Daily Archives: June 3, 2017

Angel Mendez Case Shows Flawed Second Amendment … – National Review

Posted: June 3, 2017 at 12:08 pm

One day in October 2010, a man by the name of Angel Mendez was at his home, asleep on a futon next to his pregnant girlfriend. Hed built the home himself, and it almost redefined the word modest. It was little more than a one-room shack in the back yard of another persons residence, with a blanket for a door. He awoke from his nap to see a person pulling back the blanket. He picked up his BB gun, and heard someone shout gun! before 15 rounds came flying at him. He was grievously injured, ultimately losing a leg. His unarmed girlfriend was also wounded.

It turns out the person who shot at Mendez was a police officer. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Peterson were looking for a parolee who was believed to be armed and dangerous. They did not have a warrant to search Mendezs home, and they did not announce their presence or identity before accosting him. They entered, saw his BB gun, and started firing.

Lest you think this is a unique incident, in March I wrote about the terrible case of Andrew Scott. Like Mendez, Scott was an innocent man at home with his girlfriend when the police came. Like Mendez, he was mistaken by police for the armed and dangerous man they sought. They pounded on his door, but they didnt have a warrant, and they didnt announce themselves. Like any reasonable person, he was alarmed at the late-night disturbance and had no reason to expect the police were its source. So he grabbed his gun. When he opened his door, the police shot him dead in two seconds.

Neither Mendez nor Scott did anything wrong. They were both absolutely within their constitutional rights to pick up a weapon in response to the unidentified persons attempting to enter their homes. Yet Mendez, and Scotts heirs, have so far lost in court, unable to collect any meaningful compensation from the police officers who shot them precisely because they exercised those rights.

Scotts estate lost at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officers from having to pay any compensation to the innocent victims of their mistaken and wrongful use of force. Mendez lost yesterday in the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against a quirky Ninth Circuit use-of-force rule that allowed excessive-force claims where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. In other words, if the officers violated Mendezs Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home, they could be held liable for shooting Mendez even if the shooting itself might otherwise have been justified under existing law.

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuits rule violated court precedent requiring lower courts to instead apply a totality of the circumstances approach to such cases, under which the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the lower courts, where the deck is already stacked against Mendez. The court of appeals, after all, already ruled that the officers had qualified immunity from Mendezs claim, and the trial court determined that Mendezs decision to pick up the BB gun was a superseding cause that limited the damages he could collect.

Its time for a different approach. Its time for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to explicitly recognize and accommodate the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means that I have a right to defend myself in my own home, where as Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Moreover, the Second Amendment exists in large part to protect the private citizen from state tyranny. It is odd indeed, then, that current law largely grants officers of the state the right to kill me in my own home even if I do nothing wrong. Indeed, the very act of exercising my Second Amendment rights picking up a gun makes it less likely that I will prevail in court.

Theres an old saying that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In times of peril, the thinking goes, its better to risk a jury than to risk your life. But under modern jurisprudence, when the police barge in youre likely to be carried by six and then judged wanting by one: Youll die in the face of overwhelming firepower, and your estates case will be tossed right out of court by a judge.

This presents the homeowner especially if he lives in a high-crime area where the need for a gun is most dire with an impossible situation. In the event of a home intrusion, he has to identify the intruder before he picks up his gun or risk being shot dead instantaneously. If the cops make a good-faith mistake, the burden is on the homeowner. If the cops act improperly, as they did in both Scott and Mendez, the burden is still on the homeowner. Heads, they win; tails you lose.

What is to be done about this? Civil-rights jurisprudence must recognize the central legal truths of Heller and empower the original meaning of the Constitution. Police use of force against an armed homeowner should be evaluated on Second Amendment grounds, not merely as an unreasonable search or seizure. Agents of the state should be held liable for violations of Second Amendment rights when they kill or injure someone solely because he or she exercised those rights. Shooting an innocent man in his own home because he grabs a gun when an unidentified person pounds on his door or barges through it isnt just an unreasonable search or seizure. Its a direct violation of his clearly established right to keep and bear arms.

