Daily Archives: August 13, 2017

EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows … – EFF

Posted: August 13, 2017 at 1:54 am

WASHINGTON, D.C.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn an unprecedented ruling allowing the government to intercept, collect, and storewithout a warrantmillions of Americans electronic communications, including emails, texts, phone calls, and online chats.

This warrantless surveillance is conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law is exceedingly broadSection 702 allows the government to conduct surveillance of any foreigner abroadand the law fails to protect the constitutional rights of Americans whose texts or emails are incidentally collected when communicating with those people.

This warrantless surveillance of Americans is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruling in U.S. v. Mohamud, decided that the Fourth Amendment doesnt apply to Americans whose communications were intercepted incidentally and searched without a warrant. The case centered on Mohammed Mohamud, an American citizen who in 2012 was charged with plotting to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. After he had already been convicted, Mohamud was told for the first time that information used in his prosecution was obtained using Section 702. Further disclosures clarified that the government used the surveillance program known as PRISM, which gives U.S. intelligence agencies access to communications in the possession of Internet service providers such as Google, Yahoo, or Facebook, to obtain the emails at issue in the case. Mohamud sought to suppress evidence gathered through the warrantless spying, arguing that Section 702 was unconstitutional.

In a dangerous and unprecedented ruling, the Ninth Circuit upheld the warrantless search and seizure of Mohamuds emails. EFF, the Center for Democracy & Technology, and New Americas Open Technology Institute filed a petition today asking the Supreme Court to review that decision.

The ruling provides an end-run around the Fourth Amendment, converting sweeping warrantless surveillance directed at foreigners into a tool for spying on Americans, said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mark Rumold. Section 702 is unlike any surveillance law in our countrys history, it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should take this case to put a stop to this surveillance.

Section 702, which is set to expire in December unless Congress reauthorizes it, provides the government with broad authority to collect, retain, and search Americans international communications, even if they dont contain any foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.

We urge the Supreme Court to review this case and Section 702, which subjects Americans to warrantless surveillance on an unknown scale, said EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker. We have long advocated for reining in NSA mass surveillance, and the incidental collection of Americans private communications under Section 702 should be held unconstitutional once and for all.

For the petition: https://www.eff.org/document/mohamud-eff-cert-petition

For more on Section 702: https://www.eff.org/document/702-one-pager-adv

For more on NSA spying:https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying

Read the original here:
EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows ... - EFF

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on EFF Urges Supreme Court to Take On Unconstitutional NSA Surveillance, Reverse Dangerous Ruling That Allows … – EFF

Does Mueller’s grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? – PolitiFact

Posted: at 1:53 am

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has opened a grand jury in Washington, D.C., for his investigation into Russian election meddling and possible coordination by Trump campaign associates, according to multiple news reports. We decided to review the significance of this move, so we asked legal experts for their views on several questions related to grand juries.

What is a grand jury and what is its job?

The grand jury traces its roots to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That provision says that "(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."

When a court impanels a federal grand jury, jurors are tasked with figuring out whether enough evidence exists to formally accuse someone of a felony. Unlike a trial jury, a grand jury does not play a role in determining guilt or punishment. Rather, this panel of 16 to 23 citizens serves a gatekeeping function for issuing indictments.

In modern practice, the grand jury is a potent investigative tool for prosecutors, said Andrew D. Leipold, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law.

"People dont generally have a duty to cooperate with law enforcement," Leipold said. "So if the police or FBI questions someone, typically that person is not required to answer. And generally unless the police have a warrant, they cant make a person produce documents."

"But a grand jury can do that," he said.

In Muellers case, he could not conduct an effective investigation without a grand jury, said Ric Simmons, a law professor at Ohio State University.

"The prosecutor does not have subpoena power on his or her own," he said. "He or she needs the grand jury to issue subpoenas for documents and to compel testimony."

To issue an indictment, a grand jury needs to believe a federal crime was probably committed. This threshold, known as the "probable cause" standard, is a far easier hurdle to clear than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict. Grand juries are also one-sided ordeals, where neither defendants nor their lawyers have the right to appear before jurors to refute incriminating evidence.

