NATO Welcomes Newest Member Montenegro – RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Posted on by

BRUSSELS -- NATO welcomed Montenegro as its newest member with a flag-raising ceremony at the Western alliance's headquarters in Brussels.

"NATO is an alliance of democracies, united by a single purpose: to stand with each other and defend each other," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on June 7, calling it a "historic day."

"Montenegro joins NATO as an equal, with a seat at our table, and an equal voice in shaping the future of the alliance," said Stoltenberg, who congratulated Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic and the people of the Balkan country "for everything you have achieved."

"Montenegro's accession sends a message to other states that seek membership: that if a country travels the path of reform, embraces democracy, and the rule of law and proves itself willing to and able to contribute to our collective defense, sharing the responsibilities as well as the rewards, then it, too, can join the alliance," Stoltenberg said.

Vujanovic described the event as "a great day for Montenegro."

"With NATO membership, our future will be stable, secure, and prosperous," he said. "And we will make decisions about the most important issues within the strongest, most organized, and most efficient alliance in the history of mankind."

Russia has criticized accession for the Adriatic coastal state, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov asserting on June 6 that Montenegro was "dragged into NATO" and his ministry saying Moscow reserves the right to take "retaliatory measures" on what it called "anti-Russian hysteria" there.

Montenegrin officials have charged 14 people in connection with an alleged Russia-backed plot to take over parliament in October and assassinate then-Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic in a bid to keep the country out of NATO.

Montenegro became NATO's 29th member at a ceremony in Washington on June 5.

Read the original here:

NATO Welcomes Newest Member Montenegro - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Even with new military investments, Canada to fall short of NATO target – Globalnews.ca

Posted on by

The government of Canada put up some big numbers on Wednesday as it unveiled its new defence policy.

But there was one number conspicuously missing.

Even with a huge boost in military spending planned over the next decade (some of it back-loaded), Canada will still fall short of spending two per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on national defence by 2024-25.

READ MORE:Canada to use armed drones, cyberattacks to respond to global security threats

The documents released Wednesday predict that by that year, spending as a percentage of GDP will sit at only 1.4 per cent.

While defence spending is an important part of ensuring appropriate defence capability, it is not the most effective measure of fair burden sharing, the policy reads.

It then cites Canadas involvement in ongoing NATO missions and readiness to deploy and sustain troops if needed as examples of other ways that the country contributes to the alliance.

Canada has no formal obligation to hit the two-per-cent benchmark. In 2014, NATO members simply agreed to work toward that spending objective over the next decade and technically, Ottawa is fulfilling that obligation by moving the needle.

WATCH: Defence spending to increase by 70 per cent by 2027

Recent estimates have put the current spending level at just over 0.9 per cent, one of the lowest numbers for any NATO member nation.

But the government said Wednesday thats not quite accurate. The estimate ignores defence-related spending in other departments, according to the documents, so the actual number for 2016-17 is 1.19 per cent of GDP. The injection of new money over the next nine years will then push it to 1.4 per cent, the Liberals maintain.

Realistically that number is actually 1.2 (per cent) if you didnt change the formula (and include other departments), said Dave Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

To give them credit they spelled all that out, those changes, and you can see all that detail.

NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg released a statement Wednesday praising Canadas major planned investments and unwavering commitment to NATO.

In these challenging times, Canadas commitment to the alliance is important as we work to keep our nations safe and NATO strong, Stoltenberg wrote.

Still, the long-awaited plan unveiled in Ottawa by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan may not be enough to appease individual NATO allies especially the United States.

Over the last several months, the White House has made it clear that America will scale back its considerable investments in the alliance if countries like Canada dont make more of an effort to reach the two-per-cent benchmark.

U.S. President Donald Trump went so far as to give his nations allies a public dressing down during recent meetings in Brussels.

WATCH: Donald Trump lectures Canada, other NATO members to up defence spending

There was also criticism on Wednesday from new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who told reporters that he would be on the lookout for accounting tricks that inflate defence spending by lumping in items thathavent normally been counted in defence spending.

Traditionally things like, you know, border services border security, Coast Guard some of the intelligence work that goes on in the RCMP, Scheer said outside the House of Commons.

READ MORE:Canada deploys alternate numbers to defuse NATO defence spending situation

If those are the types of things that theyve now lumped in without actually putting in new dollars, I dont think thats a real commitment to the armed forces.

Defence expert Perry said he was personally surprised by how much effort the government put into spelling out where Canada stands and will stand on the NATO commitment. He called it a little disingenuous.

For a government that kept saying that that formula is irrelevant, that theres other measures (for involvement), they sure went into a lot of detail to spell out exactly that formula and where we stack up, Perry said.

-With files from Vassy Kapelos.

2017Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Read more from the original source:

Even with new military investments, Canada to fall short of NATO target - Globalnews.ca

NATO Would Be Totally Outmatched In A Conventional War With Russia – HuffPost

Posted on by

Fulda was a small city in the German State of Hesse that, had it not been for the Cold War, few people outside of its immediate environs would ever have cause to hear of. Instead, the combined accidents of history and geography turned this quiet rural city into ground zero for a Third World War. The end of the Second World War found American troops situated well to the east of Fulda, having occupied all of Thuringia and western Saxony; both of these territories were subsequently added to the Soviet post-war zone of occupation, bringing the line of demarcation right to the foothills of the Thuringian highlands that dominate the eastern approaches to Fulda.

West of Fulda the hills turn into fertile plains that form a natural corridor the so-called Fulda Gap leading straight to Frankfurt, some 60 miles (95 kilometers) to the southwest, and the Rhine River beyond. These were not vast distances. 5,000 men of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and a screening force of around 150 tanks patrolled the Fulda frontier. Further west, along the approaches to Frankfurt, were the three armored brigades of the 3rd Armored Division, comprising another 15,000 men and 350 tanks. Some 30 miles southwest of Frankfurt, on the west bank of the Mainz River, were another 15,000 men of the 8th Mechanized Infantry Division and their 300 tanks. 35,000 men, 800 tanks, and thousands of other armored vehicles, artillery pieces and trucks this was all that stood between the Soviet Army and the Rhine River.

