Doom 3: BFG Edition – Level 08: Alpha Labs Sector 4: Union Aerospace Science Division – Video

Posted on by


Doom 3: BFG Edition - Level 08: Alpha Labs Sector 4: Union Aerospace Science Division
My playthrough of Level 08 (Alpha Labs Sector 4: Union Aerospace Science Division) of Doom 3: BFG Edition for the PC, played on the Veteran difficulty.

By: Zdenda1990

Here is the original post:

Doom 3: BFG Edition - Level 08: Alpha Labs Sector 4: Union Aerospace Science Division - Video

Aerospace Composite Market worth $4,993.1 Million by 2019 – New Report by MarketsandMarkets

Posted on by

(PRWEB) December 24, 2014

The research report, Aerospace Composites Market by Type, Aircraft Parts, & Application - Global Trends & Forecasts to 2019, defines and segments the market with an analysis and forecast for types & applications by volume as well as value.

Browse 85 Market Data Tables and 73 Figures spread through 180 Pages and in-depth TOC on Aerospace Composites Market. http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/aerospace-composites-market-246663558.html Early buyers will receive 10% customization on this report.

Asia-Pacific is the key market for aerospace composites

Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific dominated the aerospace composite market in 2013 and accounted for over 85% of the market, by volume and value. Country-wise, the U.S. is the top consumer of aerospace composite products globally. France is the second-largest aerospace composite consumer in the world. The need for lightweight and fuel-efficient air-crafts has shifted the focus of manufacturers towards aerospace composites. Future growth in the international market hinges heavily onto developing economies, especially in Asia-Pacific. China and India, especially, stand out as noteworthy emerging markets. The future scenario in Asia-Pacific looks promising given the number of facility expansions, merger & acquisitions, and strategic partnerships that took place in these countries. The ensuing increase in foreign investments and rise in the number of new manufacturing establishments will witness Asia-Pacific emerge into a prime driver of growth for the aerospace composite market.

Commercial air-crafts is the topmost application segment and glass fiber composite dominates as the key type in the aerospace composite market

Commercial air-crafts took the topmost position in the aerospace composite market with around 61.7% market share by value in 2013. The drive towards fuel-efficient and lightweight aircraft's is anticipated to drive the market for aerospace composites. The fastest growth rate till 2019 in the aerospace composite market is projected to come from applications, such as military aircraft and business and general aviation. The growing concern over security issues and the consequent defense spending is anticipated to propel the market. Glass fiber composites comprise approximately 89.6% of the total aerospace composite market in terms of volume. High corrosion resistance, lighter weight, and high tensile strength are some of the reasons for which manufacturers consider glass fiber reinforced composite as an able substitute for metals in aircraft's.

Request for Customization: http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/requestCustomization.asp?id=246663558

Increasing number of low-cost carriers in emerging nations projected to be a major driver for aerospace composites market

The low-cost carriers have proved to be strong competitors to the luxury airliners, particularly in the developing economies of Asia and Latin America during the 2008-2009 economic downturns. The highest traffic growth in particular was in the short-haul (short route) around Southeast Asia, India and Australia. In India, low-cost carriers Spice Jet and Indigo continue to grow as they replace the likes of Air India, Jet Airways and Kingfisher Airlines. Even major airlines like Jet and Kingfisher converted 70% of their domestic operations to the low-cost model in the past couple of years. Boeing and Airbus also predicted that the companies would require approximately 5,200 new airliners in the 100 to 210 seat category, such as the best-selling A320 family. In 2012 low-cost carriers like Indigo, Spice Jet and Jet Lite ordered 46 new aircraft, which are to be delivered by the end of 2014. This increasing market for airlines is good indicator that the market for aerospace composites would thrive in the future.

The rest is here:

Aerospace Composite Market worth $4,993.1 Million by 2019 - New Report by MarketsandMarkets

Russia calls Ukraine’s bid to join NATO "counterproductive" – Video

Posted on by


Russia calls Ukraine #39;s bid to join NATO "counterproductive"
Russia has been reacting to the news that Ukraine has dropped its international neutrality, saying it gives false hope that the political crisis in the country will be resolved. Moscow called...