Its not too much to ask police officers to obtain warrants and to knock and announce their presence in all but the most exigent circumstances. In both Scott and Mendez, there was no good reason for police not to identify themselves. Yet in both cases, a residents reasonable response to police failures undermined his efforts to hold them accountable for those failures in court. That is unacceptable. When a person enters my house unannounced, I should have the right to hold a gun in my hand. To argue otherwise is to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

READ MORE: A Federal Appeals Court Goes to War against the Second Amendment What Justice Gorsuch Might Mean for the Second Amendment Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

See more here:
Angel Mendez Case Shows Flawed Second Amendment ... - National Review

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Angel Mendez Case Shows Flawed Second Amendment … – National Review

A Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence – National Review

Posted: at 12:08 pm

One day in October 2010, a man by the name of Angel Mendez was at his home, asleep on a futon next to his pregnant girlfriend. Hed built the home himself, and it almost redefined the word modest. It was little more than a one-room shack in the back yard of another persons residence, with a blanket for a door. He awoke from his nap to see a person pulling back the blanket. He picked up his BB gun, and heard someone shout gun! before 15 rounds came flying at him. He was grievously injured, ultimately losing a leg. His unarmed girlfriend was also wounded.

It turns out the person who shot at Mendez was a police officer. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Peterson were looking for a parolee who was believed to be armed and dangerous. They did not have a warrant to search Mendezs home, and they did not announce their presence or identity before accosting him. They entered, saw his BB gun, and started firing.

Lest you think this is a unique incident, in March I wrote about the terrible case of Andrew Scott. Like Mendez, Scott was an innocent man at home with his girlfriend when the police came. Like Mendez, he was mistaken by police for the armed and dangerous man they sought. They pounded on his door, but they didnt have a warrant, and they didnt announce themselves. Like any reasonable person, he was alarmed at the late-night disturbance and had no reason to expect the police were its source. So he grabbed his gun. When he opened his door, the police shot him dead in two seconds.

Neither Mendez nor Scott did anything wrong. They were both absolutely within their constitutional rights to pick up a weapon in response to the unidentified persons attempting to enter their homes. Yet Mendez, and Scotts heirs, have so far lost in court, unable to collect any meaningful compensation from the police officers who shot them precisely because they exercised those rights.

Scotts estate lost at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officers from having to pay any compensation to the innocent victims of their mistaken and wrongful use of force. Mendez lost yesterday in the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against a quirky Ninth Circuit use-of-force rule that allowed excessive-force claims where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. In other words, if the officers violated Mendezs Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home, they could be held liable for shooting Mendez even if the shooting itself might otherwise have been justified under existing law.

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuits rule violated court precedent requiring lower courts to instead apply a totality of the circumstances approach to such cases, under which the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the lower courts, where the deck is already stacked against Mendez. The court of appeals, after all, already ruled that the officers had qualified immunity from Mendezs claim, and the trial court determined that Mendezs decision to pick up the BB gun was a superseding cause that limited the damages he could collect.

Its time for a different approach. Its time for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to explicitly recognize and accommodate the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means that I have a right to defend myself in my own home, where as Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Moreover, the Second Amendment exists in large part to protect the private citizen from state tyranny. It is odd indeed, then, that current law largely grants officers of the state the right to kill me in my own home even if I do nothing wrong. Indeed, the very act of exercising my Second Amendment rights picking up a gun makes it less likely that I will prevail in court.

Theres an old saying that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In times of peril, the thinking goes, its better to risk a jury than to risk your life. But under modern jurisprudence, when the police barge in youre likely to be carried by six and then judged wanting by one: Youll die in the face of overwhelming firepower, and your estates case will be tossed right out of court by a judge.

This presents the homeowner especially if he lives in a high-crime area where the need for a gun is most dire with an impossible situation. In the event of a home intrusion, he has to identify the intruder before he picks up his gun or risk being shot dead instantaneously. If the cops make a good-faith mistake, the burden is on the homeowner. If the cops act improperly, as they did in both Scott and Mendez, the burden is still on the homeowner. Heads, they win; tails you lose.

What is to be done about this? Civil-rights jurisprudence must recognize the central legal truths of Heller and empower the original meaning of the Constitution. Police use of force against an armed homeowner should be evaluated on Second Amendment grounds, not merely as an unreasonable search or seizure. Agents of the state should be held liable for violations of Second Amendment rights when they kill or injure someone solely because he or she exercised those rights. Shooting an innocent man in his own home because he grabs a gun when an unidentified person pounds on his door or barges through it isnt just an unreasonable search or seizure. Its a direct violation of his clearly established right to keep and bear arms.