Facing off against this concentration of American combat power were two sizable Soviet formations. The first, the 8th Guards Army, consisting of an armored division and three motorized infantry divisions, comprising some 50,000 men and 1,200 tanks, was responsible for blasting a hole in the American defenses; behind it would come the 1st Guards Tank Army, another 35,000 men and 1,000 tanks whose mission was pursuit and exploitation of a defeated enemy to depths of up to 120 miles after the front was ruptured by initial assault force. A 1979 Soviet exercise allocated seven days for Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops to defeat American and NATO forces and reach the Rhine River; American plans for reinforcing Germany required ten days. Any conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States along the Fulda front would have been, from the outset, a race against time.

Fortunately, for Europe and the World, that race was never run. In 1990, as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union came to a close, nearly 14,000 American main battle tanks were deployed on European soil, along with over 300,000 military personnel; another 250,000 American troops were ready to be flown in on short notice to marry up with pre-deployed equipment, including tanks, stored in various European depots. A decade later that number had been reduced to a few thousand tanks and 117,000 troops; by 2015 the number was zero tanks and 65,000 soldiers. The United States went from a posture of imminent preparedness for a war in Europe in 1990, to a situation where major ground conflict in Europe no longer factored in American military planning.

The 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team (BCT) of the 4th Infantry Division (the Iron Brigade) is one of the premier combat units in the United States Army today. One of 15 Armored BCTs in the army today, the Iron Brigades five maneuver battalions (two armor, one cavalry, one mechanized infantry and one artillery), comprising some 4,700 soldiers, 90 main battle tanks, 150 armored fighting vehicles, and 18 self-propelled artillery pieces, represent the greatest concentration of lethal firepower in an organized combat unit in the American military. In January 2017, this formidable fighting force was deployed from its home base in Fort Carson, Colorado, to Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

Atlantic Resolve is an ongoing initiative on the part of the United States intended to reassure NATO that Americas commitment to collective security in Europe has not diminished in the face of Russian actions in the Ukraine since 2014, including Moscows annexation of the Crimea, an act that violates the principle of European national inviolability that has underpinned European security since 1945. Since 2015, the United States has conducted a series of military deployments and maneuvers designed to demonstrate Americas ability to back this commitment with meaningful military power. The deployment of the Iron Brigade represents the latest manifestation of this commitment, which involves a continued rotation of an armored BCT into Europe every nine months, creating a permanent American armored presence in Europe.

The officers of the Iron Brigade exude confidence in their mission. We are here to deter, the Brigade Commander, Colonel Christopher Norrie, told western media shortly after his arrival in Europe in January 2017. If I were looking at it through the eyes of a potential aggressor, I would say its an exceptionally capable deterrent. His subordinate commanders echoed Colonel Norries words, and confidence. We have been training for this mission for the last year, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Capehart, the commander of an armor battalion, the 1/68 Silver Lions, observed. I think it shows the agility of an armored brigade that can be able to push combat power forward, build it and get it out here firing within ten days.

See the original post here:

NATO Would Be Totally Outmatched In A Conventional War With Russia - HuffPost

UNHINGED: Trump blindsided his own national security team in NATO Speech – HuffPost

Posted on by

While Donald Trump was still a candidate running for president, many of his supporters defended both his lack of experience in politics and his ever-more-bizarre behavior by asserting that once he became president, he would surround himself with the best minds and carefully listen to their wisdom.

Well, a disturbing new report from Politico pretty much debunks that prediction.

Just over a week ago, Trump gave an embarrassing speech at a NATO summit in Brussels, using his allotted time to shed scorn on the leaders of our closest European allies over ultimately petty and arbitrary disagreements about the NATO defense budget.

The most important aspect of the speech however was not what he said, but rather what he didnt say. Trump refused to reaffirm the United States commitment to the mutual defense of all member states, outlined in Article 5 of the NATO charter. This came as a surprise and a disappointment to many of our European allies, particularly because of the threat Eastern European members face from an emboldened Russia under Vladimir Putin.

But, according to the Politico report, it turns out that the European leaders gathered for the summit were not the only ones who were surprised by Trumps omission. Five sources with direct knowledge of what happened said that national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ALL wanted Trump to show support for Article 5 in his speech and were totally blindsided when he didnt.

McMaster, Mattis and Tillerson had all worked with Trump on the speech in the weeks leading up to the trip and believed that a show of support for Article 5 would be included in the speech. A White House aid even told a New York Times reporter a day before the speech that a line about Article 5 would definitely be included.

But somehow, by the time of the speech, Trump had decided to axe any mention of Article 5, and instead showed disdain for NATO as in institution throughout his speech.

According to the sources cited by Politico, Trump made the decision seemingly on a whim without consulting any of his advisors, who were never even informed about his change of plans.

While McMaster, Mattis and Tillerson are by no means progressives, once again were learning that relatively, theyre acting as a moderating influence in this ever-more-radical administration.

This is actually one of the biggest stories of the last couple of weeks because of the potentially enormous consequences of having this much dysfunction amongst our top national security officials. Seriously weakening the institutional credibility of NATO on a whim is bad enough. Can you imagine if there were a real, direct security crisis with this level of dysfunction and incompetence going on?

This revelation also suggests that that no matter how hard the adults in the room try to babysit him, Trumps whacky and erratic mood swings end up playing a major role in policy decision making. Needless to say, thats terrifying.

Start your workday the right way with the news that matters most.

Read this article:

UNHINGED: Trump blindsided his own national security team in NATO Speech - HuffPost

Watch: NATO launches #WeAreNATO campaign with MHP and Agenda – PRWeek

Posted on by

Added 14 hours ago by John Harrington ,

NATO has announced details of the first branded communications campaign from the Western military alliance in nearly a decade.

