NSA ups the ante on domestic spying – PJ Media – PJ Media

This story, from the Jan. 12, 2017, edition of the New York Times, was little-remarked upon at the time, but suddenly has taken on far greater significance in light of current events:

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the governments 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

One of the central questions behind the Mike Flynn flap that should have been asked but largely wasn't is: who was wiretapping the general? The answer, we know now, was the National Security Agency, formerly known as No Such Agency, the nation's foremost signals-intelligence (SIGINT) collection department.

Once compartmentalized to avoid injuring private citizens caught up in the net of the Black Widow(as we all are already) and her technological successors, the NSA was suddenly handed greater latitude in what it could share with other, perhaps more politicized bodies of the intelligence community. Why?

Let's call the roster of the bad guys:

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate raw signals intelligence information, on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.

Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.

Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for minimizing privacy intrusions.

This is not expanding the substantive ability of law enforcement to get access to signals intelligence, said Robert S. Litt, the general counsel to Mr. Clapper. It is simply widening the aperture for a larger number of analysts, who will be bound by the existing rules.

See the original post here:

NSA ups the ante on domestic spying - PJ Media - PJ Media

Posted in NSA

Emergency hearing sought to stop NSA ‘spying’ on Trump – WND.com – WND.com

President Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

Attorney Larry Klayman, the founderof Freedom Watch, is asking a federal court to hold an emergency hearing on the National Security Agency, alleging likely CIA spying on President Donald Trump.

In an emergency supplement filed Wednesday with the U.S. District Court in Washington, he saidthe NSA and likely the Central Intelligence Agency are continuing to violate the [Fourth] Amendment to the Constitution and related statutes.

Klayman charged the agencies spied onPresident Trump, the White House, his former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn and others in his administration.

He is requesting an emergency status conference to determine how to proceed.

See Klaymans explanation:

Klaymans newest filing was an addition to his argument to the court that his original cases should not be dismissed, as the government wants.

Police State USA: How Orwells Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

His issue was the governments program to obtain and keep metadata from all cell phone calls in the country. He brought the first case several years ago.

Related story:

Flynn defiant: Intelligence leaks a criminal act'

While the media is focused on the so-called Russian election hacking scandal, it ignores the fact that our own government has committed the biggest violation of constitutional rights in American history, leaving the intelligence agencies free to continue their pattern and practice of violating the law in its intelligence gathering operations, Klayman argued against a dismissal.

As plaintiff Klayman argued in this court on Nov. 18, 2013, We have never seen in the history of this country this kind of violation of the privacy rights of the American citizens. We live in an Orwellian state.'

His argument continued, This court concurred, finding the almost-Orwellian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979.

The arguments this week came shortly after Flynn resignedas national security adviser over his conversations about sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. Then, on Wednesday, followed reports of the leaking ofinformation in the Trump administration.

Klayman argued that the district court, which already is well into an advanced position regarding chargesof government spying, should take up the issue. He pointed out that judges are allowed access to classified information behind closed doors and that the continuing unlawful conduct of the government defendants is highly destructive of our republic.

Klayman charged in a filing before the election: The intelligence agencies conscious disregard for the law has been ongoing for decades, and there is no reason to believe that, all of a sudden, they will begin to respect the constitutional right of plaintiffs, and all Americans. Indeed, even today, [then-]President-elect Donald Trump credibly accused outgoing CIA chief, John Brennan, who worked with James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, of leaking false news reports and classified information to the media in an attempt to undermine him.

Trumps statement at that time was: Outgoing CIA chief, John Brennan, blasts Pres-Elect Trump on Russia threat. Does not fully understand. Oh really, couldnt do much worse just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the buildup of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?

WND reported on Klaymans case oneyear ago, when U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who previously said the NSAsspy-on-Americans cell phone monitoring program likely is unconstitutional, helda status hearing.

The judge had noted the cases were at the pinnacle of national importance.

Klayman, at that time, said: Mass surveillance of the citizenry cannot be permitted when it is likely based on reasons that go far beyond catching terrorists. Indeed, as Judge Leon found on two occasions in issuing his prior preliminary injunctions, Obama and his agents at the spy agencies have not been able to cite one instance when the unconstitutional mass surveillance caught even one terrorist.

Police State USA: How Orwells Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

In Klaymans case, Leon ruled Dec. 16, 2013, and again Nov. 9, 2015, that the NSA program likely was unconstitutional, barring the government agency and Obama from conducting mass telephonic metadata surveillance over the plaintiffs.

The cases involve not only telephonic metadata mass surveillance, Klayman said, but mass surveillance of all Americans Internet and social media activity.

Klayman, at the beginning of the case, originally sued the NSA, Barack Obama, then-Attorney General Eric Holder and a number of other federal officials. Other defendants include NSA chief Keith Alexander, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge Roger Vinson, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA chief John Brennan, FBI chief James Comey, the Department of Justice, the CIA and the FBI.

Plaintiffs in the case include Klayman, Charles and Mary Ann Strange, Michael Ferrari, Matt Garrison and J.J. Little.

Two of Americas influential civil-rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have sided with Klayman.

The data that the NSA collects, they explained in a brief, reveals political affiliation, religious practices and peoples most intimate associations.

It reveals who calls a suicide prevention line and who calls their elected official; who calls the local tea-party office and who calls Planned Parenthood.

The groups brief said the relevant fact for whether an expectation of privacy exists is that the comprehensive telephone records the government collects not just the records of a few calls over a few days but all of a persons calls over many years reveals highly personal information about the person and her life.

Read the original:

Emergency hearing sought to stop NSA 'spying' on Trump - WND.com - WND.com

Posted in NSA

Former intel chiefs: Flynn destroyed by CIA/NSA hit job – TRUNEWS

Top former US intel officials say Michael Flynn was the victim of a disinformation hit job by the CIA, NSA, and National Security Council

(WASHINGTON, DC) National Security Advisor Gen. Michael T. Flynn (ret.) who resigned Monday was the victim of a hit job launched by intelligence operatives, Obama government holdovers and former Obama national security officials, according to former intelligence officials who spoke withThe Daily Caller News Foundations Investigative Group.

