Wrestling Rumors | Impact Is Being Forced Into Some Strange Censorship Tonight Wrestling Rumors Normally when you hear censorship, you think violence or sexual content. Maybe some profanity, or a if we're in a dystopia, a restraint against political opinions. You don't generally expect an entire person to be censored. But that's exactly what's ... |
Read the original:
Impact Is Being Forced Into Some Strange Censorship Tonight - Wrestling Rumors
spikeds annual Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) was released last week, to the usual cacophony of irritation from those on the receiving end of a Red ranking. Chief among the perpetually ticked-off, of course, was president of the National Union of Students (NUS), Malia Bouattia.
The NUS always frets about the FSUR, because it collects in one place all the bans and regulations students unions inflict upon their members. Not only did Bouattia pen a ripsote to the FSUR in the Huffington Post the day before its 2017 findings came out, she also attempted another take-down in the Independent a few days later.
In the latter, Bouattia claims that she can demonstrate expertly that the project is flawed, suggesting that what spiked doesnt understand is that students want to extend, not suppress, free expression. Free speech is universal, she says, but it is not limitless. To extend it to everyone means sacrificing some of our rights, preventing those who would suppress some peoples free expression from having theirs. In other words, you need to ban your way to free speech.
This is pretty mind-bending logic, even if it is by now sadly familiar. It speaks volumes that the NUS and universities feel it is their right to decide who should and shouldnt have their universal rights suspended. Whats more, the NUSs ban on those it deems to be fascist under its longstanding No Platform policy is really an expression of contempt for students, not far-right speakers.
What the NUS doesnt understand is that allowing your opponents the right to speak doesnt render you mute. One person speaking doesnt prevent the other from answering. This is what is so important about free speech. Believing in free speech means trusting people to defeat backward ideas in open debate. The NUS simply doesnt think students are up to it.
Read the original post:
Dixie altered its policies as a result of the lawsuit, but Coleman said there is a need to preserve spontaneous acts of constitutionally-protected expression.
"Their rights were denied by the institution," Coleman said of the Dixie State University students. "If that would have been our standard, we wouldn't be a country."
Marina Lowe, legislative counsel for the ACLU of Utah, spoke in support of the bill. Diversity of thought is a key component of higher education, she said.
"I can think of no more appropriate place to really be affirming the right of speakers to speak than on a college campus," Lowe said.
Spencer Jenkins, assistant commissioner of public affairs for the Utah System of Higher Education, said Utah's colleges and universities have worked to update their free speech policies. He did not speak against the bill, but cautioned lawmakers that the portions dealing with litigation increases the liability of public campuses and, by extension, the state of Utah.
"As far as these institutions go," Jenkins said, "we feel our policies are already in line with what this bill would do."
Members of the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a vote of 11-0. It will now go before the full House for consideration.
Twitter: @bjaminwood
Originally posted here:
House panel gives unanimous support to campus free speech bill - Salt Lake Tribune
Students at the prestigious University of Chicago say that free speech should not apply equally to everyone. The students objected to the schools Institute of Politics invitation to former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. They claim that allowing him to speak normalizes bigotry and provides a platform forfascism.
Lewandowski did not join the White House staff but by manyaccounts remainsan influential advisor to the president.
The coalition of students from U of C Resists, Graduate Students United, Students Working Against Prisons, and UChicago Socialists claim that the schools commitment to free expression doesnt require the institution to host him due to his alleged ties towhite supremacists and similarly alleged calls to violence against minority groups and refugees.
They told Campus Reform that they did not call for the University to disinvite him, but rather encouraged [the person who invited him] to reconsider and rescind the invitation, as if it makes a difference.
In an open letter to the school, the authors state that Lewandowski courted right-wing extremist groups. They alsoreferred to his alleged assault of a woman Breitbart journalist during the campaign, among other things.
Lewandowski is not the first Trump surrogate to be invited to the Institute of Politics. Last month, Sean Spicer, Trumps Press Secretary and Director of Communications, spoke in the same series, it states. By hosting figures like Spicer and Lewandowski the Institute of Politics suggests that the ideas and ideologies they represent are debatable positions within the range of normal politics.
Free speech, it claims, should not extend to Trump surrogates.
It sends a positive signal to white supremacists that they are welcome here, the studentsdeclare. This exposes the most vulnerable members of our community to even greater risk. That is unacceptable.
In addition to the letter, the student coalition set up a Bigotry is not Normal event to protest Lewandowski, inwhich over a hundred students claimed to have participated on Wednesday. Students set up protest fliers with statements like This is not dialogue its a war. [sic]
Speaking to The Chicagoist, IoP Executive Director Steve Edwards says that he respects the students right to protest but believes its necessary to invite guests who can provide insight into Trumps campaign, adding that people are free to contest, criticize, and protest views expressed on campus so long as they do not obstruct or interfere with the freedom of others to express their views.
Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken game critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.