The campaign, spearheaded by London-based PR agency MHP and Agenda, a corporate comms agency based in Washington, uses the slogan #WeAreNATO.

The brief was to develop a campaign to improve understanding of the organisation and its values among citizens of member countries. #WeAreNATO focuses on the benefits of solidarity between NATO allies, and the role the alliance plays in maintaining security.

The agencies, which signed a five-year deal to work with NATO in 2015, produced a toolkit of guidelines for member nations around areas such as print artwork, digital templates, images and photography, and also offered guidance on how to run a campaign. The countries could adapt the messages and techniques to their specific circumstances.

"Success relied on the toolkit being owned and adapted by each member state, giving them to freedom to conduct their own research and produce the appropriate materials that would resonate with their audience," said Gary Neale, head of design at MHP.

The video below has been put together by Agenda:

Tacan Ildem, NATOs assistant secretary general for public diplomacy, said: "Its crucial that all our citizens particularly young people who have grown up in times of peace understand what NATO is and what we do.

"Our continued success depends on our citizens understanding the essential role that NATO plays in our security, on which our prosperity is based. We will remain fully transparent and proactive in explaining our essential work to the outside world."

The campaign had its formal launch at the meeting of NATO heads of state and government on 25 May in Brussels.

Click here to read PRWeeks interview from January with NATO's principal spokesperson, Oana Lungescu, who discusses Donald Trump, Russia's propaganda machine and the rising cyber-security threat.

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Link:

Watch: NATO launches #WeAreNATO campaign with MHP and Agenda - PRWeek

Senator blasts NSA chief: ‘What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral’ – The Hill

Posted on by

Sen. Angus KingAngus KingGOP chairman admonishes intel chiefs Senator blasts NSA chief: What you feel isnt relevant, admiral The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE (I-Maine) snapped at the head of the National Security Agency (NSA) in a contentious moment of a Senate hearing on Wednesday that delved into questions over Russias meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

King, known as one of the Senates more genial members, reached a breaking point more than an hour into the hearing after Michael Rogers repeatedly refused to answer questions about whether President Trump tried to interfere in the FBIs investigation into Russias actions and possible collusion with his campaign.

Rogers declined to answer questions about reports of his interactions with Trump throughout the morning, telling a visibly frustrated King that he didnt feel it was appropriate.

What you feel isnt relevant, admiral, King said back at the NSA chief.

Later, when Rogers said he did not mean for his answer to King's question to sound confrontational, King said he did mean to sound confrontational.

Why are you not answering these questions? Is there an invocation of executive privilege? King demanded. Im not satisfied with, I do not believe its appropriate or I do not believe I should answer.

Im not sure I have a legal basis, Coats said at one point, adding that he would provide as much information as he was able behind closed doors.

Rogers indicated that while he and Coats have had conversations with the White House about a potential claim of executive privilege, he said that they had not gotten a definitive answer.

McCabe and Rosenstein both cited the ongoing federal investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, arguing that it is longstanding Justice Department procedure not to discuss anything that might be under active investigation.

I dont understand why the special counsels lane takes precedence over the lane of the United States Congress, King said.

At issue was whether any of the officials had any evidence that Trump may have inappropriately attempted to curtail the FBI's investigation.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that Trump had asked Coats to intervene with then-FBI Director James Comey to limit the probe.

Both Coats and Rogers deniedfeeling pressured by Trump to intervene in the handling of intelligence in any inappropriate way but refused to answer specific questions about their interactions with the president.

Im willing to come before the committee and tell you what I know and dont know, Coats said. What Im not willing to do is share information I think ought to be protected in an opening hearing.

In a clear sign of the level of frustration in the room, Democrats repeatedly interrupted and talked over officials claims that they couldnt respond to certain lines of questioning. The argumentative exchanges on more than one occasion prompted Sen. John McCainJohn McCainSenator blasts NSA chief: What you feel isnt relevant, admiral Senate trying to insert Russia sanctions into popular Iran bill OPINION: Why President Trump should fear John McCain MORE (R-Ariz.) to grab his microphone and request that witnesses be allowed to answer.

In a previous and equally tense moment, Sen. Martin HeinrichMartin HeinrichSenator blasts NSA chief: What you feel isnt relevant, admiral Unemployment rate hits 16-year low as just 138K jobs added Intel chief has not talked with Trump about reported disclosure of classified info MORE (D-N.M.) cut off Rosenstein by saying, At this point you filibuster better than most of my colleagues.

Chairman Richard BurrRichard BurrWarren encourages Kamala Harris after shes scolded in hearing GOP senator threatens to subpoena Comey GOP chairman admonishes intel chiefs MORE (R-N.C.), clearly aggravated, eventually intervened. The committee is on notice, he snapped, pointing a finger and demanding that members provide the witnesses the courtesy to respond.

Comey is set to testify before the Senate Intelligence panel on Thursday in what may be the most highly anticipated congressional hearing since the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from Anita Hill, who had accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

View original post here:

Senator blasts NSA chief: 'What you feel isn't relevant, admiral' - The Hill

Posted in NSA

NSA leak: Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers explain our new ‘reality’ – USA TODAY

Posted on by

If the Reality Winner story sounds like a James Bond movie, Stephen Colbert says that makes Donald Trump "Smallfinger."(Photo: Richard Boeth/CBS)

TV's late night hosts spent the beginning of Tuesday night's show explaining the latest development in the Russian election-meddling scandal for viewers after a contractor from the NSAwas arrested for leaking a top-secret document.

"Daysbefore (the election)?" an incredulousColbert said of the hackers' timing. "Come on,Guccifer.That's just poor planning. You can't leave your hacking to the last minute! Put some thought into it. Nobody wants an election you picked up at Walgreens!"

That said, the CBS host is worried aboutthe Russian hackers' attempts to trick local government employees into opening documents that were infected with malware: "This is how democracy ends: With a fake email sent to the ancient cat lady manning the polling station at your high school gym."