The talk within the tight-knit community of retired intelligence officers was that Flynns sacking was a result of intelligence insiders at the CIA, NSA and National Security Council using a sophisticated disinformation campaign to create a crisis atmosphere.The former intel officers say the tactics hurled against Flynn over the last few months were the type of high profile hard-ball accusations previously reserved for top figures in enemy states, not for White House officials.

This was a hit job, charged retired Col. James Williamson, a 32-year Special Forces veteran who coordinated his operations with the intelligence community.

Noting the Obama administration first tried to silence Flynn in 2014 when the former president fired him as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Williamson called Mondays resignation, stage Two of Kill Mike Flynn.

Former intelligence officials who understand spy craft say Flynns resignation had everything to do with a disinformation campaign and little to do with the December phone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

They charge officials from Americas top spy counsels leaked classified government intercepts of Flynn and President Trumps conversations with world leaders and had cutouts friendly civilians not associated with the agency to distribute them to reporters in a coordinated fashion.

The issue of leaks was a prime topic for Trump when he tweeted Wednesday, Information is being illegally given to the failing@nytimes&@washingtonpostby the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia.

Ive never seen anything like this before,Retired Col. James Waurishuk, who spent three decades in top military intelligence posts and served at the National Security Council, said in an interview with TheDCNF.Weve never seen to the extent that those in the intelligence community are using intelligence apparatus and tools to be used politically against an administration official, he said.

The knives are out, said Frederick Rustmann, who retired after 24 years from the CIAs Clandestine Service and was a member of its elite Senior Intelligence Service.

The intelligence communitys sprawling bureaucracy is organizing to topple the Trump presidency, Rustmann charged in an interview with TheDCNF.

I would not be surprised if Trump did not finish four years because of the vendetta they have out for him, he said, calling the move on Flynn just a mini-vendetta.

Williamson told TheDCNF in an interview, I truly believe its orchestrated and its part of an overall strategy. The objective is to piece-by-piece, dismantle the Trump administration, to discredit Trump. This is part of an overarching plan.

D.W. Wilber, who has over 30 years of experience in security and counterterrorism with the CIA and the Defense Department agrees.

It appears to me there has been a concerted effort to try to discredit not only General Flynn, but obviously, the entire Trump administration through him. He just happened to be the first scalp, Wilber told TheDCNF in an interview.

Williamson agreed, telling theDCNF, There are individuals who are well versed in information operations we used to call that propaganda. They know how to do it. Its deliberately orchestrated.

Retired Marine Col. Bill Cowan, who often interacted with the intelligence operatives in combat zones, believes Mike Pompeo, Trumps new CIA Director, must clean house. Otherwise,the administration will encounter four years of attacks.

The director, Pompeo, if he doesnt get a hold of the agency and its personnel, he can expect four years of this: clandestine, undercover disinformation, misinformation, psychological information to undermine this administration and this president, he told TheDCNF.

Charles Goslin, a 27-year old former CIA operations officer also believes that many insubordinate intelligence staff are working within the National Security Council within the White House.

With the NSC, I think thats where the leaks are coming from on calls to foreign leaders. Thats where they undermined Flynn to the point where he got hammered, Goslin told TheDCNF in an interview.

Goslin noted, When Trump came in, even though they were able to staff key NSC positions, for the most part its still staffed by previous administration holdovers and bureaucratic appointees.

I dont think they have any loyalty to the current administration, the former CIA operations officer said, adding, the NSC is going to be a hard one to fix.

All of the former intelligence officials say the rage against Flynn dated back to when the decorated general headed up the DIA. There he garnered a reputation to balk at the politicization of military intelligence in order to conform with President Obamas world views.

Flynn refused to downplay the threat posed by the Islamic State and other radical Islamic groups throughout his two-year reign at the DIA. He was fired after offering congressional testimony that was at odds with the Obama administrations posture on the Islamic threat.

Waurishuk, who interacted with Flynn as deputy director of the Special Operations Command and in other security matters, said Flynn was a straight shooter who always demanded accurate threat assessments and never bent to continue pressures of political correctness.

Waurishuk worked in military intelligence in the Obama administration. He told TheDCNF Obama officials know Flynn and they hate Flynn because he would call them out. So, this was their opportunity to wage what is a personal vendetta in some respects.

California Republican Rep. Devon Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has promised to hold hearings on the leaking of classified information to reporters. Thedate has yet to beset for the hearings.

Daily Caller copy, TRUNEWS analysis

Donate Today!

We believe Christians need and deserve their own global news network to keep the worldwide Church informed, and to offer Christians a positive alternative to the anti-Christian bigotry of the mainstream news media

Read the original here:

Former intel chiefs: Flynn destroyed by CIA/NSA hit job - TRUNEWS

Posted in NSA

Former NSA techies raise $8m for their data governance startup – The Register

Immuta, a data governance startup run by former US National Security Agency technicians, has announced the conclusion of its Series A funding round, pulling in $8m.

The funding round was led by Drive Capital whose partner Andy Jenks has been given a board seat with participation from Greycroft Partners and Conversion Capital. It brings the company to $9.5m in total funding.

Headquartered a short drive away from NSA offices in Fort Meade, Maryland, Immuta currently has 21 employees and is based in College Park. It was officially founded in October 2014, and first went to market in the summer of 2015.

Talking to The Register, Immuta CEO Matthew Carroll said the company aimed to answer the question: How do you have an environment in which to give data scientists the freedom to do what you want them to do, but also keep them in check?

Using Immuta, data scientists can create regulated and compliant data sandbox environments that combine disparate data sources from within and across organizations. The business claims that it supports every major structured and unstructured data source, on premises or in the cloud, including Amazon S3, SQL, NoSQL and Hadoop.

Regardless of that source, Immutas platform virtualizes the data to protect its integrity, and as a layer between the end user and the source, allows data owners to expose that data with discretion, also enabling data scientists to experiment with it without being concerned of their access rights.

Neither Carroll nor CTO Steve Touw would go into much detail about their work at the NSA, but said a lot of what were doing now is based on lessons weve learned from the trials and tribulations in government following the Snowden revelations.

Although customers in the public sector havent been announced, they are stated to include global financial institutions, telecommunications companies, and national security organizations, as well as case study user General Electric.