The rest is here:
Campus Leftists at UChicago say Free Speech Shouldn't Apply Equally to Everyone - Heat Street
n=_*0vxl6"m $A'c9# $eYo%=3lIkBD}77 x*~|yWUYwe7t^kv1YM,d^OxwWRo'[R3fMPV( 7cPjI*,"%i/^x{{i~j{R^!:}7U#z~pr[^%xRoA!v@?]n~nVk4"jbe c*o|1jQDBWw_-DZl:/i DtA)9zcG,&HJU!UGE Hg X-reL-5!(WyhMyAC[ o5tX k4(w!|uHxpT6H6lQuzHdrFhBObbZh7<*j6DYt%*):zLmTtT*]h N3%Y8KF17?3ByL7-GT{YZ|{4>q`yrB8+3J5Fq'[CkpgM@toxPsv6M0 >v/i"@*M8dR?%' )L*|0&L YZr[j!j-n^[H6vh~8m7m zUz~|H)~nvrN=@>l.3UHb)s8z]s+/o9r'4;Yd -~+k #jQs! !UiMv%M=.#Hmc#CIHyt7'a#iBx]hVf>=2>%= ev[}4c,6oRun1kS& }09|'+q<;Z001m/Ii|{z/) a%0N&Ep{Tfio~A-?R540tIs&2-4uN/};TQPR3d'I,V jr@[X1z !:wtNHi##D?Fn6$tkg|;>zC?xb7L6W3L1v252Gvm4l'&$C jafGU]J/ "` 'N,`&g"j6Tc5"-ssGJG= f'sRb>s:+,~7*N!v-XhSQStg>Q={8r~G)7w#+[=KL~9'a$[?oKz ZkKU)Y'Q5zvMB;I(`5dR U/&**]{!kq[ VjLG x dRKuuGW-E40NJ@>[~]&YMvAQK|C$|H}wl 5km qp{PB W%qo&h+,b( P [-FY0qB!8z:Wva]Pet;O=w0`I"QObd(Np {Xw ,/fsMJ<:,67ZfPnzCy&C7gMb]d:[t[+8$W- lTGzH9P(B!`-c.W.Kc6|iz>)k0Y4`7c#cPu!%qc.R^4m/^J+dFGd mV@Xu;q =uzsqihC.9RWb|9Gn!9/ )h2k^Oc!MeESG|6kA Ia$]Bubg?+{S*6o'YaVWO]0o- }e8X56oK/$}B9b{p=*_5Ym%t3{3yBlJA"t )K2H Vp~/YRHZS0N"+%@BVd 1`lVS NT**W;9:JQ /ohCrohquy, _K-f38Nc2r9K4>G0t~}6Eqq+O[{3Puydj?W{;cXN?Xz J"J|qG!g& H;{ul_=3`!g8_~=r>"^?|3wqF:;cUiq6fmX]Ub7}*HG+mjO`7O5k1W~r!lFZ"YP$m|0?f_}iA;5L&JtvP ?{)?eXu/QR' iz(*g+'{/o}?,:~uuJZ[U/{we:nvwqrYLFkal!p/z|* DPksQ6 9 RwwKZwhKZVCo6Jrev~WEXStw'MwOPo|G+O3C-$U7t}#td /zc~}_=MAOoWaI,ig`TgsJ]nAHD#x r .pD,y3Nm$qW/SU]^lA!.J/.WNzkNM//lv(Z3Fyzvz.u7e)i 8&p:;G?!{4gY; 9oOxiI(0jrZl6gc3!5"HrQVhvLFarS&)'"fr)~T& C">'`ld 3%==CS-CbD~]c*!`:PJO7e1=k3@QR_C=,zz8y;@U|6iC]` |V6(q@eL1A&8=uDwQ%u.{ [Hxk,8f^G{8 hcBBmo7z+!ua :6 /?|_7w*=*ZL|"YZjPtPtm=*WE& 6aD||ki$FX 6!VykBz]5& sq1%s[ovL(%1DxN;djt#6[?KxZESo]7-lygn6m+!iM^y|R/mR~!4"[#'zfl@C]+RI9V77aneP2 |/]n0~UTe%V*E&$f af2p#90Hbs+w7_em#t"2H`aOnf0]ELIdi?VnPPV2jW {Jr`,VXm2ZR ~_6E@5Xf'B)~&)7bhy"*ONg:W+.p Qwijx9$Sl3E|ro#^A00ms(AM[] f 1ssrbs{Kr&vA6Lc 5A#4P6&!=)8BZ|+A T F3}D^} 6 4^v(x "yl a mPlqNPBS5xmRt/#FsSC_moEP-(Pn-'&; |t0c~ /$Hn))ZI-jh_jF^v?LT!AJgko+a]@o>a mM#AW"l~Ee]}a1y9Y5Omqh7xo|K}Ee,"B{]Pj|ZS#APbW_[N PJV[{Z`YyQ n1 4:k@@sDjB(LO5nB[t +HI)'Z|GZ n{ >TJd E^upT!TIMpW*sXo2,z8",01:P9wd!qG]x'4o,] [M3cEHrK?%p]} Df''(?}UM`zOUtX SV y@sJ#5G?6q$vlY/.Zer}/so [1/Y"]v3Yrd)M.?X:.T$i_2Td^y+z?_qmZPr:rRh rLs8qi$6Ywva,nj@N5~ ja:SFR(8gP-G T**V!qL9z5bEZfE".]Ys0+L1G71NH'N{%e0yB1I%K%44:p'lAH c,s2ryJk=ji$;zHTMcpetN7*m&j9!MK5h(x6'owNxN{Teeo4(-t=V">6V'dv g2WGe lgPt`JB[kdr$LE,Mo>{d./y^Z4")mX9^F!=_hp}knmnK ymI5umHN8f[#Di[n`m#CbtS+!#/o ?PA6cz/{Irt9oy@DOsY%9>#sw# _UeQEPvZ2NU(!X&CwDqv9WyQ`J>/dk, UZzO %q? ^[5e _#6 h7}Sdf9yXvhBNiw$HTv WepV|aANC_h|[QWP&!_?A}%0Y?o7E1owy oLOV[iOSL/9TJivGCO?mT$XJ(kCRq44qLfd{*e6Q~S'"dV}Nu4QY#J}(P$VtgQk:GL g24;p_f'Je*q/" h[g}M' _}@IO.*WNiUbbg}l#[|XUw]Ld0+K=e xPMLpLn@DEq e^$s8"!7U,S9N@ip7UL9 JZ-q=n Ud.WF] vBYFHL$Pp:"Wpb b+dPpcr_~CGbj1$-NbUIE"hp_y$f';}-1@@ FhYZI&# ?4E{%A-6Ck_ R*(@9ldf2;>dB? f,=#1DmjrU$R tI)]'/Uf;'(.FFAnh#K*wP@573TO9J#e25ZTk-yA_p[G4^S=-; *.P_ln0_%7RUXHUP DEtUqLlY`+Umx|9Hvy M9[{^S9 3gZZcfZDSE;gZN|B"Dx0W/n}Zu]u7PY'J=dLG3?u!d)[qpuG5m4-22:bIuh$y sWl:T&bUB^{G}iTxu+{xq(e{"ex_#]y3$ ck%GZj0- Q48n7x(_ ;$DPMn8B8!)glaIyK|Hb:F~&}x4cF& l@K Pb0BN'YEOtR8ub$( /LkN+f!*HJO8g/U'_RC(M"%CF`a`K}sapDIDqlG=;a]v($ ^0?asC~j_?5)2|Cdl9@vK/W|nv% 3U,.- O/m[lxEty{Dca{v%8%Qf?>+XD,8J_]_o0*QHC @~**YS 5:a6qwD"[!_}Gco">j,BzB@EfNtxfkj c.n~b;x %J!hij.>Y-Dzq2}r/`OQh`SF3mrR)s5sf;U#QUEZ0Vbk-H;C0Jv]=K`V~>luu]G?( J(%A^^)}>M'h>7] B` 4,Zi@ >*:&BL5Itm1nytknV&m8w.|sd2+_#^1Xh/UyAnjWo|~sOx6TFE? bqn5%a]fLrQ2cDkBs0_]Ko6WEKIlloYc!Hrvb{gD^z R~$E# MX^A+W.3fFoe({_&Ra/hsa` i|GEv|R7qhSgBX#-#4DKhqs7HT Rm-[(#LY 9NF1@/)YN_%+Rw^ [DFroT_8WUg6wl:QCWuBgC/rGtf/=gP3OIr&NRm0,zEloC}KIDh[77#67k OT).f G+_{cAP'T&W^ Z-86 &.rN&PSs3[6"(PT5 haacm!hEE@/x2.l9E[_gz)2)#OC{u;)"7--:X[U9j`AkwWOL98_M&NQ$omi~Wr*Jy6x0/3 ag!{X_{w(P(oXkV|lyZ@Q22Kb'0 BOw*N`fx|vXgiuLBUfiCLPN: B2Q1I( /?=9-qnJ=+|}ZY89lO2 ?9(bX$FHYuiJ>F|&}?g5*k*"qY[F&9U0Ybtm-x*wGaVxY+dtEU)y< tCny3xA0WAk9pJ@w2Gs),Vy}1~ -[n0Jx0 DsT^J^5Qy6p,nj8L+GrpbbbWW4ZHe*-g]niu nyMW/HU{wuAlr8%{nI*Fz"PylAI Y/4YNh yRZw%fS@Ft8e~RcD?Km,q)=L'VE;Gx2*5RB B4/"Rnk$pg-#0`l%'o}H86=}P}=dR{@>hsS{{,>L*{TV`Q seSJm1F2ik|I`r;)tTPIKkht'ps]YCOenw2GXhQDhHL ?^)bJDtp1w&V%5Uriid$!m )}i h~2,MU!71L5#]X3)pEzGytws]xi>N'I8T}X<9wf-8XNatQ*{ly-IJ*@j%*_`yyADimTZA:i@,04g_S)~Gg_ <:xNs+pO}Q>iz0x/2W"_,+TJL Read the original post:
VIDEOS: NEW UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE CHANCELLOR BEVERLY DAVENPORTBeverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work | 1:25
Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel
1 of 3
UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor, Beverly Davenport, at a reception during his last week as chancellor on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2017. Rachel Ohm/News Sentinel