By: euronews (in English)

Go here to see the original:

Russia calls Ukraine's bid to join NATO "counterproductive" - Video

Ukraine parliament votes to take step toward NATO, angering Russia

Posted on by

MOSCOW In a sign of Ukraines hardening attitude toward Russia, Ukrainian lawmakers on Tuesday voted to remove a legal barrier to joining the NATO defense alliance.

The move provoked an angry response from Russia, even though NATO shows few signs of accepting Ukraine as a member anytime soon. But this years bloody conflict in Ukraines east has altered the countrys feelings about the Western alliance. A plurality of Ukrainians now favor joining NATO, a stark change from recent years when just a small fraction did.

Ukraines decision comes as Russia struggles with a weakened ruble and growing concerns about economic instability.

The vote in Ukraines parliament had no immediate practical effect on the countrys relationship with NATO. But it ended Ukraines nonaligned status, which was adopted as a way of reassuring Russia that its neighbor would not join NATO. Russian President Vladimir Putin cited his fear of Ukraines joining NATO as a reason Russia annexed Crimea in March.

The proposal to eliminate nonaligned status passed easily, with 303 of the Ukrainian parliaments 450 lawmakers in support. After the vote, legislators stood up and applauded.

Finally, we corrected a mistake. 303 votes and Ukraines nonaligned status is out, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko wrote on Facebook on Tuesday. There is no alternative to Euro-Atlantic integration. Glory to Ukraine!

Russian leaders reacted immediately with harsh denunciations, warning Ukraine and NATO that no good could come of the decision.

This is counterproductive and only escalates confrontations and creates an illusion that by adopting such laws it might be possible to settle a profound domestic crisis in Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow, the Interfax news agency reported.

He called for dialogue inside Ukraine, where Russian-supported rebels in the east have waged a war that has claimed more than 4,700 lives.

A day earlier, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned on his Facebook page that application for membership in NATO would turn Ukraine into a potential military adversary for Russia.

Continued here:

Ukraine parliament votes to take step toward NATO, angering Russia

Russia condemns Ukrainian law that paves way to Nato

Posted on by

Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine's president, was unapologetic about the move, saying that Ukraine had "no alternative to Euro-Atlantic integration".

Nato is unlikely to entertain making Ukraine a member any time soon, but the lifting of Kiev's restriction on joining security blocs clears the way for an accession at a later date.

MPs made clear the law was adopted in response to the Kremlin's annexation of Crimea and its intervention in the conflict in the east of the country.

Pavlo Klimkin, Ukraine's foreign minister, told the parliament that "in the conditions of the current aggression against Ukraine, this law opens for us new mechanisms".

Ukraine's government veered towards a pro-western course after Mr Poroshenko was elected in May, following the ouster of Viktor Yanukovych, the Moscow-leaning former president who fled to Russia after a popular uprising against his rule.

Government forces have been fighting pro-Russian separatists in the east of Ukraine since April. A shaky ceasefire has largely held in recent weeks and peace talks are expected to tale place in Minsk, Belarus, on Wednesday and Friday.

The Kremlin has long seen Nato expansion in eastern Europe as a deliberate attempt to encircle Russia. Four countries bordering it have joined the bloc since the Soviet collapse Poland in 1999 and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 2004.

Speaking at his annual press conference in Moscow last week, Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, said that enlargement of the alliance had built a new, "virtual" Berlin Wall around his country.

Arseny Yatsenuk, Ukraine's prime minister, visited Nato headquarters in Brussels earlier this month. Jens Stoltenberg, the bloc's secretary general, told him that Ukraine and Nato were "able to develop our partnership".

A spokesman for the alliance said on Tuesday: "Our door is open and Ukraine will become a member of Nato if it so requests and fulfils the standards and adheres to the necessary principles."

Originally posted here:

Russia condemns Ukrainian law that paves way to Nato

Ukraine pokes Russia, makes move toward NATO. Was it really necessary? (+video)

Posted on by

Washington The Ukraine parliaments vote Tuesday to nullify the countrys non-aligned status is largely a symbolic gesture and does not mean Ukraine will seek NATO membership any time soon.