The startups commitment to government governance is visible in its origins and in the early hire of a chief privacy officer and legal engineer in the form of Andrew Burt, who formerly served in the FBI as special advisor for policy to the assistant director of the Fed's cyber division.

Immuta is solving one of the most acute problems that is stifling innovation at large, highly regulated enterprises. They have the teams, and the technology, but data access and usage regulations are holding back innovation, said Jenks. We invested in Immuta because their team and technology are bar none the best in the business.

Original post:

Former NSA techies raise $8m for their data governance startup - The Register

Posted in NSA

Former PTC chief Cockream pleads the Fifth Amendment over missing public records – TBO.com

TAMPA With a criminal investigation hanging over him, former Public Transportation Commission chief Kyle Cockream repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment during a deposition Monday into whether public records were deleted from agency cell phones.

A judge ordered Cockream to appear at the deposition as part of a public records lawsuit filed against the agency that regulates for-hire transportation in Hillsborough County. He turned up, but on advice from his attorney Michael Carey, refused to answer questions from Andrea Mogensen, a Sarasota lawyer who sued the PTC to obtain copies of text messages that Cockream sent to owners of taxicab and limousine-rental firms.

"He pled the Fifth to basically every question that I asked," Mogensen said. "Obviously that's very disappointing. Our objective is to recover the public records."

The Fifth Amendment privilege allows a witness to decline to answer questions if the answers might incriminate him. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has opened a criminal investigation into whether PTC officials deliberately deleted public records, a misdemeanor under state law.

A forensic investigator hired to extract text messages for the public records lawsuit found that seven agency phones and Cockream's personal cell phone were reset on Oct. 8, a process that wipes them clean. A PTC invoice shows that the agency on Oct. 12 paid $2,994 to Valrico tech firm Data Specialist Group for work they did on the phones that was detailed as "Mobile device data recovery."

Cockream, who stepped down as executive director in December, could not be reached for comment. In a recent hearing, his attorney said Cockream was not trying to hide records but hired the tech firm to back up the data on the phones.

The mising data may shed light on a controversial period during which the PTC was accused of colluding with the cab industry against the rideshare companies Uber and Lyft.

Contact Christopher O'Donnell at codonnell@tampabay.com or (813) 226-3446. Follow @codonnell_Times.

View post:

Former PTC chief Cockream pleads the Fifth Amendment over missing public records - TBO.com

Fearing US prosecution, Heather Mack takes the Fifth – Chicago Sun-Times


Chicago Sun-Times
Fearing US prosecution, Heather Mack takes the Fifth
Chicago Sun-Times
The 21-year-old Chicagoan, imprisoned in Indonesia, made the claim as she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a legal battle scheduled to return to a Cook County courtroom Friday. She said she would continue to do so until ...

Link:

Fearing US prosecution, Heather Mack takes the Fifth - Chicago Sun-Times

Richmond County Daily Journal | StingRay is why the 4th … – Richmond County Daily Journal

Imagine you are in the middle of your typical day-to-day activities. Maybe you are driving, spending time with family, or working. If you are like most people, your phone is at your side on a daily basis. Little do you know that, at any time, police and law enforcement could be looking at information stored on your phone. You havent done anything wrong. You havent been asked for permission. You arent suspected of any crime.

The StingRay

Police have the power to collect your location along with the numbers of your incoming and outgoing calls and intercept the content of call and text communication. They can do all of this without you ever knowing about it.

How? They use a shoebox-sized device called a StingRay. This device (also called an IMSI catcher) mimics cell phone towers, prompting all the phones in the area to connect to it even if the phones arent in use.

The police use StingRays to track down and implicate perpetrators of mainly domestic crimes. The devices can be mounted in vehicles, drones, helicopters, and airplanes, allowing police to gain highly specific information on the location of any particular phone, down to a particular apartment complex or hotel room.

Quietly, StingRay use is growing throughout local and federal law enforcement with little to no oversight. The ACLU has discovered that at least 68 agencies in 23 different states own StingRays, but says that this dramatically underrepresents the actual use of StingRays by law enforcement agencies nationwide.

The Violation

Information from potentially thousands of phones is being collected every time a StingRay is used. Signals are sent into the homes, bags, and pockets of innocent individuals. The Electronic Frontier Foundation likens this to the Pre-Revolutionary War practice of soldiers going door-to-door, searching without suspicion.

Richard Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International notes that, there really isnt any place for innocent people to hide from a device such as this.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The StingRay clearly violates these standards. The drafters of the Constitution recognized that restricting the government from violating privacy is essential for a free society. Thats why the Fourth Amendment exists. The StingRay is creating a dangerous precedent that tells the government that its okay for them to violate our rights. Because of this, freedom is quietly slipping out the window.

Little Regulation

Law Enforcement is using StingRays without a warrant in most cases. For example, the San Bernardino Police Department used their StingRay 300 times without a warrant in a little over a year.

A handful of states have passed laws requiring police and federal agents to get a warrant before using a StingRay. They must show probable cause for one of the thousands of phones that they are actually searching. This is far from enough.

Additionally, there are many concerns that agents are withholding information from federal judges to monitor subjects without approval bypassing the probable cause standard laid out in the Constitution. They even go as far as to let criminals go to avoid disclosing information about these devices to the courts.

If the public doesnt become aware of this issue, the police will continue to use StingRays to infringe on our rights in secret and with impunity.

Olivia Donaldson is a recent high school graduate that is currently opting out of college and participating in an entrepreneurial program called Praxis. Originally published at fee.org.

http://yourdailyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_oliviadonaldsonjpg.jpg

.

Excerpt from:

Richmond County Daily Journal | StingRay is why the 4th ... - Richmond County Daily Journal

Colorado Senate debates Second Amendment bill – The Durango Herald

DENVER The Republican-controlled state State Senate on Thursday hosted another debate about expanding Second Amendment rights.

Previous debates focused on magazine capacity and training of school employees to carry firearms.

Thursdays discussion concerned Senate Bill 6, which would amend the concealed carry law to include a provision allowing active-duty and honorably discharged military personnel younger than 21 to apply for permits. The bill was adopted and scheduled for a final reading before moving to the House.