Its not too much to ask police officers to obtain warrants and to knock and announce their presence in all but the most exigent circumstances. In both Scott and Mendez, there was no good reason for police not to identify themselves. Yet in both cases, a residents reasonable response to police failures undermined his efforts to hold them accountable for those failures in court. That is unacceptable. When a person enters my house unannounced, I should have the right to hold a gun in my hand. To argue otherwise is to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

READ MORE: A Federal Appeals Court Goes to War against the Second Amendment What Justice Gorsuch Might Mean for the Second Amendment Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Continued here:
A Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence - National Review

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on A Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence – National Review

Red Alert: The First Amendment Is in Danger BillMoyers.com – BillMoyers.com

Posted: at 12:07 pm

If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

Reporters attempt to pose questions to President Donald Trump during a news conference on Feb. 16, 2017. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Of all the incredible statements issuing from the fantasy factory that is the imagination of Donald Trump, the one he recently made in a speech to graduates of the Coast Guard academy, that no politician in history and I say this with great surety has been treated worse or so unfairly sets an unenviable record for brazen ignorance plus a toxic mix of self-aggrandizement and self-pity. In his eyes, the most villainous persecutors are the mainstream fake news organizations that dare to oppose his actions and expose his lies.

So, having already banned nosy reporters from news corporations that he doesnt like, branded their employers as enemies of the nation and expressed a wish to departed FBI Director James Comey that those in the White House who leak his secrets should be jailed, why should there be any doubt that he would, if he could, clap behind bars reporters whom, in his own cockeyed vision, he saw as hostile? His fingers itch to sign an order or even better a law that would give him that power. Could he possibly extract such legislation from Congress?

Such a bill might accuse the press of seditious libel, meaning the circulation of an opinion tending to induce a belief that an action of the government was hostile to the liberties and happiness of the people. It also could be prohibited to defame the president by declarations directly or indirectly to criminate his motives in conducting official business.

If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

With a net that wide, practically anything that carried even the slightest whiff of criticism could incur a penalty of as much as five years in jail and a fine of $5,000. Just for good measure, couple it with an Act Concerning Aliens, giving the president the right to expel any foreign-born resident not yet naturalized whom he considers dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States without a charge or a hearing.

How Trump would relish that kind of imaginary power over his enemies!

I didnt make up those words. They are part of actual laws the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the summer of 1798 and signed by John Adams, our second president and titular leader of the conservative Federalist Party. Men were actually tried, imprisoned and fined for such sedition. If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

John Adams by John Turnbull, 1793. (National Portrait Gallery)

How did it happen? Just as it could happen again today in the midst of a national emergency. In Adams day, it was a war scare with France that produced a flurry of stand behind the president resolutions, a hugely expanded military budget (including the beginnings of the US Navy), demonstrations of approval in front of Adams residence and a conviction among the Federalists that members of Congress who talked of peace namely the Republicans, the pro-French opposition party who at that time were the more liberal of the two parties, [held] their countrys honor and safety too cheap.

In other words, just the kind of emergency that could be produced at any time in our present climate by a terrorist attack here at home genuine, exaggerated or contrived and pounced upon by the man in the White House.

Do I exaggerate? Read the chilling report of the April 30 interview between Jon Karl of ABC News and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, who said the president might change libel laws so he could sue publishers. When Karl suggested that this might require amending the Constitution, Priebus replied, I think its something that weve looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.

This is reality. A lying president aspiring to become a tinpot dictator is making his move. Its time to be afraid, but not too afraid to be prepared.

This is reality. A lying president aspiring to become a tinpot dictator is making his move. Its time to be afraid, but not too afraid to be prepared.

Lets briefly flash back to 1798. In the bitter contest between Federalists and Republicans, their weapons were the rambunctious, robust and nose-thumbing newspapers of the time, run by owner-editors and publishers who simply called themselves printers. They werent above dirtying their own hands with smears of ink, nor was there any tradition of objectivity. A British traveler of a slightly later time wrote that defamation exists all over the world, but it is incredible to what extent this vice is carried in America.

