The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: April 2017
NSA Janjua says UK providing safe abode to MQM founder, Baloch leaders – Geo News, Pakistan
Posted: April 5, 2017 at 4:30 pm
ISLAMABAD: National Security Adviser (NSA) Lt General Nasser Janjua while meeting a British delegation said that the United Kingdom was unfortunately, preferring individuals over state relationship.
A seven-member British Parliamentary delegation while visiting discussed regional and global issues with Janjua, which were significant for both Pakistan and United Kingdom (UK).
The visiting delegation exchanged views on matters pertaining to further enhancing bilateral cooperation, a press release said.
The NSA said Pakistan highly values its relationship with the UK which has a strategic character and stressed the need for further improving the understanding between the two countries to strengthen ties and exploring more areas of cooperation.
The members of delegation sought the opinion of NSA on many serious issues and challenges faced both by the UK and Pakistan.
The NSA briefed them at length about the rise of extreme thought, extremism, conflict in Muslim world, rise of Daish, resilience and sacrifices of Pakistani nation, seeking closure of overall conflictual situations in the region and world, control and restraints of social media to curb spread of extremism and implementation of National Action Plan.
The delegation specially broached the subject of Altaf Hussain, relationship with India, Kashmir dispute and India's threat to stop water for Pakistan.
The NSA elaborately explained how the UK was, unfortunately, preferring individuals over state relationship.
In addition to Altaf Hussain, he mentioned some Baloch leaders who find their safe abode in the UK.
Referring to India, he explained how the fragile security architecture of the region was fast becoming under stress and had started to suffer from serious imbalance.
The NSA also urged the UK to have a balanced regional approach as the imbalance in the region was becoming critical which needed to be retrieved and restored immediately.
The NSA also apprised the delegates of a greater and brighter future which Pakistan holds by providing largest geo-strategic connectivity to the world.
The leader of the delegation said the UK understood and acknowledged the role of Pakistan against terrorism.
The members of the delegation also appreciated the resilience of Pakistani nation against terrorism and wished to strengthen and diversify relations with Pakistan to face the challenges of future together.
Read the original post:
NSA Janjua says UK providing safe abode to MQM founder, Baloch leaders - Geo News, Pakistan
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on NSA Janjua says UK providing safe abode to MQM founder, Baloch leaders – Geo News, Pakistan
Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment – Washington Post
Posted: at 4:28 pm
Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.
This article explains why the price of repeating arms declined so steeply. Then it describes some of the repeating arms that were already in use when the Second Amendment was ratified, including the 22-shot rifle that was later carried on the Lewis andClark expedition.
One of the men to credit for why repeating arms became much less expensive during the 19th century is James Madison, author of the Second Amendment. During Madisons presidency (1809-17), Secretary of War James Monroe (who would succeed Madison as president), successfully promoted legislation to foster the development of firearms technology. In particular, the federal armories at Springfield, Mass., and Harpers Ferry, Va., were ordered to invent the means of producing firearms with interchangeable parts.
To function reliably, repeating firearms must have internal components that fit together very precisely much more precisely than is necessary for single-shot firearms. Before President Madison and Secretary Monroe started the manufacturing revolution, firearms were built one at a time by craftsmen. Making a repeating arm required much more time and expertise than making a single-shot firearm.Howto make repeating arms was well-known, but making them at a labor cost the average person could afford was impossible.
Thanks to the technology innovation labs created at Springfield and Harpers Ferry, inventors found ways to manufacture firearms components at a higher rate, and with more consistency for each part. Instead of every part being made by hand, parts were manufactured with machine tools (tools that make other tools). For example, the wooden stocks for rifles could be repetitively manufactured with such precision that any stock from a factory would fit any rifle from the factory, with no need for craftsmen to shave or adjust the stock.
In New England, the Springfield Armory worked with emerging machinists for other consumer products; the exchange of information in this technology network led directly to the Connecticut River Valley becoming a center of American consumer firearms manufacture, and to rapid improvements in the manufacture of many other consumer durables. The story is told in: Ross Thomson, Structures of Change in the Mechanical Age: Technological Innovation in the United States 1790-1865 (2009);Alexander Rose, American Rifle: A Biography (2008); David R. Meyer, Networked Machinists: High-Technology Industries in Antebellum America (2006); David A. Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932 (1985); Merritt Roe Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change (1977);Felicia Johnson Deyrup, Arms Makers of the Connecticut Valley: A Regional Study of the Economic Development of the Small Arms Industry, 1798-1870 (1948). By the 1830s, manufacturing uniformity was sufficiently advanced that repeating arms were becoming widely affordable, and no longer just for the wealthy.
