?8 6G6? 4=@D6C 2EE6?E:@? E@ 9@H H92E :E 5@6D 27764ED FD[ 3@E9 4FCC6?E=J 2?5 5@H? E96 C@25] p?5 :E >62?D A2J:?8 6G6? >@C6 2EE6?E:@? E@ E@ H2?E E@ C6AC6D6?E FD H:== 24EF2==J 5@ E92E[ @C 72== :?E@ >@C6 @7 E96 :?E6C?64:?6 A2CE:D2?D9:A E92E H:?D A@=:E:42= G:4E@C:6D 3FE 56DEC@JD E96 723C:4 @7 @FC #6AF3=:4] xE >62?D[ 2D !=2E@ H2C?65 a[d__ J62CD 28@[ E92E (6[ E96 !6@A=6[ >FDE 86E :?G@=G65 2?5 A2CE:4:A2E6 😕 E9:D D6=78@G6C?2?46 AC@;64Ej @E96CH:D6 H6V== D:>A=J 4@?E:?F6 EC2?D:E:@?:?8 E@ :ED @AA@D:E6[ :]6][ EJC2??J] p?5 H6 D66 EJC2??J 3=@DD@>:?8 6G6CJH96C6[ 7C@> D49@@=D E@ 8@G6C?>6?ED 2?5 6G6CJH96C6 😕 36EH66?[ =2C86=J 3642FD6 (6[ E96 !6@A=6[ 92G6 2DDF>65 E96 36DE 2?5 6?23=65 E96 H@CDE]k^Am

kAm#6>6>36C[ E96 r@?DE:EFE:@? ?6:E96C 8F2C2?E66D ?@C 6?7@C46D @FC C:89ED 2?5 AC@E64E:@?Dj :E D:>A=J 277:C>D E96>[ 2?5 7F?4E:@?D 2D 2 >6492?:D> 7@C FD E@ 6I6C4:D6 2?5 AC@E64E E96> @FCD6=G6D] v@G6C?>6?E[ 3J :ED G6CJ ?2EFC6[ ?6:E96C D92C6D ?@C J:6=5D A@H6Cj :E E2<6D :E] %92EVD H9J %9@>2D y6776CD@?VD Qx? BF6DE:@?D @7 A@H6C E96?[ =6E ?@ >@C6 36 962C5 @7 4@?7:56?46 😕 >2? 3FE 3:?5 9:> 5@H? 7C@> >:D49:67 3J E96 492:?D @7 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?[Q 😀 D@ :>A@CE2?E] qF5 }2D@? =:G6D 😕 {:EE=6DE@H?[ 😀 2 r@?D6CG2E:G6 %9:?<6C 2?5 2? p52>D r@F?EJ '@E6C] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i3F5?2D@?o2@=]4@>Qm3F5?2D@?o2@=]4@>k^2m]k^Am

Originally posted here:

Constitution and Fourth Amendment - Gettysburg Times

Rachel Helm: Right on, on First Amendment rights – The Union of Grass Valley

Posted on by

Kudos to my Editorial Board colleague Lynn Wenzel for writing her June 7 Other Voices piece defending Kathy Griffin's First Amendment rights.

I despise Griffin's brand of humor. It was disrespectful to our president and it was a cruel thing to do to his family. That Griffin is now playing the victim after being so vicious is even more disgusting. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to be offensive.

The First Amendment isn't in place to protect "nice" speech but speech that some of us find offensive. Lynn and I disagree on most political subject matter but not on this one.

Protecting free speech is something we should all passionately support regardless of our political philosophy. You don't get to complain about conservative speakers being banned from college campuses then turn about and try to do the same thing to an obnoxious comedian. That's called hypocrisy.

It deeply saddens me that there is a market for Griffin's malicious humor in our community, but that doesn't give me the right to censor it.

Rachel Helm

Nevada County

More here:

Rachel Helm: Right on, on First Amendment rights - The Union of Grass Valley

Top legal implications surrounding Trump’s Twitter account – Blasting News

Posted on by

This week, President Donald Trump came under fire for his Twitter activity, including blocking other users and tweeting about a pending case regarding his executive order for a a six-country travel ban [VIDEO]. Although Trump has made headlines [VIDEO] for his #Twitter Account in the past, some of his most recent activity has Twitter users questioning the constitutionality and legal implications of his online behavior.