Nobody escaped calumny, not even the esteemed father of his country. Benjamin Franklin Bache, Republican editor of the Philadelphia Aurora, commented as George Washington departed office that his administration had been tainted with dishonor, injustice, treachery, meanness and perfidy if ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by WASHINGTON.

Bache also had had harsh words for old, bald, blind, querulous, toothless, crippled John Adams, sounding very much like a pre-dawn Trump tweet aimed at some critic of His Mightiness. You might not find that kind of personal invective now in The New York Times or The Washington Post, but its familiar on right-wing talk radio and would sound at home coming from the mouths of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. The mode of dissemination changes; the ugliness at the core is unchanged.

Stung and furious, Adams and his Federalist supporters in Congress pushed the Sedition Act through Congress, though by a narrow majority. But could it survive a legal challenge from the Republican minority under the First Amendments guarantee of press freedom? The Federalists answered with a legal interpretation that the guarantee only covered prior restraint, which meant that a license from a government censor was required before publication of any opinion. Once it actually emerged in print, however, it had to take its chances with libel and defamation suits, even by public officials. Today,prior restraint is judicially dead, but the question of who is a public official and can be criticized without fear of retaliation in the courts continues to produce litigation.

But in 1787 argument made little difference. With the trumpets and drums of war blaring and thundering, the Constitution, as usually happens in such times, was little more than a paper barrier. Some provisions were added that would help the defense in a prosecution under its provisions. Moreover, the act was ticketed to expire automatically on March 3, 1801, the day before a new president and Congress would take office and either renew the law or leave it in its grave which is precisely what happened when Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans eventually won the 1800 election.

Nevertheless, during its slightly more than two years in force that produced only a handful of indictments, the Sedition Act did some meaningful damage. It produced what Jefferson called a reign of witches harmful enough to prove it was a travesty of justice, but not enough to become a full-blown reign of terror like the disappearances and executions of modern tyrannies.

The act never succeeded in its purpose of muzzling all criticism of the government, and in fact worked to the contrary. The toughest sentence 18 months in jail and a fine of $450 a huge sum in those days when whole families never saw as much as $100 in cash was imposed on a Massachusetts eccentric who put up a Liberty Pole in Dedham denouncing the acts and cheering for Jefferson and the Republicans. Other convictions for equally innocuous crimes defined by zealous prosecutors as sedition inflicted undeserved punishment by any standard of fairness. But two were especially consequential thanks to the backlash they produced.

After the House failed to expel Matthew Lyon for the gross indecency of spitting tobacco juice at Roger Griswold, the latter sought justice by attacking Lyon on the House floor (then located in Philadelphias Congress Hall) with a cane. Lyon defended himself with a pair of fire tongs. Commemorating the row between Representatives, this 1798 etching includes verse describing the scene, including the detail that Lyon seized the tongs to ease his wrongs. (US House of Representatives)

One involved Matthew Lyon, a hot-tempered Vermont congressman, who ran a newspaper in which he accused Adams of a continual grasp for power and a thirst for ridiculous pomp that should have put him in a madhouse. For that he got a $1,000 fine and four months of jail time in an unheated felons cell in midwinter. But numerous Republican admirers raised the money to pay his fine. Asenator from Virginia rode north to personally deliver saddlebags full of collected cash. Lyon even ran for re-election from jail in December and swamped his opponent by 2,000 votes. His return to his seat in the House was celebrated joyfully by Republican crowds.

Jedidiah Peck from upstate New York was also indicted for his heinous offense of circulating a petition for the repeal of both the Alien and Sedition Acts. At each stop in his five-day trip to New York City for trial, the sight of him in manacles, watched over by a federal marshal, provoked anti-Federalist demonstrations. His case was dropped in 1800, and he was also easily re-elected to his seat in the New York assembly.

In fact, the entire Republican triumph in that years election was in good part a backlash to the censorship power grab of the Federalists. Literate voters of 1800, kept informed by a vigorous press, were not going to put padlocks on their tongues or take Federalist overreach lying down. Maybe it was from ingrained love of liberty or plain orneriness, or maybe because they were tougher to distract than we their heirs, beset by a constant barrage of entertainment, advertisements and other forms of trivial amusements.