What the vote does promise is further ratcheting up of tensions between Ukraine and Russia, and between Western leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin who considers Ukraine an inseparable piece of Russias backyard, and Ukrainian membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization a red line.

The vote represents one step toward fulfilling all criteria of membership in the North Atlantic Alliance.Perhaps the biggest impact of the vote will be to stir up waters that had begun to calm concerning embattled eastern Ukraine, some Russia analysts say. The vote came just hours after new talks were announced for this week aimed at ending Ukraines conflict with pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine.

The real question is, why did this vote happen now, when the situation in eastern Ukraine is relatively calm? says Paul Saunders, director of the US-Russian relations program at the Center for the National Interest in Washington.

The Ukrainian government probably felt a little emboldened to act as a result of the dire signs from Moscow concerning the Russian economy, Mr. Saunders says. But he adds that economic considerations are not likely to moderate Russias reaction to the parliamentary vote.

From Moscows perspective this is clearly a provocative and inflammatory step, he says. Indeed, on Tuesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the vote would have extremely negative consequences, while Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wrote on his Facebook page that the vote is tantamount to an application to join NATO.

However, the parliamentary vote is highly symbolic and has little concrete impact. Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko has said a decision to seek NATO membership would come from the Ukrainian people in a referendum vote, and that such a referendum would not take place before the end of the decade.

But the parliamentary votewill add to keeping tensions alive because it feeds the perceptions that each side in the larger Ukraine-Russia conflict has about the other, Saunders says.

If were objective about it, how could the Kremlin annex Crimea and not expect a vote like this? he says. On the other hand, no one should be surprised by the Russian response. No leader, he adds, would want to see a neighboring country move toward joining what people in his country perceive to be a hostile military alliance.

Events in Ukraine like the parliamentary vote are also part of what will be a sustained period of unpredictable tensions between Russia and the West, other analysts say.

View post:

Ukraine pokes Russia, makes move toward NATO. Was it really necessary? (+video)

Ukraine Inches Toward NATO, But Membership Not Likely Anytime Soon, Analysts Say

Posted on by

Ukraines Tuesday vote to drop its nonaligned status -- a prerequisite for joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- is threatening to further aggravate tensions with Russia. But its not likely well see Ukraine join NATO anytime soon, analysts say.

It is difficult to see much sentiment within NATO now to put Ukraine on a membership, Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said via email. But he acknowledged Ukraines small step toward a NATO bid was understandable given Russias aggression over the past year.

Ukraine previously made a bid to join NATO in 2008 under then-president Viktor Yushchenko. Yushchenkos plan received support from the U.S. initially, but the bid went nowhere after France and Germany opposed it amid concerns the move would disrupt the balance of power between Russia and European countries. Those concerns are even more palpable now following Russias annexation of Crimea in March and military support for rebels in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian membership in the military alliance could trigger a wider conflict with Moscow, given NATOs principle of collective self-defense.

But ironically, Russian President Vladimir Putins moves in Ukraine -- stemming from his efforts to try to incorporate the country into Moscows sphere of influence in the region and away from the West -- seems to have pushed Ukrainians toward embracing the idea of NATO membership even more. A Gallup poll found prior to the crisis, in 2013, 20 percent of respondents regarded NATO as a force of protection for Ukraine. In 2014, that figure rose to 36 percent. Separately, a November survey by the Ukrainian polling firm Rating Sociological Group found a slight majority of Ukrainians -- 51 percent --expressed support for joining NATO, up from 40 percent in April.

Tuesday's vote "is a direct result of the Kremlin's 10 months of increasingly overt aggression against the country," said John Herbst, director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council and also former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. "A large majority of Ukrainians now understand tha the policies of Mr. Putin are very dangerous for Ukraine. This is a sign they need to find some way to withstand the Kremlin's aggression."

Russia has vociferously opposed Ukrainian membership in NATO, and Tuesday's overwhelming 302-8 vote to drop Ukraines neutral status provoked outrage in Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the move would escalate the confrontation between Kiev and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the Tass news agency reported.