He then got into the arrest of NSA contractor Reality Winner ("It's official: The Trump administration is at war with reality").

"So a young female spy named Reality Winner steals intelligence from the Pluribus Corporation?That sounds like a James Bond movie, which of course makes Trump "Smallfinger!" he sang in his best Shirley Bassey voice.

"This is a confusing story so let me try to break it down," Meyers saidas the show's technical director rapidly switched out photos of the players involved. "Reality Winner leaked information about a reality denier (Putin) who tried to influence the election to support a reality host (Trump) who is detached from reality. So now the (Reality) Winner is the loser and this loser (Putin) who helped this loser (Trump) win is the winner and that's our reality."

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sTbAQh

See original here:

NSA leak: Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers explain our new 'reality' - USA TODAY

Posted in NSA

Accused Leaker Reality Winner Worked at NSA Listening Post – Daily Beast

Posted on by

The contractor accused of leaking classified information appears to have worked at a National Security Agency post, where her foreign language skills would have been useful to translate intercepted communications.

Reality Winner, 25, was charged Monday by the Justice Department for allegedly sending top secret documents to a news organization last month. (The documents are believed to be NSA files about Russian election hacking, reported on by The Intercept.) Winner didnt work directly for the NSA though: she allegedly obtained these documents while working as a contractor for Pluribus International Corporation. Pluribus website shows that the companys only Georgia outpost to be at Fort Gordon Army base near Augusta. Her rsum suggests she was working at the Georgia Cryptologic Center, a vast NSA outpost located at Fort Gordon.

Nicknamed Sweet Tea, the 604,000-square-foot facility collects signals intelligence from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, Wired previously reported. Sweet Tea, which opened in full in 2012, is reportedly equipped to house 4,000 specialists working to translate and analyze intercepted communications.

Run by the ultra-secret National Security Agency, it is where the agency eavesdrops on the Middle East and Northern Africa, thousands of miles away, journalist James Bamford wrote of a preliminary version of the then-under construction site in 2008. Inside, behind barbed-wire fences, heavily armed guards, and cipher-locked doors, earphone-clad men and women secretly listen in as al-Qaeda members chat on cell phones along the Afghan border, and to insurgents planning attacks in Iraq.

Pluribus International, where Winner worked since February, is one of a number of contracting firms established after the September 11 attacks as the U.S. scaled-up its intelligence operations. Founded in 2004, Pluribus specializes in translation and analysis services for government agencies, particularly in the intelligence community.

Thered always been private contractors, but it expanded considerably and took off exponentially after 9/11 with the global war on terror, and hasnt truly gone away, Bradley Moss, an attorney specializing in national security and security clearance law told The Daily Beast. Theres extensive and considerable reliance by the intelligence community in particular upon private contractors.

Winner joined the Air Force in 2013, where she worked as a translator speaking Farsi, Pashto, and Dari, her mother told The Guardian. She left the military in November, she announced in a Facebook post. Winners fluency in Middle Eastern languages, as well as the top secret clearance she earned in the Air Force made her an ideal candidate for a number of intelligence community jobs, particularly those advertised by Pluribus International.

Around the same time Winner was hired, Pluribus International posted a similar job listing for a Farsi-fluent translator with an active security clearance of secret or higher.

What she did is very common among former military personnel, especially people who, like her, were trained in the military with linguistic skill sets, Moss said. She was already vetted and cleared by the Air Force for at least top secret clearance, if not top secret clearance with sensitive compartmented information access eligibility. It transfers over to her contract wherever she goes, in this case apparently the NSA.

An Army spokesperson for Fort Gordon told The Daily Beast that Winner was a contractor who was not in Fort Gordon. (Sweet Tea and Fort Gordon operate with considerable independence from each other.) An NSA spokesperson did not confirm whether Winner had worked at Sweet Tea. Winners employer, Pluribus International, did not return a request for comment. Their website was offline for much of Tuesday.

According to a DOJ affidavit released Monday evening, Winner has already admitted to leaking the information to the media. If she stands trial, she will not have any whistleblower protections, Moss said.

There are no legal protections for people who leak classified information to the media, Moss said. There is a public interest argument she could raise at sentencing if shes prosecuted and convicted, to try to mitigate the level of punishment imposed, but you cannot retroactively get whistleblower protection under existing federal law for having leaked classified documents to the media. It does not exist.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

President Donald Trump has threatened to aggressively prosecute leakers. But the limited extent of Winners alleged leaks means she will likely face a sentence of fewer than five years, Moss estimated.

Theoretically, up to 10 years I believe is the concept for each offense, he said. Given the narrow scope of the leak and presumably at least some measure of a public interest argument, my assumption right now is shell serve something between one to three years.

Follow this link:

Accused Leaker Reality Winner Worked at NSA Listening Post - Daily Beast

Posted in NSA

Suspect in NSA leak being held in Lincolnton jail – Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted on by

Lincolnton -- The Augusta woman who has been arrested in the National Security Agency leak investigation is being held at a small county jail here, about 40 miles northwest of Augusta.

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter spotted Reality Leigh Winner Wednesday afternoon as she was standing in an outdoor area of the Lincoln County Jail. She was pacing in the fenced-in area, wearing an orange jumpsuit.

Winner, 25, is receiving three meals a day and has access to a phone to call her family, said Sheriff Bruce Beggs. A doctor is on call and a nurse comes twice a day, partly to dispense medication.

As far as I know, she is fine, Beggs said. We have not had any problems.

Winner has been charged with sending to the news media a classified government report about Russias meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The U.S. Justice Department announced her arrest Monday, about an hour after The Intercept reported that it had obtained a top-secret NSA report about Russias interference. The intelligence report, according to The Intercept, says Russian military intelligence officials tried to hack into the U.S. voting system just before last Novembers election.