On Tuesday, the Knights First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter to Trump asking him to unblock Twitter users who posted content which disagreed or otherwise critiqued his actions.

The use of the block feature on Twitter is typically used to prevent other users from interacting with them personally. For most users, the use of this feature is not considered a violation of the law or Twitter's user policies. However, on Tuesday, #White House press secretary Sean Spicer confirmed at a press conference that tweets coming from Trump's Twitter account are also to be considered official White House statements. However, when users, particularly those in the US, are blocked from seeing such statements from public officials like Trump, it can lead to questions of transparency, which will inevitably lead to legal implications.

Furthermore, it is also likely that Trump's staff tweets for him. In such a case, blocking users would generate little to no effect, besides prohibit individuals from voicing concerns to him as an elected official.

The Knights First Amendment Institute also argued that such blocking interferes with First Amendment right because it obstructs freedom of speech in a "designated public forum."

However, it is yet to be determined by legislators whether social media is truly considered a public forum, further complicating the case.

Another argument made was that blocking users on Twitter would not violate the First Amendment, especially since the First Amendment concerns regarding Trump's tweets were directed at his personal Twitter account @realDonaldTrump, not his White House @POTUS account.

Also, this week, a tweet was posted on Trump's Twitter account regarding the petitioned Supreme Court case concerning the issue of his executive order for a six-country travel ban. The revised travel ban, originally including Iraq, now only includes Sudan, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia. Although Trump's legal counsel has advised him against referring to his executive order as a travel ban, Trump has continued to do so, as demonstrated by a tweet earlier this week.

That afternoon, the American Civil Liberties Union posted a tweet in response to Trump's post, stating that it might use his post against him in a Supreme Court argument.

Some legal experts predicted that the tweet could negatively impact his pending travel ban case. Others believed that Trump's tweets were not a legal issue.

"As a constitutional matter, as a legal matter, it should make absolutely no difference," said David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer for previous Republican administrations, to the New York Times.

The recent advent of #Social Media Law would make this case an unprecedented challenge for the Supreme Court.

Here is the original post:

Top legal implications surrounding Trump's Twitter account - Blasting News

A Mysterious New Cryptocurrency Is Surging After Being Endorsed by Putin – Vanity Fair

Posted on by

Ethereum founder Vitalik Vuterin speaks at TechCrunch in December of 2015.

By John Phillips/Getty Images.

After catching the eye of both the Singapore government and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ethereumthe second-biggest cryptocurrency in the world, after Bitcoincontinues to skyrocket. On Monday morning, the cryptocurrency was trading at a record-high level of $407.10, more than a 5,000 percent rise since the beginning of 2017, when it was trading at $7.98.

Ethereums founder, Vitalik Buterin, recently met with Putin during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a signal that the country may be interested in using digital currency to move its economy beyond gas and oil. The digital economy isnt a separate industry, its essentially the foundation for creating brand-new business models, Putin said at the forum. (Russian entities, like the state development bank VEB, have agreed to use Ethereum to help implement blockchain technology in the country). As investors look for a place to put their assets amid mounting geopolitical instability, some are turning to cryptocurrency. Singapores government has released a report saying it has carried out a test using ethereum blockchain technology to create a national digital currency. Regulators in Japan are issuing new rules that make cryptocurrencies like Ethereum a valid form of payment. And companies such as Toyota and Microsoft, which are members of an organization called the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, are throwing their weight behind the cryptocurrency, too.

Ethereum, which has a total valuation of $36 billion, trails only Bitcoin (valued at $49 billion) in terms of market capitalization. Bitcoin has been rallying all year, reaching a high of above $3,000 for the first time on Sunday as a growing number of people turn to virtual currencies as a safer, faster way to exchange money. But Ethereums rally may still have a ways to go: Pavel Matveev, the co-founder of banking start-up Wirex, tells CNBC that Ethereums price could reach $600 by the end of the year.

See the original post here:

A Mysterious New Cryptocurrency Is Surging After Being Endorsed by Putin - Vanity Fair