What kind of repeating arms were available before1815, when the Madison-Monroe mass production innovation program began? The state of the art was theGirandoni air rifle, invented around 1779 for Austrian army sharpshooters. Lewis and Clark would carry a Girandoni on their famous expedition, during the Jefferson administration. The Girandoni could shoot 21 or 22 bullets in .46 or .49 caliber without reloading. Ballistically equal to a firearm, a single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk. (For more on the Girandoni, see my article The History of Firearms Magazines and Magazine Prohibitions, 88 Albany L. Rev. 849, 852-53 (2015).)
The first repeaters had been invented about three centuries before. The earliest-known model is a German breech-loading matchlock arquebus from around 1490-1530 with a 10-shot revolving cylinder.M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology, 1492-1792, 50 (1980). Henry VIII had a long gun that used a revolving cylinder (a revolver) for multiple shots.W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, 81-82 (9th ed. 1910). A 16-round wheel lock dates from about 1580.Kopel, at 852.
Production of repeaters continued in the seventeenth century. Brown, at 105-6 (four-barreled wheel-lock pistol could fire 15 shots in a few seconds); John Nigel George, English Guns and Rifles, 55-58 (1947) (English breech-loading lever-action repeater, and a revolver, made no later than the British Civil War, and perhaps earlier, by an English gun maker).
The first repeaters to be built in large quantities appear to be the 1646 Danish flintlocks that used a pair of tubular magazines, and could fire 30 shots without reloading. Like a modern lever-action rifle, the next shot was made ready by a simple two-step motion of the trigger guard. These guns were produced for the Danish and Dutch armies. Brown, at 106-7.
In Colonial America, repeating arms wereavailable for people who could afford them, or who were skilled enough to make their own. For example, in September 1722, John Pim of Boston entertained some Indians by demonstrating a firearm he had made. Although loaded but once, it was discharged eleven times following, with bullets in the space of two minutes each which went through a double door at fifty yards distance. Samuel Niles, A Summary Historical Narrative of the Wars in New England, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 4th ser., vol. 5, 347 (1837). Pims gun may have been a type of the repeating flintlock that became popular in England from the third quarter of the 17th century, and was manufactured in Massachusetts starting in the early eighteenth. Harold L. Peterson, Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526-1783, 215-17(Dover reprint 2000) (Smithsonian Institution 1956). Another repeating flintlock, invented by Philadelphias Joseph Belton, could fire eight shots in three seconds. Idem,217. Pim also owned a .52 caliber six-shot flintlock revolver, similar to the revolvers that had been made in England since the turn of the century. Brown, 255.A variety of multi-shot pistols from the late eighteenth century have been preserved, holding two to four rounds. Charles Winthrop Sawyer, Firearms in American History: 1600 to 1800, 194-98, 215-16 (1910).
The repeaters described above werenotthe most common arms. It would take two decades for the program begun by President Madison to result in repeating arms beginning to become affordable to the middle class. So in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a person who could not afford an expensive repeater, but who wanted to be able to fire more than one bullet without reloading, would often buy ablunderbuss. The blunderbuss was the size of a very large handgun. Its muzzle flared outward slightly, like a bell. This made it easier to load while bouncing in a stagecoach, or on a swaying ship. The blunderbuss could fire either one large projectile, or several at once. Most often it was loaded with about 20 large pellets, and so it was devastating at short range. The name seems an adaptation of the Dutch donder-buse or thunder gun.
Excellent for self-defense at close quarters, the blunderbuss was of little use for anything else, having an effective range of about 20 yards. Militarily, it was used by sailors to repel boarders. Stagecoach guards and travelers carried blunderbusses, and it was also a common arm for home defense.For more on the blunderbuss, see Brown and George, above.