If Trump keeps repeating fake news over and over at every exposure of some misdemeanor, eventually the number of believers in that falsehood will swell.

Because that stream of noise is constant and virtually unavoidable by anyone not living in a cave, we are vulnerable to the tactic of the unapologetic Big Lie. If Trump keeps repeating fake news over and over at every exposure of some misdemeanor, eventually the number of believers in that falsehood will swell.

Genuine trouble is at our doorstep. If that statement from Reince Priebus is taken at face value, our bully-in-chief is looking for nothing less than control of the court of public opinion through management of the media by criminalizing criticism all behind a manufactured faade of governing in the name of the people.

With the example of 1798 before us, we need to resolve that any such effort can and must be met with the same kind of opposition mounted by that first generation of Americans living under the Constitution. If we want to be worthy of them, we need to use all our strength and resolution in deploying tactics of resistance. We need to fill the streets, overwhelm our lawmakers with calls and letters, reward them with our votes when they check the arrogance of power and strengthen their backbones when they waver. Any of us who gets a chance to speak at public gatherings and ceremonies should grab it to remind the audience that without freedom of speech, assembly and protest there is no real freedom. If the First Amendment vanishes, the rest of the Bill of Rights goes with it. And were dangerously close.

Read more from the original source:
Red Alert: The First Amendment Is in Danger BillMoyers.com - BillMoyers.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Red Alert: The First Amendment Is in Danger BillMoyers.com – BillMoyers.com

Man Pummels MAX Train Operator While Screaming About First Amendment Rights – Willamette Week

Posted: at 12:07 pm

One week after a double murder on a Portland MAX train horrified the city, a man riding a Blue Line MAX in East Portland started pummeling a TriMet operator who asked him to stop screaming about First Amendment rights.

The alleged assault occurred shortly after 2:15 pm this afternoon at the MAX station on East 102nd Avenue and Burnside Street. As the train approached the station, the operator asked a passenger to stop shouting, says Portland Police Bureau spokesman Sgt. Chris Burley.

"He was screaming and yelling about First Amendment rights," says Burley. "The operator of the train broadcast over the loudspeaker that he needed to quiet down."

When the train reached its stop, the operator went into the train's passenger car to ask the man to leave. The passenger physically attacked him, though accounts differ slightly on how. Police say he punched the driver. "He struck him several times," says Burley.

TriMet says the driver was pushed to the ground. Other passengers pulled the man off the driver.

TriMet spokeswoman Roberta Altstadt says the driver wasn't seriously hurt.

"The operator received minor cuts and bruises, that sort of thing, but wasn't transported for medical care," she says. "He will be fine."

The alleged assailant was arrested blocks away. Police have identified him as 23-year-old Steven Caldwell. He's been charged with fourth degree assault and three misdemeanors.

The assault comes at a raw moment for the city.

It's been one week since two men were killed trying to stop the anti-Muslim harassment of two teenage girls on a Green Line MAX train. The suspected killer, Jeremy Joseph Christian, is a white supremacist with suspected ties to right-wing extremists who have repeatedly roiled Portland with protests.

This Sunday, those "alt-right" protesters pledge to return for a rally that could mean more violence in an already tense city. Plans for counter-demonstrations are rapidly forming to disrupt the group's rallyin Terry Schrunk Plaza downtown.

At the center of these far-right protests is the demand for free speech. That demand often means pushing the boundaries of unpopular and racist rhetoric in hopes of inciting a violent response from left-wing foils.

Christian, who marched with these groups in April, entered his arraignment hearing Tuesday yelling, "Free speech or die, Portland!"

See original here:
Man Pummels MAX Train Operator While Screaming About First Amendment Rights - Willamette Week

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Man Pummels MAX Train Operator While Screaming About First Amendment Rights – Willamette Week

First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable – Knoxville News Sentinel

Posted: at 12:07 pm

Although Milo Yiannopoulos has resigned from Breitbart, the British-born journalist has found a way to remain in the U.S. Veuer's Amanda Kabbabe (@kabbaber) has more. Buzz60

News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy(Photo: Paul Efird)

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This past legislative session, state Rep. Martin Daniel introduced a bill he dubbed the Milo Bill" for Milo Yiannopoulos, the controversialex-Breitbart writer whose plans to speak at the University of California atBerkeleysparked rioting that caused the cancellation ofhis appearance.