Beggs would not permit The AJC to see the inside the jail, citing security concerns. But he gave an AJC reporter a tour of the brick facility from the outside.

Originally built in 1991, the jail can hold up to 90 detainees. Of the 50 who were being held there Wednesday, fewer than 15 were women, Beggs said. Men and women are separated from each other in the jail, which includes medium and maximum security wings. The federal government reimburses the jail for holding and transporting its detainees. On average, two-thirds of those being held there are facing federal charges.

They get served decent meals, said Beggs, a Lincolnton native and a veteran of the Lincoln Sheriffs Office. They get adequate medical care.

Beggs said he has received up to 20 phone calls from reporters from across the country about Winners case.

I dont know anything about her background, he said, or really what she is charged with.

Gary Davis, stepfather of Reality Leigh Winner, says the depiction of Winner through social media is not an an accurate portrayal of my daughter." Winner, who lives in Augusta, Ga., is accused of leaking national security information on Russia hac

Visit link:

Suspect in NSA leak being held in Lincolnton jail - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted in NSA

Colorado housing officials invite cops to perform warrantless searches on poor people – Washington Post

Posted on by

Yesterday we looked at a warrantless, mass search of Georgia high school students that was almost certainly unconstitutional, and that some students say included touching and probing of their genitals. Today,another disturbing story about what would seem to be clearly unconstitutional searches at a Colorado low-income apartment complex:

The Longmont Housing Authority says it was using the homes of low-income residents to train police drug dogs. There werent warrants, but simply a notice that the landlord was coming, and a police officer and drug dog would be there, too.

The letter to residents of The Suites low-income housing community starts with standard stuff, notifying them of an inspection. Thats what landlords across Colorado do.

Then it mentions that the police officer and drug dog. Nowhere in the letter are residents told that while they must let the landlord in, they do not have to allow the police officer and drug dog inside without a warrant. And then, if the officer does come inside, anything they find is fair game.

The head of the complex isKrystal Winship Erazo, and she appears to have no concept whatsoever of the Fourth Amendment.

Two months ago, there were some rumors and some concerns about drug activity on the property and one way we found to address it was to invite a partnership with the Longmont Police Department to invite the canines over on their training day, Erazo said in an interview with 9NEWS. Usually it helps the residents feel really secure in that were following up, were holding residents accountable, its an opportunity for the dogs to train.

Ill go ahead and write this, because it apparently needs to be written: Low-incomepeople havethe same rights as everyone else. Low-income people are not the equivalent of tackling dummies, or lab rats or volunteers on some police training course.You cantuse poor people to train your police dogs.

Erazo then spoutsthe hackneyedline of every Fourth Amendment authoritarian everywhere.

If there is concern, it kind of sparks some curiosity for me, Erazo said. You know, what are they concerned about if (the officers) only job is to ensure there arent drugs in the unit?

It sparks some curiosity is a euphemistic way of saying poor people who dont want cops going through their stuff can only beup to no good.

The complex has since halted the searches. But it makes you wonder where else this sort of thing is happening. I recall in researching my first book that in the 1980s and 1990s there were policeraids on entire housing complexes. Every unit inside was hit. The raids were obviously illegal, but the people on the receiving end of them were usually powerless to do much about it.

Good on Denvers 9 News for covering this story, and for making this point in particular:

Its worth noting that the only reason this practice went public and stopped is because someone at the public housing complex knew her rights, and knew that she didnt have to submit to a warrantless police search, no matter what the housing authority said.

See the original post:

Colorado housing officials invite cops to perform warrantless searches on poor people - Washington Post

The Patriot Post Shop – 2A – Second Amendment

Posted on by

Stand for your Second Amendment rights against those Gun Free folks who just dont get it.

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$11.50

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$21.95

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $35.95

now: $22.95

On Sale!

was: $35.95

now: $22.95

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $5.99

now: $5.00

On Sale!

was: $2.95

now: $2.50

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$25.99

$20.00

$20.00

15% Off!

was: $39.95

now: $33.96

15% Off!

was: $39.95

now: $33.96

$21.95

$23.75

$23.75

$21.95

$21.95

$21.95

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$21.95

$21.95

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$3.25

Free shipping!

$3.25

Free shipping!

25% Off!

was: $21.95

now: $16.46

$11.00

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$3.50

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$21.95

$21.95

$12.50

$12.50

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

See the original post here:

The Patriot Post Shop - 2A - Second Amendment

Trump blocking Twitter critics raises First Amendment …

Posted on by

In a letter to Trump on Tuesday, lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University called on the president to unblock people on Twitter (TWTR, Tech30). The group is representing two Twitter users who were blocked by the president after they tweeted critical statements to him.

The lawyers argue that Trump can't exclude people from engaging with him on Twitter based on their viewpoints.

"Your Twitter account is a designated public forum for essentially the same reasons that open city council meetings and school board meetings are," the lawyers wrote in the letter.

The letter is directed at the @RealDonaldTrump account, but lawyers say it applies to the @POTUS account as well.

When someone is blocked on Twitter, they are unable to follow the account, view the account's tweets when logged in to the service, or view tweets the account has liked.

Related: Trump appears to take his cues from Fox News in tweets on London attack

The letter raises interesting questions about how government social media accounts should be treated. The lawyers aren't saying all Twitter blocking violates the First Amendment, but if government officials use Twitter in an official capacity, they shouldn't be able to block people for expressing an opinion.

"While [the letter] relates to our most prominent Twitter user, the principles we seek to vindicate apply to all public officials and public entities that use social media to conduct government business and allow the public to participate," Katie Fallow, senior attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told CNN Tech.

Nearly all high level public officials use Twitter -- many of them to engage in official business.

Courts have previously said public social media accounts used as public forums should not censor opinions. In Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, the plaintiff argued that deleting a post on the Facebook page of a County Supervisor violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The court agreed, saying the county can't discriminate or block people based on their views.

On Tuesday, press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets are considered official White House statements.