No one would dispute that modern arms are much improved from 1791 in terms of reliability, accuracy, range and affordability. But the gap from the 22-shot Girandoni (powerful enough to take an elk) to a modern firearm is pretty small compared withthe changes in technology of the press. Compared to the one-sheet-at-a-time printing presses of 1791, the steam and rotary presses invented in the 19th century made printing vastly faster a speed improvement that dwarfs the speed improvement in firearms in the last 500 years. When the First Amendment was written, a skilled printer could produce 250 sheets in two hours. Today, a modern newspaper printing press can produce 70,000 copies of a newspaper (consisting of dozens of sheets) in an hour. Now, with digital publishing, a newspaper article can be read globally within minutes after it is written.
This means that irresponsible media can cause far more harm today than they could in 1791. For example, in 2005, Newsweek magazine published a false story claiming that American personnel at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated Korans belonging to prisoners there. Eventually, Newsweek retracted the story. But the phony story had already spread worldwide, setting off riots in six countries, in which over 30 people were killed.Had Newsweek been using 18th-century printing presses, the false story would have mostly been read by several thousand people in the New York City area, where Newsweek is based. It would been months if ever before the Newsweek issue with the false story was read by anyone in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
We do not limit any constitutional right to the technology that existed in 1791. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court observed:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
This is an accurate statement of constitutional law, but it understates how truly frivolous the argument against modern firearms is. The people who ratified the Bill of Rights certainly didnot anticipate the invention centuries later of the Internet or of thermal imaging sensors. The American people of 1791 did not have to anticipate the invention of repeating arms, because such arms had been in existence for centuries.
Read the rest here:
Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment - Washington Post
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment – Washington Post
LA Clippers JJ Redick: Second Amendment Should ‘Evolve’ to Allow Gun Control – Breitbart News
Posted: at 4:28 pm
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
He referenced the Second Amendment while talking about collegiate sports, contending that NCAA basketball players ought to be paid. In fact, Redick jumped from announcing the end of amateurism in collegiate sports to declaring the end of a Second Amendment that protects 21st century firearms.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Redick said:
The idea of amateurism, it doesnt exist anymore. And so if youre going to do what youre doing, then you just need that complete overhaul. Its got to be something radical. Its not just, Oh, lets just pay every player $5,000. It really requires something really radical. And maybe thats getting rid of college athletics as we know it.
He paraphrased a Thomas Jefferson quote to segue to guns, saying, I go back to the Thomas Jefferson quote Im going to butcher it, but its something weve all read. You wouldnt expect a little boy to wear the pea coat he wore as a boy as a grown man. You need to change with the times.
Redick then addressed gun control, saying laws should evolve in the same way he wants to see collegiate sports evolve. He said:
Laws should reflect that [change], rules, regulations, especially as we know more. Gun control. I dont want to get political, but gun control. Thats something that should evolve as technology evolves. When the 2nd Amendment was created, we had to worry about bears, people lived on the frontier and it took a minute to load a muzzle. I think laws should reflect where we are with guns.
Ironicallyjust one day before Redick made these commentsIndependent Institutes Dave Kopel wrote that gun control arguments framed around musket arguments show a lack of historical knowledge. Writing in The Washington Post, Kopel said:
Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.
Kopels historical observation helps the reader better understand the Supreme Courts majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In that opinion, late Justice Antonin Scalia pointed to judicial precedent to show the Second Amendment protects guns in common use at any given time. In other words, at all times the Second Amendment protects the guns commonly owned and used by law-abiding citizens. This means protection for the very 21st century firearms J.J. Redick believes justify more gun control.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
Read more here:
LA Clippers JJ Redick: Second Amendment Should 'Evolve' to Allow Gun Control - Breitbart News
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on LA Clippers JJ Redick: Second Amendment Should ‘Evolve’ to Allow Gun Control – Breitbart News
‘Chicago Fire’ Teaches Petulant Teen First Amendment Rights in Best Way Possible – NewsBusters (blog)
Posted: at 4:28 pm
'Chicago Fire' Teaches Petulant Teen First Amendment Rights in Best Way Possible NewsBusters (blog) Chicago firefighter Christopher Herrmann (David Eigenberg) is shocked to learn that his son is suspended from school for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with his high school class in the April 4th episode of NBC's Chicago Fire titled Take ... |
See original here:
'Chicago Fire' Teaches Petulant Teen First Amendment Rights in Best Way Possible - NewsBusters (blog)
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on ‘Chicago Fire’ Teaches Petulant Teen First Amendment Rights in Best Way Possible – NewsBusters (blog)
The First Amendment Looks Beautiful in Any Language | American … – ACLU (blog)
Posted: at 4:28 pm
If you find yourself in Times Square between now and June, look up. You may catch a glimpse of the First Amendment in Spanish, English, and Arabic.