Bill sponsor Sen. John Cooke, R-Greeley, said the measure was inspired by his step-daughter who serves in the military.

Half her unit was deployed in Afghanistan. They can go to Iraq or can go to Afghanistan and defend themselves, but they cannot come back here to the state of Colorado, because they are under the age of 21, to get a conceal carry permit, Cooke said.

Sen. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village, said he was concerned about increasing the number of guns on the streets and the impulse control of adults in the age range, even if they were military personnel.

When deployed these military personnel are allowed to carry guns, but they are closely supervised by superior officers, Kagan said. There are very strict rules about when, where and how they carry those firearms and when, where and how they use them.

Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said this is based upon the assumption that the young adults who had served in the military were the same as those who had not.

These 18- to 20-year-olds are incredible young people who have been through a great deal of stress, a great deal of hardship, a great deal of loss, she said. They have seen things we will never see, and what really gets under my skin is that we seem to lump them in with everyone else. They are not everyone else.

The bill represents the sixth piece of legislation focusing on gun laws this session.

Four of these bills have originated in the Republican-held Senate, and were passed by committees to the full floor, and are expected to go to the House, which the Democrats control.

The other two originated in the House, but both died in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, the so called kill committee.

This committee is the likely landing spot for Second Amendment bills passed by the Senate.

lperkins@durangoherald.com

Read the original here:

Colorado Senate debates Second Amendment bill - The Durango Herald

Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action – The Spokesman-Review (blog)

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15, 2017, 1:16 P.M.

From the office of U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo:

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo today voted to support a Resolution of Disapproval that will stop a rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) from stripping the Second Amendment rights of some Social Security beneficiaries.

Todays resolution of disapproval will stop the Social Security Administration from stigmatizing people with disabilities and stripping beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights, said Crapo, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Social Security Administration is not a court of law and it is unacceptable that it take any action against a beneficiary without due process. Congress has done the right thing to stop this overreach and repeal this rule.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may submit a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a final rule issued by an Executive Branch agency. The resolution approved today will halt a rule submitted by SSA in December 2016. The rule requires SSA to report individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally defective to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). Under the rule, individuals who have been appointed a representative payee may also be submitted to NICS. In some cases, the SSA may appoint, or a beneficiary may request, a representative payee to assist a beneficiary with managing their benefits. The wide-ranging rule will affect many Americans as more than eight million beneficiaries need help managing their benefits, according to SSA. Earlier this year, Senator Crapo introduced a bill to effectively overturn the rule and highlighted it in an op-ed this month. The Resolution passed today by the Senate will enact the changes Senator Crapo sought to address with his legislation.

The measure now goes to President Trump who is expected to sign the measure.

Agree/disagree with this resolution?

Posted Feb. 15, 2017, 1:16 p.m.

Go here to see the original:

Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action - The Spokesman-Review (blog)

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? – Harrisburg Daily Register


Harrisburg Daily Register
Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment?
Harrisburg Daily Register
This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns don't kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed ...
Revise Second AmendmentYakima Herald-Republic

all 5 news articles »

Continue reading here:

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Harrisburg Daily Register

Flag lesson in First Amendment angers some parents – wral.com

Fayetteville, N.C. A Cumberland County high school teacher has been suspended after he stepped on an American flag as part of a history lesson on Monday.

A photo posted on Facebook shows Lee Francis, a history teacher at Massey Hill Classical High School in Fayetteville, standing over an American flag at the front of the class.

Students said Francis tried to burn and cut the flag before dropping it on the floor as part of a lesson on the First Amendment. At least two students walked out of the classroom during the demonstration.

"I put the flag on the ground and I took two steps with my right foot and I said, 'This is an example of free speech,'" Francis said. "Two students got up and left immediately with no word, no disruption at all...I assumed something had happened. One student came to where I was and took the flag from me."

Francis has been suspended with pay in connection with the incident until he meets with Superintendent Dr. Frank Till on Thursday.

Francis, who has relatives in the military, said he did not intend to offend students, but wanted to drive home the Supreme Court's definition of free speech.

Melissa Ramos has a daughter at the school and a son who is stationed at Fort Bragg. She said she was furious about the demonstration and demanded that Francis be fired.

"Just personally, as a military family, to have someone do that, thank goodness she wasn't in that class because of her experiences having friends not come home," she said. "There are so many other ways that he could have taught that instead of trying to desecrate the flag that so many people in this country have fought so hard for.

In a statement, Superintendent Dr. Frank Till Jr. said in a statement, "Clearly there are other ways to teach First Amendment rights without desecrating a flag. The situation is currently under investigation."

"I think he's right, absolutely there could be other ways to teach the subject, but in the same vein the way that I taught it can't necessarily be wrong," Francis said.

The Facebook post has gone viral with more than 10,000 shares.

The investigation is ongoing.

Read more from the original source:

Flag lesson in First Amendment angers some parents - wral.com

Hugh Stevens | Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych PLLC

Hugh Stevens is both a nationally known First Amendment and media lawyer and a versatile litigator. For more than 20 years Hugh served as general counsel to the North Carolina Press Association, which designated him as counsel emeritus upon his retirement in 2002. In 2003 the Association honored Hugh by selecting him to receive its W. C. Lassiter Award in recognition of his zealous defense of the First Amendment. In 2006 he became only the second lawyer inducted into the North Carolina Journalism Hall of Fame.

Hugh is a founding member and past chair of the North Carolina Bar Associations Section on Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities. In January, 2015 the Section presented Hugh with its John McNeill Smith Award in recognition of his extraordinary commitment to the ideals embodied in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Carolina.

Hugh also is a founding board member and past president of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition. Seewww.ncopengov.org.

Hugh continues to serve as general counsel to the North Carolina Press Foundation and as outside counsel to several North Carolina news organizations, including The News & Observer and WRAL-TV in Raleigh. He has represented news organizations, non-media companies and individuals in numerous cases involving libel, privacy and access to government records and proceedings, and was ABC News North Carolina counsel in the landmark newsgathering case of Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC, et al.