2 of 3
Beverly J. Davenport, interim president at the University of Cincinnati, speaking in an open forum with faculty and students at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center on campus Monday, Nov. 7, 2016. Davenport is the second candidate to visit UTK. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel
3 of 3
Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work
Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor
Chancellor candidate Beverly Davenport speaking at open forum at UTK
University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)Buy Photo
In her first interview on the University of Tennessee's Knoxville campus, new Chancellor Beverly Davenport said she doesn't think the state needs a law protecting free speech on college campuses and suggested she would work to reinstatefunding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.
Davenport, who took office Wednesday as the first female chancellor at UT, also touched on the search for a new athletic director, outsourcing of facilities management jobs and Title IX issues in a wide-ranging discussion with members of the media Wednesday morning.
Davenport, 62, takes over from Chancellor Emeritus Jimmy Cheek, who is moving to a tenured faculty position in the College of Education, Health and Human Sciences. With a $585,000 base salary, Davenport will earn more than her predecessor.
She isinheriting a wide range of issues and said she has "a lot of listening to do" in her first few weeks on campus.
Among the most recent is a bill proposed by state lawmakers last week that aims toprotect free speech on campusafter a Breitbart News editor whose planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley, spurred violent protests that promptedcollege officials there to cancel the event.
Rep. Martin Daniel, R- Knoxville, a sponsor of the bill, said last week the legislation is "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."
Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel
Davenport, who has a background in communications and comes to UT from the University of Cincinnati, where she most recently served as interim president, said she is a First Amendment advocateand proponent of free speech on campus, but doesn't see the need for a bill.
"It's a constitutional right. I don't think we need a bill," Davenport said.
She's also expected to work with state lawmakers when it comes to funding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.Last year the state diverted more than $400,000 away from the office after conflicts with lawmakers over Sex Weekevents and a post on the office's website promoting the use of gender-neutral pronouns and advising against Christmas-themed holiday parties.
When asked by a reporter Wednesday whether that money, which was diverted to pay for scholarships for minority students, would be redirected, Davenport said "there will be funding."
"I will only be on a campus where every student is supported and made to feel welcome and important and safe," she said. "I wouldn't be on a campus if I wasn't committed to and wouldn't find revenue to support the programs that serve all of our students."
She also said communicatingwith state lawmakers is one area where universities, in general, need to improve.
"We say this when Im among administrators at national meetings, we say this all the time: 'We havent constructed our narrative very well. We havent told our story well enough,'" Davenport said."The burden is on us. The responsibility is on us to make that argument, to tell that story."
On the search for a new athletic director, Davenport said the university is "moving really quickly" but no firm timeline is in place for filling the post. She would not comment when asked to disclose the names of specific candidates.
"I have no doubt she'll make a great decision," said Lady Vols coach Holly Warlick."I think she's going to take her time. Do I want an AD yesterday? Yeah. But I think she's going to do her homework. She's going to do her due diligence. I think she's going to try to get the best fit here. I respect that. I want her to do that. We've got to get it right."
In an interview last week, Davenport also talked about the importance of education on Title IX issues, especially given that UT in July settled a $2.48 million lawsuit accusing the university of fostering a "sexually hostile environment" and mishandling allegations of sexual assault on campus, especially allegations made against athletes.
She reiteratedWednesday that Title IX and campus sexual assaults arethe issue that "probably keeps me up at night more so than any other issue that I deal with."