The ad on the Reuters Digital Tower at 3 Times Square is part of an ACLU campaign to raise awareness about First Amendment rights and remind people that the Constitution is for all of us, no matter who you are or what language you speak.
In addition to the Times Square billboard, the ads were unveiled at 30 bus shelters across Washington, D.C. The First Amendment in all three languages is also displayed on a fence in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn and will appear on a wall in the arts district of downtown Los Angeles.
Additional ads may appear in other cities and in other languages in the coming days and weeks.
The idea for the campaign came about shortly after Donald Trump was elected president on a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria and a pledge to ban Muslims from entering the United States. It was conceived of by the agency Emergence Creative, which approached the ACLU with the idea in December 2016.
In addition to protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably protest, the First Amendment protects the right to practice your religion and not be discriminated against for doing so.
Because so much of the ACLUs work involves protecting First Amendment rights, and because we now have a president that openly disdains such freedoms, it seemed like a good time to point out the We the People means everyone.
Several advertising vendors refused to run the campaign. Representatives who handle advertising space for New Yorks Metropolitan Transit Authority and Washingtons Metropolitan Area Transit Authority declined, saying they did not accept issue oriented advertising.However, the vendors who did offer space did so at a substantial discount in part because they wanted to support the effort.
The First Amendment ads will run in Times Square through June, appearing twice an hour for 15 seconds on the electronic billboard at Reuters Digital Tower, 3 Times Square. The ads in Washington will appear on 30 bus shelters across the city for four weeks.
Any advertisers who would like to donate space should contact the ACLU.
Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Looks Beautiful in Any Language | American ... - ACLU (blog)
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The First Amendment Looks Beautiful in Any Language | American … – ACLU (blog)
Inside the First Amendment: Men bring much of the news – NorthJersey.com
Posted: at 4:28 pm
Gene Policinski, Gannett 11:59 a.m. ET April 4, 2017
A man looks over the front pages from newspapers around the country on display outside the Newseum in Washington in this file photo from November of 2014.(Photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
Who brings us the news? Mostly its still men, according to a new Womens Media Center study, Divided 2017.
The report says that among the major TV networks, online versions of CNN, Fox, The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and the nations 10 largest newspapers:
#EqualPayDay: What you need to know about women in the workforce
Editorial: First Amendment victory in Trenton
The gender disparity shown in the survey is obvious in terms of numbers and simple equity, considering that women make up 51 percent of the population. But its implications, including the impact on news credibility, may not be so clear to news consumers. Cristal Williams Chancellor, the centers director of communications, noted in an interview that many of our fellow citizens are comfortable with men in anchor chairs or dominating story bylines. But in an era in which a majority of people say they distrust the news media and its motives, the most credible news operations should have diverse staffs that represent both their subjects and their audiences, she said.
Clearly, the news industry still falls short of having enough women to meet that goal. Why?
Its not for a lack of qualified female job candidates-in-training: Women made up two-thirds of the student body enrolled in journalism and media-oriented degree programs during the fall 2013 semester, according to data from the most recent Annual Survey of Journalism and Mass Communication Enrollment.
One factor in the lack of overall visibility may come from the finding that lifestyle, health and education remain the topics where women most likely appear. I can recall that same circumstance in newsrooms of the 1960s.
Another bit of history: The American Society of News Editors annual newsroom census found in 2016 that the number of women leaders and employees has remained nearly the same since the 1990s. The survey that year reported that women made up about a third of newsroom employees overall, with a higher number employed at online-only sites than at newspapers. Women comprised 38 percent of daily newspaper employees in this years survey and nearly 50 percent of online-only news organization employees.