If Trump doesn't unblock Twitter users, Fallow said the Knight First Amendment Institute would consider a lawsuit.

CNNMoney (San Francisco) First published June 6, 2017: 6:03 PM ET

Read the rest here:

Trump blocking Twitter critics raises First Amendment ...

Mayor Ted Wheeler Changed His Mind About the First Amendment … – Willamette Week

Posted on by

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler took several positions on the First Amendment during the past two weeks.

On May 29, Wheeler asked the federal government to block a downtown Portland rally organized by right-wing protesters, saying visiting extremists had no legal right to hate speech. That request was denied by the feds, decried by civil liberties watchdogs, and sneered at by "alt-right" leaders.

Worse, he was wrong: The protections of the U.S. Constitution are designed to forbid the government, including Portland mayors, from deciding what citizens can and cannot say, even when it is deeply offensive.

By this week, Wheeler's office reversed itself again, saying the mayor had misspoken.

Wednesday, May 24 In a WW story on the street brawls that had already occurred between alt-right and antifascist groups, Wheeler's spokesman Michael Cox said: "Portland is going to continue with our strategy: honoring First Amendment rights while not tolerating acts of violence, vandalism or blocking transit."

Monday, May 29 Three days after a double murder on a MAX train, Wheeler called for revoking federal permits for the alt-right rally:

"My main concern is that they are coming to peddle a message of hatred and of bigotry. And I am reminded constantly that they have a First Amendment right to speak, but my pushback on that is that hate speech is not protected."

Wednesday, May 31 Wheeler wrote an op-ed in USA Today, backing away from his interpretation of the Constitution from a day earlier:

"I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment. While this planned demonstration is constitutional, it is highly irresponsible."

Monday, June 5 Cox said Wheeler didn't really mean hate speech was unconstitutional:

"He was being a being a bit imprecise. He was really talking about words meant to incite violence."

Read the rest here:

Mayor Ted Wheeler Changed His Mind About the First Amendment ... - Willamette Week

Is Trump Violating the First Amendment by Blocking People on Twitter? – Vanity Fair

Posted on by

By Win McNamee/Getty.

Even Donald Trump, who plans to stop tweeting approximately never and may even live-tweet during former F.B.I. director James Comeys testimony on Thursday like its an episode of The Bachelor, doesnt want everyone following him on Twitter. Like any half-sane person on the social-media platform, he has blocked a number of people from seeing or responding to his tweets. Unlike the rest of us, however, Trump is also president of the United States, and, as White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday, Trump tweets should be considered official statements by the president. Which means that Trump may be violating the First Amendment rights of the people he has blocked.

Thats the argument being made by lawyers for two Twitter users who were blocked by the president, closing off access to what they say he is using as an official, public platform. This Twitter account operates as a designated public forum for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional, nonprofit organization Knight First Amendment Institute said in a letter to Trump on Tuesday. We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been blocked for similar reasons. Some legal experts are more dubious. Ken White, a First Amendment expert and former assistant U.S. attorney, says he finds the case ridiculous. Theres also an argument to be made that Trump is merely behaving within the terms of service of Twitter, a privately held company.

Whatever the merits of the case, it is undeniable that Twitter has become a central feature of the Trump presidency, and one of its greatest vulnerabilities. White House aides and allies have implored Trump to stop tweeting, to vet his posts with a lawyer first, or to at least limit what has become a deeply self-destructive habit. The tweeting makes everybody crazy, Trumps close friend Tom Barrack, the chairman of Colony Northstar, said at a Bloomberg conference this week. Theres just no gain in doing it.

In the past few days alone, he has attacked the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, after a terrorist attack that left seven dead, and appeared to undermine his own legal teams efforts to defend his immigration executive order before the Supreme Court, using a tweet to call it a TRAVEL BAN and drawing a remarkable rebuke from Kellyanne Conways husband, George, who noted on Twitter that the presidents online posts may have sabotaged his own case. Voters want Trump to stop tweeting, too: a new Politico poll says that 69 percent of voters say the president uses Twitter too much. Fifty-nine percent say his Twitter habit is a bad thing, and even 53 percent of G.O.P. voters say he should cut down on his use of the platform.

Read more here:

Is Trump Violating the First Amendment by Blocking People on Twitter? - Vanity Fair

Harvard Rescinded Acceptances Over Private Facebook Posts, And That Doesn’t Violate The First Amendment – The Federalist

Posted on by

Harvards recent decision to rescind the admittance of at least ten incoming freshmen has some rallying around the First Amendment.

The Harvard Crimson, Harvards main student newspaper, originally reported on the school denying admittance to a group of incoming freshmen because of their involvement in a private Facebook group. The group, a spin-off group message from an official Harvard College Class of 2021 Facebook page, was used to send memes and other messages mocking sexual assault and the Holocaust, as well as make racially charged jokes.

The messaging group was at one point titled Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens. Some of the jokes suggested abusing children was sexually arousing, and one called the hanging of a Mexican child piata time, according to The Crimson.

Harvards decision to deny the students admittance, however, has some decrying the action as a violation of the students free speech.Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi said there is something creepy about Harvards policing of the students discussion, especially in light of the schools 2017 commencement address centered around free speech.

What Vennochi is missing, however, is that consequences a private institution inflicts are not equal to government censorship.Shouts of But free speech! are often heard when a politically charged action receives public backlash. Comedian Kathy Griffin received a similar free speech defense when she was dropped from CNNs New Years Eve lineup after the photograph of her holding the severed head of President Trump garnered public denouncement.

The First Amendment, however, only protects ones right to say or do something absent government reprisal. It doesnt protect someone from any social consequences.Harvard, as part of the private sphere, may admit any students it chooses. It has the right to not admit students whose values do not align with the schools, and making racist and explicit jokes reflects the character of the students. Thats part of another First Amendment right, called free association. We have the right to choose with whom we will associate, free also of government coercion.