Hughs significant cases include two that dramatically affected the law of privacy in North Carolina Renwick v. News and Observer Pub. Co., in which the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to recognize the false light tort, and Hall v. Post, in which the court rejected private facts claims. He also was lead counsel for the plaintiff in Womack Newspapers, Inc. v. Town of Kitty Hawk, et al., 181 N.C. App. 1 (2007), in which a weekly newspaper obtained the largest attorney fee award ever paid pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law.

Hugh also is a versatile and experienced teacher. From 1985 until 2002 he taught a Free Press and Public Policy seminar at Duke Universitys Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy. He also has taught First Amendment and media law at the University of North Carolina School of Law and the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication. He currently teaches a First Amendment course at North Carolina State Universitys Oscher Institute of Lifelong Learning.

In the early 1990s Hugh conceived the idea for a North Carolina Media Law Handbook and persuaded the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation to provide the seed money for it. Since 1992 he has served as co-editor and author of the Privacy chapter for the Handbook, which currently is in its fifth (and first entirely electronic) edition. He also is the author of numerous book reviews, law review articles, Continuing Legal Education manuscripts and other publications. He also writes Hughs Views, a personal blog,http://www.hughstevens.blogspot.com/ and comments on First Amendment issues athttp://aboutthefirstamendment.com.

Hugh traces his interest in First Amendment law to his experience as an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina, where he served as co-editor of The Daily Tar Heel and joined other students leaders in fighting to overturn North Carolinas notorious speaker ban law, which forbade left-wing activists and leaders of Communist governments from appearing on university campuses. After completing law school at UNC in 1968, he served four years on active duty as a U.S. Navy JAG officer, during which he honed his trial skills in numerous courts-martial.

In addition to his media law practice, Hugh has extensive experience in commercial and insurance-related litigation. He has tried federal cases involving subjects as diverse as facultative reinsurance; an international airlines web site; fire truck trademarks; insurance broker negligence; ERISA; lawyer advertising; insurance and reinsurance for space satellites and launch vehicles; and defense of a phone card vendor accused of violating North Carolinas anti-lottery law.

Hughs community involvement includes long service as a director of Community Workforce Solutions, a not-for-profit agency that provides training and employment for physically and mentally impaired persons, and of the Episcopal Housing Ministry, which develops and manages apartments and social programs for low-income residents. His service to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, his alma mater, includes membership in the Chancellors Club, the Board of Advisors to the Center for the Study of the American South, and the Board of Directors of the Friends of the Library, of which he is a past chair.

Hugh and his wife Marilyn have three children and five grandchildren. His hobbies are golf, reading, traveling, cooking and Boston Red Sox baseball.

See the original post here:

Hugh Stevens | Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych PLLC

Cyberbullying Law Upheld Over First Amendment …

The court of appeals just upheld North Carolinas cyberbullying statute over a First Amendment challenge. The result is especially noteworthy because it contrasts with a ruling last year in a similar case in New York. But the opinion does leave at least one important issue open.

Facts. The North Carolina case is State v. Bishop. The defendant and the victim were students at the same high school. The defendant posted several comments on Facebook about the victim, including a post calling him homosexual; a comment referring to a message the victim had sent to another student on Facebook as excessively homoerotic in nature; a statement, in response to another students suggestion that they kick [the victims] ass that the defendant never got the chance to slap [the victim] down before Christmas break; and crude comments about the victims genitals. The victim became distraught as a result of these and other comments, and his mother contacted law enforcement. The defendant acknowledged making the comments at issue.

Procedural history. The defendant was charged with cyberbullying under G.S. 14-458.1. (The title of the statute refers to cyber-bullying, but Ill omit the hyphen in keeping with common usage.) Specifically, the State alleged that he used a computer or computer network, with the intent to intimidate or torment, to post or encourage others to post private, personal, or sexual information pertaining to a minor. G.S. 14-458.1(a)(1)(d). He was convicted in district court and again in superior court, and appealed.

Defendants argument. The defendant argued that the cyberbullying statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face and as applied, and fails to provide adequate notice of the prohibited speech, lends itself to arbitrary enforcement, and chills protected speech.

Courts ruling. The court of appeals affirmed the defendants conviction. It found that the defendants vagueness argument was not properly preserved. As to overbreadth, it held that the statute targets conduct, not speech:

The [c]yber-bullying [s]tatute is not directed at prohibiting the communication of thoughts or ideas via the Internet. It prohibits the intentional and specific conduct of intimidating or tormenting a minor. This conduct falls outside the purview of the First Amendment.

To the extent that the law creates any incidental burden on speech, the court found that the burden is no greater than necessary to serve the laws purpose.

New York case. The court briefly cited and distinguished People v. Marquan M., 19 N.E.3d 480 (N.Y. 2014), a New York case striking down that states cyberbullying law as overbroad. The case has received quite a bit of attention. The Wall Street Journal summarizes it here. Professor Eugene Volokh writes about it here.

Did the defendant really post private, personal, or sexual information? In addition to his First Amendment argument, the defendant also raised a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his conviction, questioning the adequacy of the States evidence that he posted private, personal, or sexual information pertaining to [the victim]. The court of appeals found that this argument was not preserved and declined formally to address it.

The issue strikes me as a potentially tricky one for future cases. Obviously, the defendants comments were of a personal nature and referred to the victims sexuality. But whether they conveyed any information as opposed to opinions, insults, and interpretations, may be debatable. In other words, there does not appear to have been a breach of trust where the defendant publicized information that the victim conveyed to him in confidence. But perhaps information may be read more broadly. In declining to review the issue, the court remarked that the State presented substantial evidence of the precise nature of the comments, and perhaps that is some indication of how this panel would have ruled had the issue been properly preserved.

Visit link:

Cyberbullying Law Upheld Over First Amendment ...

ABC News analyst: Trump ‘shutting down’ part of First Amendment by not calling on mainstream outlets – TheBlaze.com

ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd accused President Donald Trump Tuesday of shutting down part of the First Amendment because of his pattern of calling on conservative media outlets at White House news conferences.

Trump has held three news conferences in the last week alone as he welcomed three different world leaders to the White House: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president took two questions from American media at each of those three events, the majority being conservative outlets.