The bill was supposed to protect freedom of speech on Tennessee campuses, a measure opponents considered unnecessary.

Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, also complained about naming bills after people that promote racism, pedophilia and hatred.

Daniel rethought the name, too, after Yiannopoulos was caught on video condoning sex between men and boys. The Knoxville Republican tweeted:"It will also be known as the Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, & the MLK JR. bill.

Too bad.

The First Amendment doesnt need help from the Tennessee legislature. But if it did, a law named after Yiannopoulos would be appropriate. The man makes a living being offensive. Thats exactly what the First Amendment must protect.

A related issue arose last week when the mayor of Portland, Ore., called on the feds to block demonstrators supporting the white supremacist who screamed slurs at women on a light-rail train then stabbed to death two men who came to their defense.

Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, the mayor declared.

Actually, it is.The Supreme Court has made that clear in cases ranging from a 1969 rulingin favor of a KKK leader who called for "revengeance" against African Americans and Jews to a 2010 decision supporting the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket a soldiers funeral with signs saying, "Thank God for dead soldiers."

There's a reasonvile speech must be protected. That'swhere tolerance is put to the test.

There's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees. If Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine or Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at the University of Tennessee today, the cheers would be heard in Chattanooga.

Milo? Not so much.

Unfortunately, Americans forget this concept from time to time..

The past year has seen several instances of students trying to stop controversial speakers from appearing on campuses or shouting them down when they did: Bell Curve author Charles Murray at Middlebury College; DailyWire editor Ben Shapiro at University of Wisconsin-Madison; actor Gavin McInnes at New York University; white nationalist Richard Spencer at Texas A&M; andprovocateur Ann Coulter at Berkeley.

This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of how the First Amendment functions.

The only effective answer to a bad idea is a good idea. Responding to speech with speech works. Protest is entirely appropriate, ifpeaceful.

But trying to silence words with which we disagree even if we find them despicable will backfire.

Jack McElroy is executive editor of the News Sentinel and can be reached at editor@knoxnews.com.

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2rMLfXJ

View original post here:
First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable - Knoxville News Sentinel

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable – Knoxville News Sentinel

First Amendment case against Burlington can proceed – BurlingtonFreePress.com

Posted: at 12:07 pm

A judge ruled on Thursday, June 1, 2017 that a case challenging a Burlington housing policy can proceed. JESS ALOE/FREE PRESS

184 Church Street in Burlington on Wednesday, April 6, 2016.(Photo: GLENN RUSSELL/FREE PRESS)Buy Photo

A federal judge ruled a Burlington man's lawsuit charging the city with violating his First Amendment rights can proceed.

Joseph Montagno filed the lawsuit last fall claiming the city violated his rights by pressuring his landlord to evict him for calling 911 too many times.

The ruling, issued on Thursday by Judge Christina Reiss, mostly denied the city's request to dismiss the case.

In the original complaint, Montagno's American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, Jay Diaz, argued that his client's right to free speech had been "chilled" by the city's actions.

More: Lawsuit: Man evicted for calling BPD 'too frequently'

If his factual allegations are true, Reisswrote, "he has plausibly alleged a retaliation claim."

The judge dismissed several other parts of the lawsuit. Eileen Blackwood, Burlington's City Attorney, said she was pleased that the court had narrowed the issues.

She also said it was early in the proceeding.

"Motions to dismiss are often not granted because the court has to give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff," she said.

Burlington city attorney Eileen Blackwood.(Photo: KEVIN HURLEY/for the FREE PRESS, FILE)

Montagno claimed in the lawsuitthat the Burlington Police Department and Code Enforcement office kept track of his calls to the police department, and then pressured his landlord into evicting him.

"We're very pleased with the ruling," said Jay Diaz, Montagno's American Civil Liberties Union lawyer. "Mr. Montagno is looking forward to pressing his case against the city."