But Yury Barmin, an independent Russian analyst based in Abu Dhabi, said he didnt think Russia would ramp up aggression at the border. So far its involvement with Ukraine has been very painful for Russia economically, and both the EU and U.S. are ready to impose more sanctions, he said. The [ruble] crash last week showed how vulnerable the Russian economy is, so I believe Vladimir Putin will choose not to provoke any more sanctions at this point.

Pifer said Ukraine could consider putting off a bid for NATO membership for a certain amount of time as part of a settlement deal with Russia. That could be a key element, and [Kiev] would not be giving up much, in view of attitudes within the alliance, he said.

But, he added, Moscow unfortunately has shown little sign of interest in reaching a settlement, apparently preferring to create a frozen [or not-so-frozen] conflict as a means to pressure [Kiev]."

Herbst said while he couldn't predict what Putin's response to the vote might be, the president's goal of destablizing Ukraine to the point where Kiev would prove unable to establish a pro-EU foreign policy is looking trickier to achieve. "Putin realizes that his international position today is much worse than it was six months ago," he said. "And he wants to avoid worsening that."

Read the original post:

Ukraine Inches Toward NATO, But Membership Not Likely Anytime Soon, Analysts Say

Ukraine Parliament Votes to End Non-Aligned Status in NATO Move

Posted on by

Ukraines parliament backed a proposal to cancel the countrys non-aligned status, a decision Russia denounced as a dangerous step toward seeking membership of NATO.

The legislation put forward by President Petro Poroshenko was supported yesterday by 303 of 357 lawmakers in the chamber, hours after the announcement of fresh talks to try to end the conflict with pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. The bill will help Ukraine as it seeks to achieve all criteria of membership for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin told parliament.

The vote in Ukraine is counter-productive and will increase confrontation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow yesterday. It will have extremely negative consequences and amounts to an application to join NATO, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wrote on Facebook.

The decision follows an announcement that the Ukraine Contact Group will meet Dec. 24 and Dec. 26 in Minsk, Belarus, after a phone call on Monday between Poroshenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande. A two-week truce has tempered the bloodshed in a conflict that has killed more than 4,700 people since April in fighting between government forces and separatists in Ukraines Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Ending Ukraines non-aligned status is the choice of the Ukrainian people, Klimkin wrote on Twitter after the vote. This is the choice for freedom and security.

Poroshenko said in November that Ukraine would hold a referendum on seeking NATO membership at the end of this decade after it had completed real policy changes. Germany and France have signaled that they are opposed to Ukraine joining the 28-member alliance because of concerns that this will inflame tensions with Russia.

NATO should be open to new members, Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz told reporters in Warsaw yesterday. Its up to Ukraine to decide whether they want to join.

The contact group, which has representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, last met in September to try to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The four leaders emphasized the need to fulfill agreements made at those talks, including withdrawal of troops and heavy armament, as well as immediate liberation of all prisoners, Poroshenko said in a statement on his website.

The main task at the moment is to stop the violence, Alexei Panin, deputy director of the Center for Political Information, a Moscow-based research group, said by phone. The confrontation may evolve into a frozen conflict that could encourage the European Union to lift sanctions against Russia by mid-2015, though U.S. measures imposed over the crisis will remain, he said.

Defense spending is Ukraines top priority, Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko told parliament yesterday as she presented the governments draft 2015 budget for what she called the robbed and fighting country. Ukraine is in its most difficult situation since independence, she said.

Excerpt from:

Ukraine Parliament Votes to End Non-Aligned Status in NATO Move

SCOTUS for law students: Financing judicial elections

Posted on by

The Supreme Court has stepped into the center of a divisive issue: whether, consistent with the First Amendment, states that elect some or all of their judges may prohibit the candidates from directly soliciting campaign funds.

The case of Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, scheduled for oral argument on January 20, 2015, will test how far the Supreme Court is willing to go in pushing the boundaries of the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech and throwing off the restraints of campaign finance regulation.

The case has important implications for law students interested in First Amendment, legal and judicial ethics, political law, and the governance of the judiciaries throughout the United States.

According to both sides in the dispute, thirty-nine states elect at least some of their . Over half of those states at least twenty have adopted a variation of the American Bar Associations Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which includes a provision that prohibits candidates for judicial office, incumbent judges and challengers from directly soliciting campaign funds.