During Trumps joint news conference Friday with Japanss Abe, he called on reporters from the New York Post and Fox Business Network, both of which are owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. In his second joint press conference Monday with Canadas Trudeau, Trump answered questions from WJLA-TV, the local ABC affiliate in Washington, D.C., and the Daily Caller. Then, during his appearance Wednesday with Netanyahu, Trump called on the Christian Broadcast Network and Townhall.com.

WJLA-TV is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, the company with which President Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner, struck a deal during the campaign that gave Sinclair stations, many of which were in swing states, more access to then-President-elect Trump, Politico reported.

Trumps decision to force mainstream media outlets to take a back seat caused a number of reporters and analysts at CNN, MSNBC and the three broadcast networks to voice their frustrations on air.

I think theres no other way to describe it but the fix is in, CNNs Jim Acosta said Wednesday, Hot Air reported. This White House, this president does not want to answer questions, critical questions about his associates, his aids contacts with the Russians during the course of that campaign just as his national security adviser is being run out of this White House on a rail.

They may think that this is being cute or they may think that this is strategic in terms of trying to shield the president from questions, but those questions can only be shielded for so long, Acosta added.

Acosta was referring to the New York Times report that members of Trumps campaign were in frequent contact with the Russian government. Namely, a Washington Post report revealed that Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump named as his national security adviser, had called the Russian ambassador to the U.S. multiple times, which Flynn then lied about to Vice President Mike Pence, a move that ultimately led to Flynns resignation.

Acosta wasnt the only one who took issue with Trumps selection of media outlets, though. Dowd told theABCs George Stephanopolous that by not calling on mainstream media outlets, Trump was shutting down part of the First Amendment.

Noting the strategy behind Trump not calling on mainstream media reporters, Stephanopolous said the White House probably [doesnt] mind the fact that the mainstream press is shouting about it, referring to reporters shouting their questions at Trump he left the room after Thursdays joint news conference with Israels Netanyahu.

But how long can that last? Stephanopolous asked.

Dowd said he was struck by Trump only calling on conservative outlets.

This is two democracies, two important democracies in the world. And basically, the president of the United States is shutting down part of the First Amendment by not taking questions that are in any way antagonistic in this, Dowd said.

I think he thinks relying on his Twitter feed, and sending it out to the millions of people that subscribe to it, and then dealing with very cozy press in this is going to be the way to get through this, Dowd added.

(H/T: Daily Caller)

Continued here:

ABC News analyst: Trump 'shutting down' part of First Amendment by not calling on mainstream outlets - TheBlaze.com

Our First Amendment rights are quickly slipping away – The Navigator

To the editor:

The forefathers of our country were very intelligent and insightful people. They were able to see how important freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly were to the survival of a democratic government. Both of these ideals were incorporated within the First Amendment.

After watching the riots at Berkeley University over the speaker Yiannopoulos last week, I am highly concerned how easily we are willing to discard the First Amendment.

I listened to some of the students at Berkeley proclaim victory because the speaker was not able to give his presentation. When a student was asked by a reporter if stopping the speaker was not a violation of our freedom of speech as outlined in the Constitution, her reply was that his was not free speech, but hate speech.

I scratch my head and wonder how we have arrived at a point where you are only allowed to speak when other people consent and agree with your point of view. If you do not agree with a presenter, you have options. You can choose to boycott, peacefully assemble to protest or totally dismiss and ignore the ideas of the speaker and go watch a ballgame with some friends.

You are not entitled to keep the presenter from speaking!

The First Amendment, in addition to free speech, also gives you the right of peaceful assembly. It seems that some of the protesters also missed that part of the Constitution. You do not have the right to vandalize ATM machines, break windows, throw bricks, throw firecrackers, spray pepper spray, punch people and set public property on fire. In the name of political correctness, the protesters had the audacity to spray paint fascists on some of the buildings in the riot zone.

Fascisim restricts free speech, yet the protesters wish to restrict who may speak. Now, I ask you who is the real Fascist? One of the core values of a university and its students should be free speech!

When I was principal at ECHS, I had a situation where a group of students had protested the Christian religion in the parking lot. Most of the student body was very upset with this small group.

Concerned, I called the school attorney, who by reputation was one of the top attorneys in the state dealing with school law. He asked me how I felt about what the students had done, and I told him that I as shocked by their actions (Shocked is a school law term). The attorney told me that I had to remember that the First Amendment is not a light switch which can be turned on and off at my or anyone elses discretion. Just because you dont like it, you dont agree with it or you dont consider it politically correct, people are allowed to express their ideas without hindrance.

The wise words of the attorney have stuck with me over the years, and I often think of them during turbulent times and how they apply!

This letter is my First Amendment right to express myself. I thank God that I live in a country that says I have that right..

This issue is not about being a Democrat or Republican. I couldnt give a hoot about this particular speaker, as I am not familiar with his ideas, but I do care about the First Amendment. As a former teacher of the U.S. Constitution, I do recognize that curtailing any aspect of our right to freedom of speech is a slippery slope. The real issue of my concern is that once you start deciding what people can say, where do you stop? Under the guise of political correctness, you now have made yourself judge, jury and executioner of the First Amendment.

A sad epitaph to the Berkeley riot is that the students think they won, but what did they really lose?

Stan Struckmeyer

Albion

Originally posted here:

Our First Amendment rights are quickly slipping away - The Navigator

Court Says Google Has A First Amendment Right To Delist Competitor’s ‘Spammy’ Content – Techdirt

Last summer, a Florida federal court reached some unusual conclusions in a lawsuit filed by SEO company e-ventures, which felt Google had overstepped its bounds in delisting a lot of its links. Google defended itself, citing both Section 230 and the First Amendment. The court disagreed with both arguments.

As to Section 230, the court found that Google's delisting efforts weren't in "good faith." The reason cited was e-ventures' claim that the delisting was in "bad faith." So much for this seldom-used aspect of Section 230: the "Good Samaritan" clause which states no third-party company can be found liable for actions it takes to remove content it finds questionable. And so much for "viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Apparently, Google's long history of spam-fighting efforts is nothing compared to an SEO wrangler's pained assertions.