Jay Diaz, staff attorney with the Vermont ACLU, in February 2015.(Photo: KEVIN HURLEY/for the Free Press)

Diaz said his client was able to eventually secure housing in Burlington after being evicted from his Church Street apartment, with the help of several local nonprofits such as Vermont Legal Aid and Champlain Housing Trust.

He said one goal of the lawsuit was to end the alleged policy, as well as to encourage the city to focus more on supporting people who need help.

"They were among the most vulnerable Burlington residents," he said about the residents of the Church Street building where Montagno lived. "They were low-income, many of them had disabilities."

Blackwood said she does not believe that Burlington hasa "caller retaliation policy."

"We don't think there was any attempt to chill First Amendment rights," she said.

Contact Jess Aloe at 802-660-1874 or jaloe@freepressmedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @jess_aloe

Read or Share this story: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/06/02/first-amendment-case-against-burlington-can-proceed/365698001/

Original post:
First Amendment case against Burlington can proceed - BurlingtonFreePress.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment case against Burlington can proceed – BurlingtonFreePress.com

First Amendment must remain as a pillar of country – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Posted: at 12:07 pm

The essence of journalism is supposed to be rooted in fact based objectivity. The Missoulian and Gazettes' 24th-hour reversal of their Gianforte endorsement is the equivalent of Dick Cheney removing himself from the tip of the spear that was meant to kill LGBT rights only after his daughter came out.

Now, more than ever, the First Amendment must be utilized as of one of the pillars this country was built upon in order for our democracy to endure the whims of awfulness humanity is frequently compelled to act upon. Now is not the time to use the The First Amendment, and the journalistic integrity heavily implied therein, as a crutch used to limp into our common future.

If all it takes for an entity like The Missoulian to find their moral compass is to have their agenda, or in this case their endorsement, come back bite them in the butt, and hurt one of their own, only serves to highlight their bias, and make it more transparent to how far removed they are from objectivity and truth.

Journalists are supposed to not only weather, but be at home in the eye of the storm.

See the original post here:
First Amendment must remain as a pillar of country - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment must remain as a pillar of country – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

What The Dark Web Is And How To Access It – Komando

Posted: at 12:06 pm

Caution: Have you heard about the Dark Web? Kim Komando has been warning listeners and Komando.com readers for years about this not-well-understood part of the internet.

It's where criminals sell illegal drugs, launder money and commit other crimes, often with little or no repercussions. It's a place where hackers buy your stolen credit card credentials and IDs. The Dark Web is not a place you want to visit without a solid understanding of what it is and what you're getting yourself into. So, proceed with caution.

Despite the Dark Web's sinister side, listeners ask Kim all the time for instructions how to get into the Dark Web. So, for informational purposes only, here is how to get in.

To be fair, you may have a valid reason for going to the Dark Web. You may want to see if your stolen items are being sold there. You may want to see if hackers are selling your ID, your credit card numbers or bank account information. You may want to see if your children or grandkids are up to no good online.

If you want to check on those things, we recommend you hire a skilled professional or reputable company to do the snooping for you. But, if that's not an option for you, anyone can get into the Dark Web.

Keep reading for step-by-step instructions to get on the Dark Web.

Note: Don't confuse the Dark Web with the Deep Web.

Simply, the Dark Web is the internet. It's sites and pages on the internet that are hidden from public view.

It's accessible with a bit of know-how. You have to know how to get in and, with enough motivation, you'll find you're there in no time.

The Dark Web is part of the internet that you don't see every day. It's part of the Deep Web, which is simply sites and pages that aren't made publicly available. That's a huge part of the internet.

There's nothing inherently bad about the Deep Web. For example, does your company have private pages where you access information that is only for employees? If those pages aren't registered with sites like Google, they're hidden from view. That's the DEEP web.

The DARK Web, which is part of the Deep Web, is seedier. These are sites that run on an encrypted browser.

Encryption is an extremely secure way of protecting your information. You can't easily get in without passwords or biometric access, such as your fingerprint.

You might remember that Apple got into hot water with the U.S. government after the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attacks. The killed attackers had an encrypted iPhone that Apple wouldn't help the government unlock.

Encryption, when used for good, protects your location and privacy from hackers and criminals. When used for bad, as on the Dark Web, encryption can prevent the police and government from spotting illegal online activities, such as child pornography, prostitution, drug sales and more.