The issue is not whether judges and their challengers may raise campaign funds. There seems to be general agreement that even judicial candidates need campaign committees with sufficient resources to mount an election effort. Rather, the question is whether the candidates themselves should be able to solicit funds, which is often an effective way of promoting name recognition and raising the cash necessary to run a campaign.

Federal appeals courts and state supreme courts are deeply split about whether restrictions on direct solicitation by candidates are permissible under the First Amendment. According to the petition filed in the Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits and the state supreme courts of Oregon, Florida, and Arkansas have upheld ethical rules restricting judicial candidate solicitation; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have invalidated similar rules. The Florida Bar agreed with this description of the disagreement and, although it prevailed in the Florida Supreme Court, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case because of the split. That divide is what the Supreme Court will try to resolve.

The case presents a conflict between the need to protect the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and the role of the First Amendment in protecting political speech from government interference. At the heart of that conflict is the volatile question, one that has been of considerable interest to the current Supreme Court, of how campaign funds fit into the framework of political speech.

In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a restriction on speech in judicial campaigns, finding that a rule which prohibited candidates from announcing positions on controversial issues violated the First Amendment. That ruling, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, involved political statements rather than campaign funds, but it brought judicial elections under the same First Amendment framework that applies to other political speech.

More recently, under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court in the name of freedom of speech has expanded the ability of corporations and unions to spend funds directly in elections in Citizens United v. FEC and less than a year ago invalidated limits Congress placed on the overall amount that individuals may spend in a two-year federal election cycle in McCutcheon v. FEC.

The case now before the Court arose in a Florida judicial election. In 2009, Lanell Williams-Yulee ran for a position as judge in Hillsborough County, which is in the Tampa area. She sent out a general fundraising letter which she signed herself. When the Florida Bar filed a complaint against her, Williams-Yulee noted that the Florida ethical rule referred to elections between competing candidates, and since she had no opponent when she sent the letter, she did not think the rule applied. A state referee appointed to decide the issue said her mistake did not excuse the violation of the rule and suggested she be issued a reprimand and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Read the rest here:

SCOTUS for law students: Financing judicial elections

Licensing Speech in the Big Easy

Posted on by

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press because the Framers wanted to prevent the creation in America of a license-based censorship. They were deeply opposed to Britains systematic restriction of speech, which treated the right to speak publicly as a privilege conditioned on an express grant of the sovereigns permission. In order to publish books, newspapers, and pamphlets, or even to perform plays, a speaker had to obtain a permit.

American law has firmly rejected this sort of prior restraint on speech. While licenses to engage in potentially dangerous activities like the practice of medicine or even driving are often necessary to prevent great harm, the value judgment represented by the First Amendment is that the harm a license to speak would do to individual liberty is far greater than any potential harm that could be caused by unqualified speakers. It is for this reason that authors, publishers, filmmakers, journalists, and talk-show hosts dont need to pass a test or ask the government for permission before engaging in their vocation.

Unfortunately, several municipalities seem to think that tour guides should be treated differently. Fearing the calamitous consequences of allowing ignorant guides to mislead tourists, these cities have instituted licensing regimes that make it acrimefor tour guides to operate without a license a license which can only be obtained by passing a test of history and culture.

Last year, Cato, joined by First Amendment expert Prof. Eugene Volokh, filed briefs supporting lawsuits challenging the licensing schemes inWashingtonandNew Orleans. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with us that the law was unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit upheld the New Orleans ordinance, claiming that it was a content neutral restriction on speech necessary to protect tourists and the citys reputation. Joined again by Prof. Volokh, Cato has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take this case and reverse the Fifth Circuits decision to allow the very kind of licensing scheme that the First Amendment was intended to preempt.

Our brief makes three important points. First, the very idea of licensing speakers is incompatible with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said time and time again that governments cant restrictwhomay speak in order to improve the quality ofwhatthey say. Second, because the licensing requirement only applies to speech on a particular subject and is explicitly justified by that content, it can only be considered constitutional if it satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny. That means it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest a test this law would surely fail (unlike, say, a requirement that bicycle-tour operators maintain safe bikes and observe the rules of the road).