Davenport cited a meeting with Gov. Bill Haslam during her interview process as one thing that attracted her to Tennessee, but said she needs to research more his proposal to outsource facilities management on public college campuses. She said she would consider options for UT to opt out of the outsourcing proposal but "its certainly one of those topics I need to know more about."
An avid Twitter user, Davenport also expressed her excitement to be on campus Wednesday morning on Twitter and said it's one way Tennesseans both on and off campus can keep in touch with her - though it's not the only way.
"I will be outin as many places as I can be every day," Davenport said."I want them to know me some other way than through a Tweet, too. I will be out there.I will be visible."
University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)
Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2ljVv5J
More:
Davenport talks free speech, diversity, AD search on first day - Knoxville News Sentinel
Forbes | Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism: Banning A TV Station Is Protecting Venezuela's Free Speech Forbes Not that any of us have really expected any less than this from the Chavistas currently running Venezuela but they're now claiming that banning a TV station is a method of protecting Venezuela's free speech. The background to this is that CNN Espanol ... Venezuela may have given passports to people with ties to terrorism |
More:
As a citizen of China, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, I must say that I am disappointed by my fellow liberals indifference toward free speech. My experience tells me that whether or not citizens have the right to free speech is the most important distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship. To give you an idea of what it is like to be a Chinese citizen, for the first 18 years of my life, my typical class schedule included a Politics and Thoughts class that taught Communist Party propaganda, a History class that taught alternative history carefully censored and rewritten by the Communist Party, and a literature class that included only authors and articles the Party deemed appropriate. I was required to memorize key speeches and principles invented by Party leaders in order to pass the ideology test, in which if anyone dared to write anything negative about the Communist Party, he or she would automatically get a zero and not graduate.
In China, online forums and social media are carefully monitored so that counter-revolutionary comments are promptly removed and perpetrators are punished. Human rights lawyers and activists are routinely jailed in secret locations or sent to forced labor camps for their beliefs and activities. It isnt that life is insufferable for normal people without free speech; the brilliance of censorship is that it makes you think only one kind of view can possibly be right, so you dont feel the need to protest, dissent, or even think.
In high school, during a summer at Yale, and my first time in the United States, I took a human rights class and a legal philosophy class. For the first time in my life, I read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. I read John Stuart Mills On Liberty and his belief that everyone should have the absolute right to free speech. I read the landmark Supreme Court case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), in which a Jewish lawyer of the American Civil Liberties Union defended the Nazi Partys right to march in a predominantly Jewish village. I learned about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, on which information was censored in China and where brave college students fought for democracy. They fought for freedom of speech and thought only to face the crackdown of an illiberal regime stuck in its own ways. I learned that liberalism means tolerance and commitment to our inalienable and indivisible rights, no matter what powerful people say, and I began to proudly call myself a liberal. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that most of my liberal friends at Swarthmore not only advocate violence against those who hold a different view, but also believe that freedom of speech is somehow a conservative value.
Most debates about free speech these days are simply confused. The kind of knee jerk reaction that many liberals display toward claims of free speech is largely a response to the hypocrisy of some conservative politicians, who, while arguing that liberals are stifling free speech on campus, are perfectly willing to withhold funding from colleges they deem too radical. Free speech as a constitutional right is different from the kind of campus free speech for which such conservatives are clamoring. Unfortunately, many liberals fail to draw the distinction and end up losing faith in the doctrine of free speech in general. Even more unfortunate are attempts to equate free speech with oppression or even white supremacy. Without freedom of speech, only those in positions of power can speak.
Freedom of speech as a legal, constitutional, and human right is important because it is the bedrock of democracy. Every attempt to undermine this right risks undermining the foundation of democracy and making the U.S. more like China or Russia. You may think I am being alarmist, but plenty of examples exist where free speech restrictions in other liberal democracies have backfired. After a German comedian accused the Turkish President and Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoan of oppressing minorities and having sexual intercourse with farm animal Erdoan sued the comedian with the support of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, under an old German law. In France, after the terrorist attack in 2015, a Muslim was sentenced to a year in prison for shouting Im proud to be Muslim. I dont like Charlie [Charlie Hebdo, a far-left French magazine previously attacked for mocking Islam]. They were right to do it. As Howard Gillman, the Chancellor of UC Irvine, argues, [d]emocracies are more fragile things than we might like to believe. Free speech is important partly because it allows political minority groups to voice their opinion without fear of retribution.
The constitutional right to free speech, however, is not absolute. Child pornography, obscenity, fighting words, libel, and incitement, for example, are not protected by the First Amendment. But these exceptions are meant to be exactly that exceptions. Some have argued that hate speech is not free speech. It is factually incorrect as a descriptive claim, and practically and legally problematic as a prescriptive claim. Since the issue of hate speech matters deeply to many skeptics of free speech, Id like to set the record straight here. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that banned the placement of a burning cross or Nazi swastika on public and private property. The majority reasoned that the law was unconstitutional because it only prohibited particular kinds of fighting words that involve race, color, creed, religion or gender. In other words, the law constituted both viewpoint and subject matter discrimination. Even though in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) the Supreme Court upheld a similar law because the Court considered speech targeting racial or religious groups to be group libel, as constitutional law scholars Kathleen Sullivan and Gerald Gunther explain, most judges no longer believe that Beauharnais is good law.
Should the government be allowed to ban hate speech as many free speech skeptics wish? I do not believe this is a good idea. While it is permissible for the government to prohibit speech that incites imminent violence (see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), or increase penalty for hate crime (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)), as the Court argues in R.A.V., any specific prohibition on hate speech involves content-based restrictions. If, for the sake of argument, the government is allowed to ban speech based on its content, then who is to stop right-wing politicians from passing laws that prohibit speech, for example, that advocates for the violent overthrow of capitalism or mocks Christianity? As the ACLU argues, free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyones rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Of course, the Court can recognize a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, but as The Economist argues, such an exception will only encourage ideologues to harass those who hold a different view. In India, a psychologist and well-known public intellectual was charged under the countrys hate speech law for making a point about corruption and lower-caste politicians. He has since said that because of the incident, he will have to be careful now. Similarly, a hate speech law may allow Trump to sue Clinton if she had instead said Evangelical Christians or white Trump supporters belong to a basket of deplorables. I am not arguing that instituting a hate speech exception is constitutionally impossible, but I suspect it will either be too broad so as to amount to censorship, or too narrow so as to be utterly indistinguishable from other exceptions such as fighting words.