At a 2014 ASNE conference, women who were editors also called for changes in hiring and the review/promotion process to address old canards of how women in leadership roles are perceived. Fast Company senior editor Kathleen Davis referenced a study of 248 performance reviews of 180 men and women in media, prepared by both men and women, which showed the word abrasive was used 17 times for women and never for men.
None of these stats or biases is the sole province of newsrooms, to be sure. And going back to the mid-20th century, women in leadership roles in major news operations from the news desk to the corporate suite more often resulted from inherited ownership than from corporate diversity considerations.
But the profession that represents us all in gathering and reporting the news ought to be more of a leader in the 21st century in being representative of all of us.
Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001.
Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2nTrwB2
Follow this link:
Inside the First Amendment: Men bring much of the news - NorthJersey.com
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Inside the First Amendment: Men bring much of the news – NorthJersey.com
In New York, Big Brother Is Watching Your Free Speech – National Review
Posted: at 4:28 pm
When free speech threatens government power, government has a tendency to get curious about the identity and funding of dissenting speakers. This was true in the civil-rights era, when the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to divulge its membership lists. It was true during the Obama administration, when the IRS targeted the Tea Party for illegal scrutiny not merely by asking in some cases for donor lists but also by inquiring about the political activities of family members of tea-party leaders and the login information of tea-party websites. And it was certainly true in the state of Wisconsin, when law enforcement used terrifying dawn and pre-dawn raids to gather information about First Amendmentprotected issue advocacy about labor-union reform.
But why threaten to batter down a door when you can just pass a law that batters away at the Constitution?
Thats the state of New Yorks approach, and its now facing one of the more important First Amendment challenges that youve likely never heard of. The case is called Citizens Union of the City of New York v. The Governor of the State of New York, and the law its challenging is a sprawling, complex monstrosity that imposes extraordinary regulations on speech about political issues, not just in support of political candidates. In other words, if nonprofits want to speak about life, gun rights, tax reform, or any number of issues that profoundly affect American lives, they will now find state bureaucrats watching and examining their activities closely.
Like many campaign-finance or so-called transparency regulations, devilish government intervention is hidden within a labyrinth of details that even lawyers struggle to decipher, but the bottom line is that the law guts donor confidentiality when a 501(c)(4) the kind of nonprofit at issue in the Tea Partytargeting scandal actively tries to influence public policy. In other words, if it tries to reach 500 or more people in the general public and refers to and advocates for or against a clearly identified elected official or the position of any elected official or administrative or legislative body relating to the outcome of any vote or substance of any legislation, potential legislation, pending legislation, rule, regulation, hearing, or decision by any legislative, executive or administrative body, then the law triggers extraordinary disclosure obligations.
Notice the incredible breadth of the law. If a nonprofit wants to advocate against even the position of an elected official (not even against their election or reelection), theyre going to be forced to disclose the identities of every management official in the nonprofit, describe the communications covered by the law, detail the key financial arrangements that facilitated their communications, and then disclose all of the organizations significant donors (those who gave $1,000 or more). The law even extends similar disclosure requirements to 501(c)(3) organizations when they make even minimal financial or in-kind donations (such as office space or office supplies) to covered 501(c)(4) organizations.
The end result is a law that gives government and hostile members of the public a splendid way to monitor private citizens who engage in speech on matters of public concern. This gets transparency and accountability exactly backwards, and it degrades the sanctity of anonymous speech, a right that was critical to the founding of our constitutional republic and has proven critical to public reforms ever since. Transparency is a government obligation. Anonymity is a First Amendmentprotected individual right.
While private citizens in the U.S. as a general matter dont face the same risks that members of the NAACP faced in Alabama in the 1950s, free speech still carries with it substantial and increasing perils. You name the hot-button political issue, and you can find people whove suffered from boycotts, job loss, harassment, and even physical threats (on both sides of the political aisle). Weve already stripped anonymity from direct donors to political campaigns, but if the new message to our nation and culture is you have free speech to address issues only if youre strong enough to deal with the consequences, then public discourse will tend to narrow into the lowest common denominator of inoffensive, irrelevant speech or remain the exclusive province of those few people willing to endure unacceptable risks.
Simply put, a robust First Amendment requires substantial protection for anonymous speech especially speech about political issues. Indeed, the First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.