Although these jokes were sent over a private messaging group, many colleges check applicants social media, according to a Kaplan Test Prep survey. Social media presence can give colleges a good idea of a students character outside of the submitted essays and transcripts.Because the other members of this messaging group were also incoming Harvard freshmen, participants should have realized the chances of the contents leaking outside the group were high and behaved as it if were a public page.

Although these students have a right to share their jokes, Harvard has a right to not be associated with those jokes or people who make them. Waving the First Amendment flag only reflects the flag-bearers fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between government censorship and private consequences.So instead of hiding behind the First Amendment, call Harvards decision what it isnegative social consequences for bad behavior.

See the article here:

Harvard Rescinded Acceptances Over Private Facebook Posts, And That Doesn't Violate The First Amendment - The Federalist

Vero Beach High School has a First Amendment problem – Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Posted on by

J.P. Krause (photo courtesy Charlie Vitunac)

Vero Beach High School, a public high school on the east coast of Florida, has a First Amendment problem.

The school failed to respectit.

And now a studentJ.P. Krause, a top student, rising senior, our client, and the young man who shouldserve as VBHS senior class president in the coming school yearunderstands better why the Constitution requires public institutions, like his school, to respect the constitutional rights of its students. Because here the school punished J.P. for a humorous campaign speech he made; it disqualified him from the election only after he won the election. Quite the unconstitutionaldaily double pulled off by the school administratorsthey not only unconstitutionally deemed the third place candidate the winner, but took away the voting privileges of its entire senior body class, who elected J.P. President.

The school says he humiliated the candidate who came in second by way of his 90-second impromptu campaign speech, a speech given in class with his A.P. U.S. History teachers permission. Thanks to a student who recorded the speech and shared it with J.P., we know that he did no such thing. You can see for yourself after the jump:

As you can see, the video reflects nothing more than good-natured, All-American campaigning for office. But the school says otherwise. It says its broadly written anti-harassment code of conduct allows it to disqualify J.P. from the race because of this speech.

The Constitution says differently. As we explained in our letter to the school administration on J.P.s behalf:

The First Amendment protects speech that might offend others. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 512 (1969), the United States Supreme Court recognized neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. The Court held that a school may not censor a students speech unless it caused a substantial disruption of, or a material interference with, school activities. J.P.s speech caused no substantial disruption of, or material interference with school activities or the rights of other students. His speech simply asked his fellow students for their support in the upcoming student election.

To be sure, if a student gives a speech that is lewd, vulgar, or profane, then the school can sanction him. See, e.g., Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). But that is not remotely the case here.

J.P.s speech did no more than involve light-hearted humor by associating his opponent in satirical manner with current political and cultural events. His speech directly referenced national political campaign topics, such as Communism, raising taxes, and President Trumps stated intention to build a wall on our countrys southern border. Nobody could have taken his comments seriously; that is, no reasonable person believes his fellow candidate for the Presidency is a Communist, wants to raise the students taxes, or favors Sebastian River High School rather than her own high school. Yet VBHS Principal Shawn OKeefe claims in an email to J.P.s mother that J.P.s speech violated the harassment policy because he publicly humiliated his opponent. Accepting that preposterous claim for the sake of argument, the Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside of the school context, that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of speech is not sufficient justification for prohibiting it. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509. As subsequent federal cases have made clear, Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance. Here, we have no fear of disruption, let alone a specific or significant fear.

We further explained that the schools code of conduct policy regarding offensive speech violated the First Amendment, as well:

The Student Handbook broadly defines harassment as any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of data or computer software, or written, verbal or physical conduct directed against a student or school employee that: 1) Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to person or damage to property, 2) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a students education performance, opportunities, or benefits, 3) has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school. Handbook at 30-31.

*****

The policys broad ban on verbal conduct is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied here. We know it is unconstitutional, because a U.S. Supreme Court justice has said the same about a similar school policy. In Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by then Judge, now Justice Samuel Alito, struck down a school districts harassment policy as overbroad, holding that even speech that is defined as harassing may enjoy First Amendment protection.

In Saxe, Judge Alito wrote that the schools harassment policy improperly swept in those simple acts of teasing and name-calling that had previously been held to be protected by the First Amendment. The policys language in that case barred speech that has the purpose or effect of interfering with educational performance or creating a hostile environment. It ignored the constitutional requirement that a school must reasonably believe that speech will cause actual material disruption before prohibiting it. Judge Alito explained that even if the speech created a hostile environment that intrudes upon . . . the rights of other students, it is not enough that the speech is merely offensive to some listener, because there is no categorical harassment exception to the First Amendments Free Speech Clause.

The schools harrassment policylike the one at issue herehad no threshold requirement of pervasiveness or severity, and therefore it could cover any speech about someone the content of which could offend someone. This could bar core political and religious speech (like J.P.s political speech here). Provided such speech does not pose a realistic threat of substantial disruption, the Third Circuit held, it is within a students First Amendment rights. Likewise here, J.P.s speech has been targeted by the school districts harassment policy, a policy that is similarly overbroad and unconstitutional. J.P. did not create a substantial disruptionto the contrary, the video of the incident reflects that the speech allowed for 90 seconds of lighthearted fun, and clever political satire, in a high-level academic class.

Whats particularly striking about this misuse of a speech code is the fact that the student handbook promises to deliver a much more robust institution for its public school students. In the handbook, VBHS and the Indian River County School District claim that the school must prepar[e] all students to thrive in college, career, and community endeavors. In the 21st Century, we should expect to hear opinions we may not personally agree with and stand ready to engage those opinions in the marketplace of ideas. Vero Beach High School does its students no service to punish a student for innocent humor conducted as part of a school election, with an A.P. U.S. History teachers permission. To the contrary, the schools misuse of its Code of Conduct unjustly steals the election and brands his record with a harassment charge, unconstitutionally interferes with J.P.s educational opportunities, and jeopardizes his college admission possibilities.