Speech on campus, of course, is an entirely different matter. Public colleges are required by the Constitution to provide First Amendment protection for everyone. Private colleges like Swarthmore, on the other hand, should protect the most vulnerable members of their communities, but they should also promote diversity of political opinion and speech that has intellectual value. The decision to allow or disallow certain speech is ultimately a balancing act, but colleges should not, for example, disinvite conservative speakers merely because their viewpoints are unpopular or offensive. (I do not, however, believe Milo Yiannopoulos deserves a platform on campus, because I do not believe his speech has any value at all.) Some, however, have argued that hate speech deserves a place on campus. Gillman and UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, for example, argue that only by subjecting hate speech to examination can we expose the lie and bigotry that it is. I am sympathetic to such arguments even though I believe the line should be drawn where students might begin to feel unsafe.
There is another issue: do some students, because of their privileges, have no right to discuss certain topics or issues? There is a strong case to be made that those who belong to groups that traditionally have less voice should be given more voice to enrich the marketplace of ideas, but I think the answer to this question should be no. A friend of mine told me that when his public policy class was discussing whether catcalling should be made a felony, he was told by a female student that his view does not matter because he is not a woman. However, as a low-income and minority student, he knew that such laws disproportionately affect minorities. Regardless of whether his view was correct, he was capable of making a valuable contribution to the discussion. The point is, in the context of campus speech, more speech is almost always better than less.
Originally posted here:
Poughkeepsie Journal 3:02 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2017
Letters to editor(Photo: Poughkeepsie Journal)Buy Photo
The alarm bells are ringing.
Insidiously and gradually, free speech is on its way to extinction at universities and colleges across America, spawned by a dictatorship of the left.
Increasingly, leftists and their anarchist disciples are inciting students to use mob violence for disrupting and preventing invited conservative speakers from expressing alternative political views at the campus.
Reminiscent of Nazi and Communist tactics for eliminating free speech, leftist-inspired rioters screaming obscene language are increasingly threatening conservative speakers with physical injury, accompanied by blockage of streets and buildings, appalling vandalism, extensive property damage, and chaos.
Recently, at the University of California, Berkeley, right-wing advocate Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated and his speech cancelled because of masked rioters beating people, smashing windows and starting fires on and off campus. Incredibly, throughout this dystopian scene, despite the presence of scores of campus and city police, not a single arrest was made thanks to orders from permissive or possibly complicit municipal and school officials.
Hypocrisy prevails: The same campus leftists who allege President Donald Trump is ushering in a Fascist regime to suppress freedom of speech, are themselves plotting to silence conservatives who challenge their views.
If America is going to preserve its democratic principles, suppression of free speech through violence must be reversed. This means publicly funded educational institutions throughout our nation including Dutchess Community College need to uphold federal laws protecting the right of its citizenry to assemble in a peaceful manner and exercise free speech. Otherwise, federal funding to these scofflaw universities and colleges should be withheld.
Joe Incoronato
Dutchess County Legislator, District 15
Wappingers Falls
Read or Share this story: http://pojonews.co/2lmQ5Y8
Read more:
Free speech in danger due to extreme leftist actions: Letter - Poughkeepsie Journal
By Hunter Gilbert
The opinions expressed by The Maneater columnists do not represent the opinions of The Maneater editorial board.
Hunter Gilbert is a freshman data journalism major at MU. He is an opinion columnist who writes about rights and tech for The Maneater.
The founding fathers did not get everything right when it came to explaining the rights they believed every American should have. For starters, they didnt believe these rights applied to everyone in the nation.
What they were successful in doing was expressing how important specific rights were to their vision of a longstanding democratic republic. This is why the First Amendment includes several tenets, some of those being the freedoms of religion, speech and press. In the event that a sovereign state silences all forms of publication that have conflicting viewpoints with the powers that be, the voice and verbal opposition of a populace in the absence of the press would act as the last vessel for the people. It is essential for democratic processes to occur.
Recently at the University of California-Berkeley, a member of the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulos, had his event canceled due to a concern for his own safety. This was the result of a protest that turned into a riot one that was not controlled by the police even though their purpose was to maintain order. It goes without saying from my past columns that I do not champion or support rhetoric like Milos. He has done some truly despicable things. I do, however, agree with Milo, much like another opponent of his rhetoric, Matt Teitelbaum, when it comes to freedom of speech.
If you have ever actually watched the man speak, he carries himself with an interesting demeanor. He will have a good dialogue with someone with opposing views if they carry their conversation through well-mannered means. If someone is merely screaming at him and calling him names, he will do the same through vicious mockery and heckling. beliefs. It has been that way for over a hundred years and it will remain that way. There is no changing that. So when it was announced that one of the leaders of the UC Berkeley protest believed the protest was successful and that she tolerated the behavior that occurred, it sends a very concerning message. Plenty of protesters acted respectfully, and they deserve praise for doing so. The fact of the matter is the violence and rioting that occurred gave more attention to Milos cause. Milos book is now an Amazon bestseller thanks to the publicity, and it hasnt even come out yet. In part, the protest failed since its goal was to keep people from hearing him speak. Violence or silencing your opponent discredits your own sides credibility.
If you truly want change, make compromises. Talk to people who have different views than your own. Learn about the origins of why they believe in a certain ideology. Dont surround yourself solely with people who think exactly like you. That only creates a hive mind mentality with an echo chamber effect. It doesnt lead to any progress. Free speech is useless when your opponent cant speak for themselves.
He has two sides, one of which I respect. At times, he has openly welcomed actual dialogue from opposing viewpoints. This is rare these days. Society jumps at labeling people without actually listening to them or mislabels a party or person for the shock value or simple discreditation. Its modern day McCarthyism, but instead with buzzwords like fascist and neo-Nazi, even though sometimes it is warranted. It is the equivalent of crying wolf over and over again. No one will listen to you when the truth is applicable. One does not have to agree with Milos beliefs to recognize he values free speech for what it actually promotes: discussion and dialogue between opposing viewpoints.