Despite its well-deserved reputation for being hard to find, the Dark Web is easy to access if you follow these three steps.

1. Most sites on the Dark Web run on an encrypted tool called Tor. There are other Dark Web tools, such as I2P, but it's believed that most sites use Tor. Go to: TorProject.org.

Bonus: If you want to protect your privacy, including your location, you can use Tor. It's a donation-based web service that you can use for everyday web surfing. Read more about Tor here.

2. Know the sites you're looking for. The Dark Web isn't accessible by Google and other search engines. You need to know the name of a site to visit it.

Tip in a Tip: You can remain anonymous online using encrypted virtual private networks (VPN) like DuckDuckGo.

3. Use a VPN to remain anonymous on Tor.

Warning: Before you visit the Dark Web, listen to Kim talk about it in this two-part podcast (links below).

Take an intimate tour of a disturbing place

Take an intimate tour of a disturbing place - The Dark Web Pt 2

Remember, we are providing instructions to access the Dark Web for information purposes only. We do NOT recommend that you visit the Dark Web.

What is Tor browser, and is it safe?

How to use free Wi-Fi for banking, shopping and safe browsing

How to erase everything you ever searched for on Google

Please share this information with everyone. Just click on any of these social media buttons.

Previous Tips

Random Tips

See the rest here:
What The Dark Web Is And How To Access It - Komando

Posted in Tor Browser | Comments Off on What The Dark Web Is And How To Access It – Komando

The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency – Forbes

Posted: at 12:06 pm


Forbes
The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency
Forbes
In 2015, "Minecraft," one of the most popular online games now owned by Microsoft, announced that PlayMC, one of their servers, would be introducing their own cryptocurrency in order to teach children about the digital currency. It's a pretty smart ...

View post:
The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency - Forbes

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency – Forbes

Top 3 Recent Cryptocurrency Exchange Promotions – The Merkle

Posted: at 12:05 pm

Cryptocurrency exchanges are always trying to cater to a larger crowd. To do so, they often have to launch some sort of promotional effort to entice users. Although it is fairly common for people to actively trade Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies across multiple exchanges, an extra incentive is always welcome. Below are three recent examples of such promotional efforts which are all quite appealing.

Although this promotion only ran for a few days, it was quite an interesting concept. More specifically, the Huobi exchange launched an effort during which traders who created Bitcoin or Litecoin transactions would earn free Ether. These incentives have been paid out every single at 6 PM local time. The campaign ran from May 27th until May 31st.

It is quite interesting to note this campaign was mainly designed to introduce the Ethereum trading market on the Huobi exchange, which launched late last week. By giving regular traders access to free Ethereum, Huobi ensured these people would continue to spend funds on the platform itself. It is a smart promotional effort, although it is unclear whether or not any traders held on to their ETH rewards.

The BTCC exchange has always been one of the largest in all of China. Now that the company has successfully resumed withdrawals, it is a good time to launch a promotional campaign. The company celebrates its 6th birthday on June 9, 2017. As a result, BTCC is giving away a free iPhone 7, iPad, and other prizes for the most active traders.

This competition launched on June 1st and run until the 9th. During this period, as well as the rest of June, there will be no fees for bank wire deposits. This latter promotion may entice more users to partake in the electronics giveaway as well. Cryptocurrency traders always like lower fees and a chance to win something for doing what they enjoy. A smart move by BTCC, that much is evident.

Perhaps the most notable promotion across all cryptocurrency exchanges hails from Japan. The local Bitbank exchange has announced their addition of XRP trading about a week ago. To commemorate this massive event, the company will issue $736,000 in undisclosed incentives to anyone who can improve XRP trading liquidity on the platform.

This promotional campaign will run from June 1st until September 1st. Everyone who ranks in the top 5 in XRP/JPY trading will receive $800 worth of XRP. These incentives will be issued every single day. No traders would say no to receiving free cryptocurrency, especially if it has the potential to appreciate in price. This particular campaign will undoubtedly affect XRP trading in Japan moving forward.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Go here to see the original:
Top 3 Recent Cryptocurrency Exchange Promotions - The Merkle

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Top 3 Recent Cryptocurrency Exchange Promotions – The Merkle