For these reasons, lawyers have a saying that any halfway decent prosecutor should be able to indict a ham sandwich. But its important to emphasize that someone who is indicted has not yet been found guilty, and may never be.

How has Special Counsel Robert Mueller used grand juries so far?

Muellers appointment in May as special counsel granted him fairly broad jurisdiction.

The Justice Department authorized him to lead an investigation into Russias interference in the 2016 election, as well as any links or coordination between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates, plus "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Grand juries are supposed to operate in secrecy, but because they issue subpoenas and compel testimony, their work sometimes becomes public. Our best understanding of how Mueller has used grand juries is based primarily on anonymously sourced news reports.

In June, Reuters reported that Mueller was taking over a grand jury investigation in Virginia that had been looking into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The investigation got fresh attention when the Wall Street Journal reported in August that a new grand jury had convened weeks earlier in Washington, D.C., to focus on his investigation.

That same day, Reuters reported the new grand jury had issued subpoenas related to a controversial June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer, and several others (CNN also reported on the subpoenas). The meeting was predicated on the promise that a "Russian government attorney" would deliver damaging information to Trump Jr. about his fathers Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

Why would Mueller open up a new grand jury?

While Muellers precise rationale for seeking more than one grand jury is not publicly known, legal experts told us its a fairly unsurprising move for a special prosecutor because it carries several advantages.

Grand juries typically divide their attention among multiple cases. So its possible Mueller believes he can operate more smoothly with a panel of jurors focused exclusively on whats potentially a large volume of information.

"In special investigations, rather than ordinary criminal cases, it is not uncommon to impanel a special grand jury," said Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Ohio State University. "This way, the jurors will become increasingly knowledgeable about the matters at issue, and they can focus on just one matter."

Theres a number of other theories for Muellers move.

Some believe his grand jury was meant to make it easier to broaden the scope of his investigation beyond Flynn.Others say a Washington-based jury would be more sympathetic. Still others say Mueller simply wanted a grand jury closer to his teams Washington office.

"Since the proceedings are secret, it is very hard to know which (if any) of these are correct," said Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School.

Does the new grand jury mean an indictment is near?

Legal experts we spoke to fell into two camps on whether the existence of Muellers grand jury tells us anything about the likelihood of any future indictments.

Some experts think a grand jury by itself tells us nothing. Others said it increases the chances of indictments issuing at some future point, though none believed they were imminent.

Simmons said while a grand jury is a prerequisite for a future indictment, its also a required step in the early stages of an investigation.

"It simply means that Mueller did not believe the case was frivolous and decided a real investigation was appropriate," he said. "Thats something we all pretty much assumed already."

Leipold called the grand jurys impaneling "important but unremarkable" in the grand scheme of the investigation.

"I dont find any clues in its presence as to whether or not there will be an indictment or whether or not its imminent," he said. "I can imagine a world in which Mueller says, Im not inclined to seek an indictment, or, one in which he seeks lots of indictments."

Others viewed the new grand jury as a more meaningful development, but cautioned against jumping to any premature conclusions about its ultimate significance.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that because of the relatively low probable cause standard -- recall the quip about indicting a ham sandwich -- she believes its more likely than not that at least one criminal indictment will issue.

"But none of this is a done deal," she added.

So what to make of the frenzied speculation in the Twitterverse about an indictment being issued any day now?

"I think people have overreacted to this news by thinking an indictment is imminent," Shugerman said.

Perhaps the only clue the grand jury gives as to Muellers timeline is that were in for a lengthy investigation, said Mark Godsey, a law professor at the University of Cincinnati and author of Blind Injustice, about the inner-workings of federal prosecutors' offices.

"I dont think it says much about timing, other than it suggests there is a lot of work to do, and that can impact how long the investigation lasts," he said.

Share the Facts

2017-08-10 15:47:15 UTC

-1

-1

-1

Correct about grand juries

"You cant read that (the impaneling of a grand jury necessarily) means that indictments are going to follow."

Adam Schiff

U.S. Rep, D-Calif.

CNN

Sunday, August 6, 2017

2017-08-06

Continue reading here:
Does Mueller's grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? - PolitiFact

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Does Mueller’s grand jury mean an indictment is imminent? – PolitiFact

Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted: at 1:52 am

By David Codrea

USA -(Ammoland.com)-Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is . Im From the Government, and Im Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence, attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.