Back to the protest. One can easily watch the videos of rioters clubbing people with iron pipes or punching a bystander several times even though it is apparent she had done nothing to warrant this. What shocked me the most was a man, already unconscious, being beaten by a group of anti-fascist demonstrators.
There was no uproar and no mainstream condemnations from bipartisan groups for what occurred. For the most part, the response was silence. I may not agree with the people who were clubbed and beaten, but suppressing their civil right to free speech should not be so widely accepted.
Read this article:
KRQE News 13 | UNM students express freedom of speech on giant beach ball ... KRQE News 13 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) Words were flowing on the University of New Mexico campus Wednesday afternoon. Students were given the opportunity to ... |
Go here to see the original:
UNM students express freedom of speech on giant beach ball ... - KRQE News 13
Jim Mattis delivered the goods at his first NATO defense ministerial as Secretary of Defense. There was a bit of whiplash during the first day as Mattis went from a reassuring public statement to a statement behind closed doors warning that the Untied States may moderate our commitment to NATO.
The public statement wasnt bad in fact, it was sober-minded, practical, plain spoken, almost lyrical in parts (as far as NATO statements go). It was also replete with references to historical touch points that are crucial to understanding the value of NATO, which Mattis clearly does. If you needed reassurance that Mattis not just knows NATO but feels it, you got that in his statement.
But what about this moderate our commitment bit? It was pretty clearly an ultimatum, though it was more nuanced if you read it in context. Mattis goes one step further than his predecessor Bob Gates did in his famous 2013 Brussels speech, which warned of a dark and dismal future for NATO if Americas allies didnt do more. Essentially, Mattis said the politically untenable situation that Gates warned about had now arrived in Washington in the form of Donald Trump. It was intended as a motivational speech: Everyone pull up your socks or else. Its just that the or else part is still vague.
Once youve drawn a red (or at least pink) line of this sort, its hard to walk it back. Some NATO allies will never reach the military spending target of 2 percent and few, if any, allies will show much progress by the end of the year. What then? Will the United States pull the trigger and moderate our commitment and what would that even mean? Were likely to face this awkward situation in the year ahead and we wont have the luxury of being able to walk away from it, at least not without gaining a reputation as a paper tiger.
We would have more flexibility if Mattis had vowed to moderate Americas participation in NATO rather then our commitment. Messing with our commitment to NATO means weakening Article 5 of the organizational treaty, which I dont think Mattis intends, whatever Donald Trump might have in mind. Moderating our participation would have opened up options such as reducing our common funding contribution or something else that doesnt weaken our commitment to Article 5.
Perhaps theres some wiggle room in defining fair share after all, sometimes its not how much you spend but what you spend it on and how willing you are to use it that counts. But either way we have crossed the Rubicon American commitment to NATO is on the table. Mattiss warning of consequences will force U.S. allies to ask themselves a lot of questions; if they feel threatened, it may even cause some blowback. Threatening consequences may work with 5 year olds; sovereign states, not so much.
Whats clear is that the Trump administration will now have to follow through when it becomes apparent most Allies wont meet the 2 percent any time soon. Whether anyone has thought through what we will when our allies dont measure up is another question.
Photo credit:EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images
Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit
See original here:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Finland are stepping up their cooperation on cyber defense in the face of increased threats in cyberspace and a resurgent Russia.
NATO and Finland on Thursday signed a political framework agreement on cyber defense cooperation that will allow them to better protect and strengthen their networks.
We look forward to enhancing our situational awareness and exchanging best practices with Finland, including through dedicated points of contact for rapid information exchange on early warning information and lessons learned, Ambassador Sorin Ducaru, NATOs assistant secretary general for emerging security challenges, said.
This arrangement is a good example of the cooperation between NATO and Finland it is practical, substantial and at the same time mutually beneficial, Juusti said in a statement. Finland sees many opportunities of enhanced cooperation for example in conducting training and exercises in the cyber domain.
The new agreement comes on the heels of the Russian governments alleged cyber meddling in the U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Moscow used cyberattacks and disinformation to undermine confidence American democracy and damage Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonThe 16 most memorable quotes from Trump's press conference Trump airs grievances at first full press conference Trump to black reporter: Help me meet with Black Caucus MORE, which Russia has denied.
There are now suspicions that Moscow will also try to meddle in forthcoming European elections, including those in France and Germany.
NATO has focused more on cyber defense as cyber intrusions have become more pervasive and damaging, stoking concerns about the potential for attacks that might compromise critical infrastructure. At the Warsaw Summit last July, member states recognized cyberspace as a domain of operations in which NATO must defend itself.
NATO infrastructure came under threat from 500 cyberattacks each month in 2016, an increase of 60 percent over the previous year, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg revealed last month.
Finland and NATO actively cooperate on security and other operations, and the country has shown signs of wanting to boost cooperation with the alliance. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled that he might move troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if Finland were to join NATO.
NATO member states have bolstered troop presence in the Baltic States and Poland to deter Russian aggression in eastern Europe, nearly three years after Moscows annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula.
View original post here:
NATO, Finland deepen cooperation on cyber defense - The Hill
German soldiers stationed in Lithuania have been the target of false rape claims, German news magazine "Spiegel" first reported on Thursday. NATO diplomats told Spiegel that they viewed this as an attack aimed at undermining the presence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Eastern Europe, likely perpetrated by Russia.
Emails claiming that German soldiers had raped an underage Lithuanian girl were sent to the president of the Lithuanian parliament and various Lithuanian media outlets on February 14.
Lithuanian authorities investigated the charges and found no evidence that any of the claims made in the emails were true. "To our knowledge, Lithuanian police investigations came to the conclusion that there were neither a victim nor possible witnesses nor any perpetrators", a spokesperson for the German ministry of defense said.
Some smaller local news outlets reported on the charges, according to Spiegel, but Lithuanian officials quickly discounted the accusations.
Lithuanian police is investigating the incident. The address from which the emails accusing the soldiers were sent no longer exists, according to the German defense ministry, but authorities are looking to track the IP-address.
NATO is moving eastward
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels that there had been several previous attempts to spread disinformation about NATO and that the organization was on constant alert.