The court also said Google had no First Amendment right to handle its search rankings however it saw fit, which is more than a little problematic. While it admitted Google's search rankings were protected speech, its statements about how it handled search engines weren't. And, for some reason, the court felt that Google's ads undermined its First Amendment protections because its desire to turn a profit somehow nullified its "editorial judgment."

It was a strange decision and one that suggested this court might be considering getting into the business of telling service providers how to run their businesses. It also suggested this court believed the more successful the business was, the fewer rights and protections it had. These dubious conclusions prevented Google from having the case dismissed.

Fortunately, this wasn't the final decision. As Eric Goldman points out, last year's denial only delayed the inevitable. After a few more rounds of arguments and legal paperwork, Google has prevailed. But there's not much to celebrate in this decision as the court has (again) decided to route around Google's Section 230 "Good Samaritan" defense.

Regarding 230(c)(2), the court says spam can qualify as harassing or objectionable content (cite to e360insight with a but-see to the Song Fi case). Still, the court says e-ventures brought forward enough circumstantial evidence about Googles motivations to send the case to a trial. By making it so Google cant even win on summary judgment, rulings like this just reinforce how Section 230(c)(2) is a useless safe harbor.

Had it ended there, Google would be still be facing e-ventures' claims. But it didn't. The court takes another look at Google's First Amendment claims and finds that the search engine provider does actually have the right to remove "spammy" links. Beyond that, it finds Google even has the First Amendment right to remove competitors' content. From the order [PDF]:

[T]he First Amendment protects as speech the results produced by an Internet search engine. Zhang v. Baidu.com, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). A search engine is akin to a publisher, whose judgments about what to publish and what not to publish are absolutely protected by the First Amendment. See Miami Herald Publg Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (The choice of material to go into a newspaper . . .whether fair or unfairconstitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment that the First Amendment protects.) The presumption that editorial judgments, no matter the motive, are protected expression is too high a bar for e-ventures to overcome.

And the court walks back its earlier conclusion -- the one that seemed to find profit-motivated "editorial judgment" to be unworthy of First Amendment protections.

Googles actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Googles guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.

The case is now dismissed with prejudice which bars e-ventures from complaining about Google's delisting efforts in federal court. e-ventures has gone this far already in hopes of seeing its terms-violating content reinstated, so it will likely attempt to appeal this decision. But it really shouldn't. It's unlikely another set of judges will help it clear the First Amendment hurdle. Not only that, but this area of law should be well-settled by now, as Goldman points out:

Of course Google can de-index sites it thinks are spam. Its hard to believe were still litigating that issue in 2017; these issues were explored in suits like SearchKing and KinderStart from over a decade ago.

The plaintiff was given a long leash by the court, which should have tossed last year. Even with the extra time and the court doings its Section 230 circumvention work for it, e-ventures still couldn't prevail.

Read the original post:

Court Says Google Has A First Amendment Right To Delist Competitor's 'Spammy' Content - Techdirt

Trump Attacks the First Amendment to Discredit The Facts About His Russian Connections – PoliticusUSA

President Donald Trump used his press conference about his new labor nominee to launch an attack on the First Amendment by blaming the free press for reporting on his campaigns Russia connections.

We need unity, Trump said just minutes before he began launching missiles at the First Amendment from the bully pulpit in an attempt to discredit the source of his Russian connections.

In the East Room of the White House, Trump called for unity and then devolved into a campaign type speech during a press conference that needed to stay on message if it were to work as a pivot. Trump left Alex Acosta behind as he stumbled his way through trying to silence the press.

Many of our nations reporters will not tell you the truth, Trump said. The press is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.

Trump accused reporters of speaking not for the people, but for special interests. The press has become so dishonest.

Trump claimed that Reince Priebus has to put out fake fires.

Asked about Flynn, Trump said he asked for Flynns resignation, but Flynn did nothing wrong, I dont think he did anything wrong. If anything, he did something right.

What went wrong with Flynn wasnt Flynn talking to Russia, it was the medias reporting on Flynns activities, Trump claimed.

Trump claimed the Russia stories were fake news. Later in questioning, Trump tried to explain that the leaks were real but the news is fake because the news is fake.

This was followed up later when Trump claimed that the tone was such hatred. He repeated this again, the tone is such hatred. Fox and Friends are very honorable people But they have the most honest morning show. The tone, the hatred, I mean.

Trump complained about the hatred and venom from almost exclusive anti-Trump people. Trump said, When I go to rallies they start screaming about CNN.

Trump ranted about how the press was publishing classified information, which he said was illegal.

I called, as you know, Mexico All of a sudden, its out there for the world to see. Its classified, Trump claimed, as he tried to build his case for silencing the leaks that are revealing his Russian connections.

Some of the information Trump was talking about was not actually classified, but that isnt even the point since Trump gleefully used leaks that came from a hostile, aggressive foreign country against Hillary Clinton. Trump claimed that was okay because it wasnt classified. He justified Wikileaks saying they didnt publish classified information.

That is also inaccurate.

Trump would not answer the question about whether or not his campaign was in contact with Russia during the campaign. He pivoted, ranted, and moved the goal posts but would not say definitively that they had not.

Trump said he has no loans in Russia and no deals in Russia. He asked if anyone thought Clinton would be tougher on Russia than him. (The answer to that is everyone who is being honest thinks that including most importantly Putin.)

Then Trump pivoted to whining about how no one reported on Hillary Clinton allegedly cheating on debates by a heads up about questions in advance (a thing that Trump also did, according to Megyn Kellys book).

CNNs Jim Acosta pointed out that when Trump calls news Fake news, he is attacking the First Amendment and undermining the free press.

Trump got lost in weeds of trying to explain that hes there, and he wants an honest press. He couldnt actually point out anything inaccurate. Trump kept falling back on the idea that the people dont believe the press anymore, which of course, has been a result of his campaign against the press.

Kelly ODonnell pointed out that Trump actually has good relationships with some journalists, What is hard for public to see @POTUS criticizes media broadly but has some good relationships with journalists he knows.

Trumps press conference was all about how to silence and control the free press because he has no other response to reality.

What Trump doesnt realize is that he has no control over the First Amendment.