The classroom has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States as the marketplace of ideas, and the High Court has emphasized the nations future depends on leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas. High school students, particularly those campaigning in a school election for senior class president, cannot be punished for innocuous humor and political satire of the sort J.P. engaged in. The Constitution forbids it. PLF optimistically believes that VBHS administration and the local school board will think better of the decision to punish J.P. and reverse that decision.

Originally posted here:

Vero Beach High School has a First Amendment problem - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Twitter users blocked by Trump say he’s violating the First Amendment – New York’s PIX11 / WPIX-TV

Posted on by

NEW YORK President Donald Trump may be the nations tweeter-in-chief, but some Twitter users say hes violating the First Amendment by blocking people from his feed after they posted scornful comments.

Lawyers for two Twitter users sent the White House a letter Tuesday demanding they be un-blocked from the Republican presidents @realDonaldTrump account.

The viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional, wrote attorneys at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York.

The White House didnt immediately respond to a request for comment.

The tweeters one a liberal activist, the other a cyclist who says hes a registered Republican have posted and retweeted plenty of complaints and jokes about Trump.

They say they found themselves blocked after replying to a couple of his recent tweets.

The activist, Holly OReilly, posted a video of Pope Francis casting a sidelong look at Trump and suggested this was how the whole world sees you. The cyclist, Joe Papp, responded to the presidents weekly address by asking why he hadnt attended a rally by supporters and adding, with a hashtag, fakeleader.

Blocking people on Twitter means they cant easily see or reply to the blockers tweets.

Although Trump started @realDonaldTrump as a private citizen and Twitter isnt government-run, the Knight institute lawyers argue that hes made it a government-designated public forum by using it to discuss policies and engage with citizens. Indeed, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Trumps tweets are considered official statements by the president.

The institutes executive director, Jameel Jaffer, compares Trumps Twitter account to a politician renting a privately-owned hall and inviting the public to a meeting.

The crucial question is whether a government official has opened up some space, whether public or private, for expressive activity, and theres no question that Trump has done that here, Jaffer said. The consequence of that is that he cant exclude people based solely on his disagreement with them.

The users werent told why they were blocked. Their lawyers maintain that the connection between their criticisms and the cutoff was plain.

Still, theres scant law on free speech and social media blocking, legal scholars note.

This is an emerging issue, says Helen Norton, a University of Colorado Law School professor who specializes in First Amendment law.

Morgan Weiland, an affiliate scholar with Stanford Law Schools Center for Internet and Society, says the blocked tweeters complaint could air key questions if it ends up in court. Does the public forum concept apply in privately run social media? Does it matter if an account is a politicians personal account, not an official one?

San Francisco-based Twitter Inc. declined to comment. The tweeters arent raising complaints about the company.

38.907192 -77.036871

More here:

Twitter users blocked by Trump say he's violating the First Amendment - New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

Princeton op-ed says ‘hate speech’ not protected by 1st Amendment because it’s an ‘action’ – The College Fix

Posted on by

Princeton op-ed says hate speech not protected by 1st Amendment because its an action

A Princeton University student believes that, the pesky First Amendment notwithstanding, offensive speech shouldbe restricted because it really is an action.

Comparative literature major Chang Che apparentlythinksjust because hes read J.L. Austins How To Do Things With Words it should magically apply to a couple of centuries of free speech jurisprudence.

Writing in The Daily Princetonian, Che says Americas constitutional interest in free speech has come in direct opposition to its reservations toward hate speech,' and that in a country with diverse religious, ethnic, and economic groups, some choice words can undermine our ideal of an accepting society.

How, then, can we reconcile this fundamental right as granted by our Founding Fathers with the increasingly pertinent need to question our choice of words?

Heres how: Just equate words with actions.

Before you gasp HUH?Che explains:

The modern discourse of political correctness has exposed a fundamental ambiguity in the language of our founding fathers, an ambiguity that philosophy has been attuned to since the Middle Ages such as in St. Augustines On Lying and formalized by J.L. Austin in his seminal work How To Do Things With Words. The ambiguity concerns the dualistic dimensions of speech: as a mode of expression and as a mode of action. While modern discourses surrounding the First Amendment equate freedom of speech with freedom of expression assuming that speech is primarily used as a mode of expressing ones ideas expression is but one function of speech. And in the context of harming others with language, it has overshadowed another equally important nature of language: the speech act.

Austin defines the speech act as speech that performs some sort of action in lieu of, or in addition to, its conventional meaning. For example, the utterance I promise not only refers to the act of promising but is, itself, the very condition by which that action is achieved I make a promise by merely uttering the words I promise.

Speech, therefore, is not only a mode of communication, but also one of action. And in the context of discriminatory language, these acts can be particularly invidious. The constitutional right to free speech, one that is generally understood as the right to articulate ones opinions and ideas, then, does not and should not encompass harmful speech acts. Since these types of speech primarily serve as actions, they should be evaluated as such, rather than under the First Amendment, which protects against freedom of speech as expression.

As an example, Che advises considering the words gay and faggot. Although both refer to the same type of individual, the latter does much more than the conventional use of language as expression it has a distinct act: the act of demonizing, abnormalizing, or stigmatizing that particular identity.

He also says theres something wrong when you can be punished for shoplifting, but not for characterizing Mexicans as rapists.'

Its time we abandon the assumption that actions speak louder than words because, more often than not, words do more than actions, Che concludes.

Lets just cut to the chase: This type of nonsense postmodern wordsmithing is no different from that of the Critical Race Theorists who, among other things, believe our basic freedoms should be subject to peoples feelings as well astheir past degree of marginalization and oppression.

Read the full piece.

MORE: Critical race theory and free speech limits based on feelings

MORE: Free speech sliding scale on display at UW Madison

MORE:College students views on free speech are rather worrisome

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Assistant Editor

Originally posted here:

Princeton op-ed says 'hate speech' not protected by 1st Amendment because it's an 'action' - The College Fix