The German troop presence in Lithuania is part of an "enhance forward presence"mission in NATO's Eastern territories. The military alliance made up of Canada, the United States and 26 European countries is upping its military presence in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin's involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. NATO troops are stationed in Poland and in the three Baltic states - Lithuania, Estonia andLatvia. Germany is heading the recently begun mission in Lithuania and deployed its first soldiers in early February.
For many Germans, the alleged misinformation campaign in Lithuania echoesthe "Lisa case". In early 2016, Russian media outlets picked up the story of a 13-year old Russian-German girl named Lisa who claimed that she had been abducted and raped by Arab refugees in Berlin a lie the girl had made up in order to not get in trouble with her parents after spending the night at male friend's place. Hundreds of Russian-Germans took to the street in protests in response to the reports, claiming that German authorities were neglecting the "Lisa case" for political reasons.
mb/ss,kl(AFP, dpa)
Read the original post:
NATO: Russia targeted German army with fake news campaign - Deutsche Welle
Miami Herald | AP Interview: Lithuania confident of US commitment to NATO Miami Herald Lithuania's defense minister said Thursday he is confident that all NATO allies will help protect his country from Russia despite recent concern over the U.S. commitment to European security. Raimundas Karoblis told The Associated Press that he had no ... |
Originally posted here:
AP Interview: Lithuania confident of US commitment to NATO - Miami Herald
New York Times | Donald Trump, NATO, Boeing: Your Thursday Briefing - The New ... New York Times President Trump with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the White House on Wednesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times. (Want to ... |
See original here:
Donald Trump, NATO, Boeing: Your Thursday Briefing - The New ... - New York Times
To say that the European members of NATO should spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, as they agreed at the alliances 2014 summit in Wales, is to state the obvious; but increases in defense spending alone will not revitalize NATO. The alliances future hinges on the key question of strategic consensusthat is, a deeply internalized recognition of the threats confronting the allies.
The last twenty-five years have offered ample reason for pessimism that NATO can agree on a unifying purpose. However, today for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the alliance seems to have enough of a shared security optics to begin to forge an enduring common threat assessment.
At first blush, guarded optimism about NATOs future may seem counterintuitive, as for years the alliance has come up short when it comes to resources and a shared strategic vision. Debates in NATO on what to prioritize continue unabated. Still, two issues are rising fast to the top of the organizations agenda: regionally, a resurgent and geostrategically assertive Russia; and globally, the accelerating threat of Islamic terrorism.
These two topics offer a unique opportunity for NATO to align the security outlooks of key European members with that of the United States. It appears that the next NATO summit, in Brussels in May 2017, may deliver a strategic vision thatmuch as during the Cold Warwill condense a common understanding of NATOs mission into a clearly articulated set of goals that publics will embrace.
Notwithstanding the doom and gloom of op-eds and commentaries predicting NATOs twilight, the United States and its European allies have already delivered a remarkably coordinated response to Russian pressure along the alliances Eastern flank, in both political and military terms. The presence of the U.S. Armored Brigade Combat Team in Poland and the impending deployments of NATO multinational battalions in the Baltics are a breakthrough in how the United States and NATO operate in Central Europe, even if the current reinforcement of the flank remains a work in progress. The deployments demonstrate that allies recognize the geostrategic shift occurring on Europes doorstep in the wake of Russias March 2014 seizure of Crimea and the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, and can respond in unison.
Likewise, terrorist strikes in Europe and the United States have generated a significant change in how the threat of Islamic terrorism is perceived on both sides of the Atlantic. U.S. and European leaders have identified jihadist terrorism as a direct threat, with U.S. President Donald Trump calling for an all-out effort to defeat the self-proclaimed Islamic State, French President Franois Hollande declaring his country to be at war after the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, British Prime Minister Theresa May warning that the UK faces the same terrorist threats as France, and Chancellor Angela Merkel calling terrorism the greatest threat to Germany. Similar sentiments have been echoed across other NATO capitals.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been searching for its existential raison dtre, but various formulas such as out of area, smart defence, and comprehensive approach have come up short in large part because of allies divergent views of security.
Arguably, the biggest missed chance for NATO came in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, when the alliance invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty in defense of the United States. Back then, it seemed for a moment that a new collective mission was staring NATO in the face, for it should have been clear that global Islamic terrorist networks were only just beginning to grow in strength. And yet, the subsequent War on Terror and the Overseas Contingency Operations pursued by the United States never germinated into a shared strategic mission, even though the alliance took the lead role in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
Today, NATO has arguably the greatest chance since the end of the Cold War to foster a strategic consensus around its two common threats: Russias renewed geostrategic assertiveness along NATOs Eastern (and, increasingly, Southern) flank, and the surge of Islamic terrorism. The key deliverable for the next NATO summit should be a strategy on Russia and terrorism, and allies should start working on it posthaste. Achieving this goal, in addition to increasing defense spending, would go a long way toward strengthening alliance cohesion.
Andrew A. Michta is the dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Views expressed here are his own.
More:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel appeared as a witness at the final hearing in the three-year existence of the parliamentary committee charged with investigating the 2013 NSA scandal. Although she admitted to technical and organizational mistakes, she parried suggestions that she knew or should have known about widespread American and German spying on allies at an early stage of the affair.
Merkels testimony was particularly anticipated not just because of her position as chancellor, but because of her high-profile statement in 2013: "Spying among friends - that simply isnt done."
The chancellor, appearing relaxed, began with a 25-minute statement full of self-quotations from 2013-15. In it she tried to prove that she had consistently come out against intelligence surveillance of allies in the wake of the Snowden leaks in 2013. She also sought to show that she had only gradually learned about the extent of the NSAs spying on Germans and the German foreign intelligence service BNDs monitoring of German allies, which emerged after journalistic inquiries in 2015.
She said that she had complained to then US President Barack Obama about the US spying in 2013 and insisted that US intelligence services operating on German soil follow German law.
"Were not in the Cold War any more," Merkel quoted herself as telling Obama.
Merkel said that the situation had been made more complicated by the complex and constantly evolving nature of surveillance technology.
"There are always some contradictions between freedom and security, and a balance must be maintained," Merkel said.