Trump attacking the press is meant to make the press the issue, instead of his contacts with Russia. Trump is trying to make the public doubt the reports about his activities with Russia by smearing the sources.

Trump refused to answer what he was going to do about the Russian spy ship off of the coast of Connecticut, claiming he doesnt announce actions in advance of doing them.

Trump doesnt think Putin is asserting himself with that ship. If Trump believes that, Vice President Pence should step in immediately.

Trump attacks the First Amendment at press conference, Trump first amendment, Trump press conference

See the rest here:

Trump Attacks the First Amendment to Discredit The Facts About His Russian Connections - PoliticusUSA

Letter to the editor: First Amendment only applies to Americans – The Bakersfield Californian

As surely as the robins of spring and the swallows of Capistrano, the nay-saying critics who regularly cry racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia, to name a few of their favorite charges, come out to condemn the actions and the motivations of those they disagree with. The latest of course, is the so-called Muslim ban which temporarily suspends travelers to the U.S. from seven predominately Muslim countries.

Never mind that the 85 percent of Muslims who don't live in those countries are not affected, including those in Saudi Arabia where, according to some sources, it's because of Trump's business connections there. As these seven countries were also singled out by President Obama we should logically conclude that his exemption of Saudi Arabia was also based on his personal interests, business or otherwise.

As to the claim that this executive order is unconstitutional, I have yet to see an explanation of just which part of our constitution is being violated. Do the critics really believe that our First Amendment is universal to the whole world in its application, rather than, as spelled out in the constitution's preamble, a contract among the citizens of the United States for themselves and their posterity? Only those arrogant enough to believe that the United States should rule and govern the whole world should try to bestow our constitutional rights on that world.

Read more:

Letter to the editor: First Amendment only applies to Americans - The Bakersfield Californian

AFA: Help us urge Trump to protect First Amendment – OneNewsNow

A pro-family organization is encouraging conservative Christians to join its online effort to ask President Donald Trump to defend religious liberty.

A draft memo that outlined a proposed executive order leaked from the White House in early February, ending up in the hands not of religious organizations but homosexual rights groups.

The existence of the memo was first reported by left-wing news website The Nation.

If the content of the memo is true, says a spokesman for homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, the Trump-led White House is poised to "wildly expand anti-LGBTQ discrimination across all facets of government."

"Discrimination" is common left-wing parlance, along with words such as "hate" and "bigotry," for holding traditional views about marriage and sexuality.

What this memo accomplishes, says American Family Association spokesman Walker Wildmon, is prevent the federal government from "encroaching on the First Amendment rights of Americans of faith, and really it would keep the government from coercing people of faith to violate their religious beliefs."

The fate of the memo in coming weeks is unknown, so Wildmon and AFA are asking Christian conservatives to sign their names to an online petition urging President Trump to sign the executive order. The petition has approximately 109,000 signatures.

Writing at The Daily Signal, researcher Ryan Anderson says the memo suggests protecting federal employees from punishment if they hold traditional views about marriage, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Such an executive order would conflict with the pro-homosexual propaganda of the Obama administration, which pushed such "progressive" views within the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, and other agencies.

Beyond the federal government, Ryan writes, the memo suggestsprotecting the nonprofit status of religious organizations that express views about political issues, marriage and sexuality, and abortion.

In all, Ryan writes, there are 10 suggestions outlined in the memo, many of them rolling back Obama-era executive orders that were applauded at the time by homosexual activists and abortion rights groups.

"The executive order is good, lawful public policy," Ryan suggests in his commentary. "And it makes good on several promisesthen-candidate Trump made to his supporters."

Wildmon says the petition is one way tell President Trump that "amongst the people who elected him, voted him into office, this executive order and things like it are very popular."

American Family Association is the parent organization of American Family News, which includes news website OneNewsNow.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Excerpt from:

AFA: Help us urge Trump to protect First Amendment - OneNewsNow

Snowden helping develop tools to protect journalists and whistleblowers – ‘to make the game a little more fair’ – Press Gazette

Whistleblower Edward Snowden is working to develop tools for journalists that he says will help protect them and their sources from government surveillance and state-sponsored hackers.

It comes asthe UK government has been forced to down play fears that proposals to amend the Official Secrets Act would turn journalists and whistleblowers into criminals.

Former US intelligence officer Snowden was forced into exile after sharing confidential US intelligence documents with the press revealing the extent of mass government surveillance.

Since last year, he has been serving as president of the US-based Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), having joining its board in 2014.

The non-profit group, which has a team of 10 staff, claims to be dedicated to helping support and defend public-interest journalism.

Speaking to Wired magazine from Moscow, Snowden said the team were trying to provide a few niche tools [for journalists] to make the game a little more fair.

He added: Newsrooms dont have the budget, the sophistication, or the skills to defend themselves in the current environment.

When in 2013 Snowden set about leaking secret government files to journalists among them Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald,who is a co-founder of the FPF he evaded detection by using anonymity software Tor and teaching reporters how to use encryption tool GPG by creating an online video tutorial that disguised his voice.

He told Wired his current focus was to on developing security and encryption tools that would make this all paint-by-numbers [for journalists] instead of teaching yourself to be Picasso.

Those in development include a hardware modification for the iPhone to detect malware on the device that is secretly transmitting a reporters data, such as their location.

Another, called Sunder, would act as a treasure chest of digital information that can only be opened when several passwords are combined something journalists could use to protect a bulk of data.

The foundation is also working on an easy-to-use version of encrypted video-chat software Jitsi used by Snowden to speak to the magazine via secure video link.

We cant fix the surveillance problem overnight, Snowden said. But maybe we can build a shield that will protect anyone whos standing behind it.

In November the UK government passed the Investigatory Powers Bill that enables the state to use electronic snooping tactics to fight crime, including widespread collection of electronic data.

Following Press Gazettes Save Our Sources campaign, police requests to view journalists call records in order to identify their sources have to be signed off by judges.

But concerns remain that the applications are made in secret and so cannot be argued by news organisations in a court of law.

Read the original post:

Snowden helping develop tools to protect journalists and whistleblowers - 'to make the game a little more fair' - Press Gazette