Supporters of the law will claim that theyre protecting individual rights through provisions that give the states attorney general discretion to restrict public disclosures when those disclosures may cause harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals, but this does nothing to preserve anonymity from the government, nor does it protect a right of anonymity from the public. Your right is now a privilege, granted to you by the very officials whose positions you may be attacking and whose priorities you may be frustrating.
If I want to give money to support the cause of life, thats not the governments business. If I want to give money to support gun rights, thats not the governments business. Indeed, its not anyones business. In the name of transparency, New York empowers Big Brother. It also empowers hostile mobs. The government isnt protecting citizens from corruption. Its corrupting the First Amendment to protect itself.
David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.
READ MORE:
Continued here:
In New York, Big Brother Is Watching Your Free Speech - National Review
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on In New York, Big Brother Is Watching Your Free Speech – National Review
ACLU takes over Times Square with multilingual campaign defending the First Amendment – The Drum
Posted: at 4:28 pm
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a multilingual campaign in New York to reassure immigrants that they are protected by the Constitution and remind the general public of their rights under the First Amendment.
"This campaign is intended to remind people that the Constitution is for all of us. It doesnt matter who you are or what language you speak. 'We the People' means everyone," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the organization.
The creative comprises a series of electronic billboards in Arabic, English and Spanish in New York's Times Square and around bus stops in Washington DC.
The First Amendment in all three languages will also be displayed on a fence in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, as well as on a wall in the arts district of downtown Los Angeles.
Additional 'We the People' ads may appear in other cities and in other languages in the coming days and weeks.
The ACLU alleges that several vendors refused to run the billboards, including representatives selling space on some transit authorities which said they did not accept issue oriented advertising".
ACLU has been particularly outspoken about President Donald Trump's immigration policies, with Romero saying: "From his attempted Muslim ban to his calls for media suppression to his remarks endorsing the use of violence against those who protest against him, President Trump has shown disdain for the rights and freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, so we thought it was a good time to remind people of these rights."
The group recently enlisted comedians like Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey to help it raise funds via a Stand For Rights event streamed via Facebook Live.
More here:
ACLU takes over Times Square with multilingual campaign defending the First Amendment - The Drum
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on ACLU takes over Times Square with multilingual campaign defending the First Amendment – The Drum
Here’s How to Protect Your Privacy From Your Internet Service Provider – EFF
Posted: at 4:27 pm
We pay our monthly Internet bill to be able to access the Internet. We dont pay it to give our Internet service provider (ISP) a chance to collect and sell our private data to make more money. This was apparently lost on congressional Republicans as they voted to strip their constituents of their privacy. Even though our elected representatives have failed us, there are technical measures we can take to protect our privacy from ISPs.
Bear in mind that these measures arent a replacement for the privacy rules that were repealed or would protect our privacy completely, but they will certainly help.
It goes without saying: if privacy is a concern of yours, vote with your wallet and pick an ISP that respects your privacy. Here is a list of them.
Given the dismal state of ISP competition in the US, you may not have this luxury, so read on for other steps you can take.
In 2014, Verizon was caught injecting cookie-like trackers into their users traffic, allowing websites and third-party ad networks to build profiles without users consent. Following criticism from US senators and FCC action, Verizon stopped auto-enrolling users and instead made it opt-in. Users now have a choice of whether to participate in this privacy-intrusive service.
You should check your account settings to see if your ISP allows you to opt-out of any tracking. It is generally found under the privacy, marketing, or ads settings. Your ISP doesnt have to provide this opt-out, especially in light of the repeals of the privacy rules, but it can never hurt to check.
EFF makes this browser extension so that users connect to a service securely using encryption. If a website or service offers a secure connection, then the ISP is generally not able to see what exactly youre doing on the service. However, the ISP is still able to see that youre connecting to a certain website. For example, if you were to visit https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere, your ISP wouldnt be able to tell that youre on the HTTPS Everywhere page, but would still be able to see that youre connecting to EFFs website at https://www.eff.org
While there are limitations of HTTPS Everywhere when it comes to your privacy, with the ISP being able to see what youre connecting to, its still a valuable tool.