Merkel downplayed the importance of so-called "handygate"
The cell phone affair
The conservative chairman of the committee Patrick Sensburg was far less aggressive in his questioning of Merkel than he had been grilling high-ranking chancellors office leaders on Monday. One main thread of his queries had to do with alleged NSA eavesdropping on Merkel's cell phone.
Speaking without notes other than her opening remarks, Merkel said that it was never proven that the American intelligence service had listened in on her conversations. She added that she had received assurances from Obama that her phone was not tapped and wouldnt be in the future.
When asked why she didn't have her cell phone forensically examined, she said that she didnt want to give additional insights into her communication habits. She said it was easier for her just to procure a new device.
Deficits or something more?
The Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens sought to suggest that Merkel had violated her own principle that allies shouldnt spy on one another by failing to pursue the matter vigorously enough with Washington and to ensure that similar practices by BND were discontinued.
Merkel says she didn't know until 2015 that the BND spied on allies
In response to Merkel's insistence that she only gradually learned about the BND's use of so-called selectors, computer search terms, aimed at European political leaders and businesses, Christian Plisek of the SPD asked: "Is it responsible to demand things of intelligence services abroad, when youre not sure what our own ones are doing?"
When Plisek asked if she had inquired about where the BND got information it passed along to her, Merkel replied tersely: "I dont need information about sources of information."
Merkel said that her assertion that "friends" should spy on one another was a statement of political belief and not an assertion that Germany didnt run surveillance on allies. When pressed why it took until March 2015 for the BND to discontinue using certain controversial selectors, the chancellor blamed "technical and organizational deficits."
"You say that it cant be that friends spy on one another and yet the BND did precisely that over years," objected Andr Hahn of the Left Party. "And that was just down to 'technical and organizational deficits?'"
Merkel denied any deeper knowledge of German surveillance practices before 2015 and any responsibility for mistakes made by her subordinates. She said that she as chancellor set policy targets and trusted others to see that they were met.
Few tense moments
The mood at the hearing was fairly congenial
Konstantin von Notz of the Greens suggested that talk of a no-spy agreement between Germany and the US in 2013, which ultimately yielded no results, was a strategy to blunt the political damage of the NSA affair. Merkel denied that thiswas the case.
Notz also asked Merkel to name the reason why the former president of the BND Gerhard Schindler went into early retirement in 2015. The chancellor refused to do so, but said that she was happy thatGermanys foreign intelligence service was able to make a "new start."
The committee succeeded in highlighting mistakes madein the BND and to a lesser extent in the chancellors office. But it didnt uncover evidence of any massive misdeeds by Merkel or her associates.
In a break in the testimony, Plisek told reporters that he believed that chancellor didn't know about the practices within the BND when she made her "friends don't spy on friends" remark, although he did add that she seemed to have erected a "protective wall" around herself to keep from knowing more than she absolutely had to.
Although Merkel appeared to grow slightly more irritable as the hearing wore on, none the questioners managed to provoke her into an unmeasured response. Indeed, during the break she joked with reporters as though at a social event rather than a parliamentary investigative hearing.
Merkel's testimony ends the main investigative work of the committee, which was formed in March 2014. It now has until the second half of June to file its final report on the NSA-BND spying affair.
Follow this link:
Forbes | DNC Hackers Are Using Apple Mac Spyware Code From FBI Surveillance Vendor, Claims Ex-NSA Researcher Forbes Earlier this week, malware said to belong to the Russian group behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee, known as APT28 or Fancy Bear, leaked online. Though novel both for its targeting of Apple Macs and iPhone backups, the surveillance ... |
See more here:
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Binney was an architect of the NSAs surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001 after spending more than 30 years with the agency.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Asked whether he believes the NSA is tapping Trump, Binney replied: Absolutely. How did they get the phone call between the president and the president of Australia? Or the one that he made with Mexico? Those are not targeted foreigners.
Binney further contended the NSA may have been behind a data leak that might have revealed that Michael Flynn, Trumps national security adviser, allegedly misled Vice President Mike Pence and other Trump administration officials about the contents of his phone calls with Russias ambassador to Washington.
Regarding Flynns case, Binney stated of the NSA:
If they werent behind it, they certainly had the data. Now the difference here is that FBI and CIA have direct access inside the NSA databases. So, they may be able to go directly in there and see that material there. And NSA doesnt monitor that. They dont even monitor their own people going into databases.
So, they dont monitor what CIA and FBI do. And theres no oversight or attempted oversight by any of the committees or even the FISA court. So, any way you look at it, ultimately the NSA is responsible because they are doing the collection on everybody inside the United States. Phone calls. Emails. All of that stuff.
He was speaking on the podcast edition of this reporters talk radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, broadcast on New Yorks AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphias NewsTalk 990 AM.
During the interview, Binney referred to a 2008 report referencing two NSA whistleblowers who said they worked at the agencys station in Fort Gordon, Georgia and were asked to not only monitor phone calls of U.S. citizens but transcribe them.
Utilizing data provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the Guardian and Washington Post in June 2013 released a series of articles reporting that the NSA was collecting the telephone records of millions of Americans.
Prior to those reports, National Intelligence Director James Clapper claimed on March 12, 2013 during an open session of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the NSA was not wittingly collecting data on Americans.
Not wittingly, Clapper said when asked whether the NSA was spying on U.S. citizens. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.
During the interview, Binney charged that the NSA was over-funded and out of control.
He offered recommendations for how he says Trump can reign in the agency:
He can order that they put a filter on the front end of all their collection that eliminates any U.S. citizens anywhere in the world unless they have a warrant for it. If they dont, then he has to put people in jail if they violated.
So, I mean, thats the way to do it. The other way is to cut their budget. I mean they are given too much money anyway. When they are given too much money, they get to do wild and crazy things. And this is wild and crazy. Violations of the Constitutions 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
On Wednesday, Trump singled out the NSA and FBI in a series of tweets about Flynns case as well as reports in the New York Times and Washington Post claiming further contacts between Trump advisors and Russia.
The Times on Tuesday seemed to be quoting from intercepted phone calls to report on alleged contacts between Trump campaign aides and Russian intelligence agents.
The Times reported:
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trumps 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said.
Aaron Klein is Breitbarts Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him onFacebook.
More:
EXCLUSIVE NSA Whistleblower: Agency 'Absolutely' Tapping Trump's Calls - Breitbart News