Finally, the other arguments for applying a more lenient test than strict scrutiny are unpersuasive: tour guides, unlike doctors and lawyers, arent professionals whose speech to clients is so important (and potentially dangerous) that it can be regulated without offending the First Amendment. Nor does the fact that tour guides arepaidfor their speech alter the constitutional calculus: writers, pundits, and actors and even think tank scholars or law professors dont gain some special First Amendment rights when theyre volunteering their talents. Tour guides are no different.

The Court will decide whether to take the case, Kagan v. City of New Orleans,early in the new year.

Read the rest here:

Licensing Speech in the Big Easy

Letters to the Editor for Dec. 23, 2014

Posted on by

Right to bear arms is God-given

To the Editor:

Suppose that in order to exercise your constitutionally enumerated First Amendment right to free speech you had to: 1. Pay to attend a training course. 2. Pay to take a test about the contents of that course. 3. Pay a fee to the government for a license to exercise that right, and finally, 4. Get permission from some government official to acquire a license (that you must carry while exercising the right) that states you have the right of free speech. Does this sound fair? Thankfully, none of this is necessary to exercise the right of free speech.

That list DOES outline the requirements necessary to exercise your rights as enumerated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the Second Amendment states specifically that this right shall not be infringed. No other of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution has that statement. As noted in the first paragraph, these four items are the requirements (as stated by laws) that are necessary to exercise our Second Amendment right. In my opinion, these laws infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. In my opinion, these laws infringe on the right as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and therefore are unconstitutional.

Note also that these rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are listed only to enumerate God-given human rights. Any right that is permitted by law may be revoked by another law. The First and Second Amendments state rights that are NOT permitted by law but instead are God-given rights.

Alan ONeill

Columbia

Painted concrete walls necessary?

To the Editor:

For some reason, paving unnavigable sidewalks in downtown Sonora is far less important than painted concrete walls on Mono Way. Never mind that people have difficulty walking, therefore shopping and spending money, at local businesses downtown.

Go here to read the rest:

Letters to the Editor for Dec. 23, 2014

Court rules against couple who cyber-harrassed Andover rep.

Posted on by

Rep. James Lyons

BOSTON -- Posting false advertisements online can be considered criminal harassment unprotected by the First Amendment, according to a Supreme Judicial Court decision Tuesday, which upheld the conviction of two people who directed "pranks" against an Andover lawmaker.

Rep. James Lyons, a Republican, was not yet a member of the House in 2008 when William and Gail Johnson enlisted their friend Gerald Colton to use personal information about Lyons and his wife to harass them, according to the SJC. Lyons had opposed the couple's plans to develop property abutting their home.

Colton advertised free golf carts at the Lyons' home, posted another ad offering "my late son's" motorcycle for sale with Lyons' phone number, and sent Lyons a message that said, "Remember, if you aren't miserable, I aint happy! Let's Play." William Johnson also committed the crime of falsely reporting Lyons to the Department of Children and Families for alleged child abuse.

In a ruling written by Justice Robert Cordy and released Tuesday morning, the SJC denied an appeal from the Johnsons and found the defendants' speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Cordy said the case is the court's first to consider the "type of conduct at issue here."

The case involves the use of the classified ad website Craigslist to steer unwitting people against a target.

The SJC found that though the "methods were indirect" the phony posts were "intended solely" to cause strangers to contact the Lyons.

"Where the sole purpose of the defendants' speech was to further their endeavor to intentionally harass the Lyonses, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment," the SJC wrote.

"I thought it was a very well written opinion and my wife and I are extremely grateful for the Supreme Court's decision in this case," Lyons told the News Service. "These people literally tortured my wife, my boys and myself, and to this day shown not one ounce of remorse."

Lyons, who was elected in 2010, said the Johnsons are no longer his neighbors and said both were incarcerated as a result of their convictions. The husband was sentenced to serve 18 months imprisonment and his wife was sentenced to serve six months, according to the SJC.

View original post here:

Court rules against couple who cyber-harrassed Andover rep.