If you use a site that doesn't have HTTPS by default, email them and ask them to join the movement to encrypt the web.
In the wake of the privacy rules repeal, the advice to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to protect your privacy has dominated the conversation. However, while VPNs can be useful, they carry their own unique privacy risk. When using a VPN, youre making your Internet traffic pass through the VPN providers servers before reaching your destination on the Internet. Your ISP will see that youre connecting to a VPN provider, but wont be able to see what youre ultimately connecting to. This is important to understand because youre exposing your entire Internet activity to the VPN provider and shifting your trust from the ISP to the VPN.
In other words, you should be damn sure you trust your VPN provider to not do the shady things that you dont want your ISP to do.
VPNs can see, modify, and log your Internet traffic. Many VPN providers make promises to not log your traffic and to take other privacy protective measures, but it can be hard to verify this independently since these services are built on closed platforms. For example, a recent study found that up to 38% of VPN apps available for Android contained some form of malware or spyware.
Below, we detail some factors that should be considered when selecting a VPN provider. Keep in mind that these are considerations for someone who is interested in preventing their ISP from snooping on their Internet traffic, and not meant for someone who is interested in protecting their information from the governmenta whistleblower, for instance. As with all things security and privacy-related, its important to consider your threat model.
Does the VPN provider log your traffic? If yes, what kind of information is logged? You should look for one that explicitly promises to not log your Internet traffic and how active the VPN provider is in advocating for user privacy.
Does the VPN provider use encryption in providing the service? Its generally recommended to use services that support a well-vetted open source protocol like OpenVPN or IPSec. Utilizing these protocols ensures best security available.
If your VPN provider uses encryption, but has a single shared password for all of the users, its not sufficient encryption.
Would using the VPN service still leak your DNS queries to your ISP?
Does the VPN support IPv6? As the Internet transitions from IPv4 to the IPv6 protocol, some VPN providers may not support it. Consequently, if your digital device is trying to reach a destination that has an IPv6 address using a VPN connection that only supports IPv4, the old protocol, it may attempt to do so outside of the VPN connection. This can enable the ISP to see what youre connecting to since the traffic would be outside of the encrypted VPN traffic.
Now that you know what to look for in a VPN provider, you can use these two guides as your starting point for research. Though keep in mind that a lot of the information in the guides is derived from or given by the provider, so again, it requires us to trust their assertions.
If you are trying to protect your privacy from your Internet company, Tor Browser perhaps offers the most robust protection. Your ISP will only see that you are connecting to the Tor network, and not your ultimate destination, similar to VPNs.
Keep in mind that with Tor, exit node operators can spy on your ultimate destination in the same way a VPN can, but Tor does attempt to hide your real IP address, which can improve anonymity relative to a VPN.
Users should be aware that some websites may not work in the Tor browser because of the protections built in. Additionally, maintaining privacy on Tor does require users to alter their browsing habits a little. See this for more information.
Its a shame that our elected representatives decided to prioritize corporate interests over our privacy rights. We shouldnt have to take extraordinary steps to limit how our personal information can be used, but that is clearly something that we are all forced to do now. EFF will continue to advocate for Internet users privacy and will work to fix this in the future.
Excerpt from:
Here's How to Protect Your Privacy From Your Internet Service Provider - EFF
Posted in Tor Browser
Comments Off on Here’s How to Protect Your Privacy From Your Internet Service Provider – EFF
Bitcoin Is Mired In A Civil War. Can This Proposal Save It? – Forbes – Forbes
Posted: at 4:26 pm
Forbes | Bitcoin Is Mired In A Civil War. Can This Proposal Save It? - Forbes Forbes Bitcoin was supposed to replace trust in institutions with trust in software. But mistrust among humans threatens to doom it. Bitcoin's Broken Record: Why the Scaling Debate Isn't Going Away F2Pool Tests SegWit on Litecoin, May Support It on Bitcoin After Testing Op-ed: A New Bitcoin Blocksize Proposal Goes Nowhere |
See the original post here:
Bitcoin Is Mired In A Civil War. Can This Proposal Save It? - Forbes - Forbes
Posted in Bitcoin
Comments Off on Bitcoin Is Mired In A Civil War. Can This Proposal Save It? – Forbes – Forbes