Hardys should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnists work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.

Ill offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I havent read the book.

Thats because it hasnt been released yet.

The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10, Hardy advises. Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publishers guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So Id like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Go here to see the original:
Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers’ 2nd Amendment rights – Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Posted: at 1:52 am

In response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial, I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Governor Cuomo forced into law.

Governor Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the Governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

U.S. Rep. Chris CollinsNY-27th Congressional DistrictClarence

Link:
Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers' 2nd Amendment rights - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers’ 2nd Amendment rights – Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 1:52 am

Two Chinese tourists were arrested last Sunday after taking photos of each other giving the Nazi salute in front of the Reichstag building in Berlin. Unlike in the United States, certain types of speech are illegal in Germany, including almost any Nazi symbolism.

Supposed comedian Chelsea Handler, weighed in on the story, suggesting the U.S. be more like Germany, which would require eliminating the First Amendment.

Most people in a civilized society agree that Nazi salutes are offensive, even if given in jest. Labeling speech that we all agree to be wrong as "hate speech" and then banning it by law might seem like a simple solution to the problem of occasionally hearing things that decent people don't like. However, passing laws to weaken our own rights in response to somebody else's poor behavior is not the solution.

If we want to be aware of what can transpire on the fringe of society, everyone should be free to express all of their opinions, even the ones that offend us. The Constitution treats us as grown-ups, depending on us to have the sense to reject opinions that are genuinely evil.

Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example, a group consisting mostly of family members. They scream obscenities and anti-gay slurs as they picket events such as papal visits and the funerals of service members killed overseas. They offend virtually everyone on earth. America, with its population of over 300 million people, seems to have collectively ostracized the 70-member group despite our government never making it a law to do so. No one is terribly worried that their annoying behavior is causing a trend.

Making any type of speech illegal would in itself destroy the First Amendment, which contrary to the claims of some washed up politicians, contains no exception for hate speech. Nor should it. The definition of hate speech is subject to continuous change. There are words no decent person will say, but the banning of even one word would eliminate the right to freedom of speech, replacing it with a subjective list of prohibited terms to which the government could and would add to over time.

It is strange that those who depend on free speech to make their living are often its most vocal opponents. Handler, for example, wants to ban offensive speech, but she engages in it quite often, as when she made fun of the first lady's accent, claiming Melania Trump barely speaks English. It's her right to tell that joke, of course. But it might not be if she had her own way.

Today's "safe space" culture has created the concept that words -- not threats, mind you, just unkind words -- are equivalent to physical harm. It just isn't so. And the First Amendment is a treasure, even if it does subject us all to Kathy Griffin posing in ISIS-inspired photoshoots, Johnny Depp expressing his envy of John Wilkes Booth, and Snoop Dogg shooting a clown dressed as Trump in a music video. As always, the proper answer to offsensive speech is more speech, not violence or government coercion.

At a moment when leftists can't seem to get enough of speaking out against the current administration, their sudden turn against the First Amendment is a puzzling and troubling development. Their short-sighted talk of giving our government unacceptable authority to regulate our personal lives should be rejected like all the other bad ideas that people are free to express.

Alana Mastrangelo is a political activist and writer.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.

Here is the original post:
Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment – Washington Examiner

First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block … – WJLA

Posted: at 1:52 am

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing individuals in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland who argue that the governors in those states have violated the First Amendment by deleting comments and blocking users on the governors' Facebook and Twitter pages.

The plaintiffs in each case argue that they were shut out of a public political forum because they had been critical of the governors' policies or expressed views were at odds with their state's chief executive. By blocking comments and users, the plaintiffs say their governor has violated their right to free speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One of the issues at stake is whether public figures can use their social media accounts to sanction other users based private preferences. More fundamentally the cases could determine whether political speech is protected in the social media age.

"In this new world of social media, government officials and constituents are using these platforms as a powerful tool to connect with each other," said Meagan Sway, Justice Fellow with the Maine ACLU chapter. "But when that happens, the First Amendment applies."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has been accused of using his Facebook account in an official government capacity to conduct official government business. He has also taken advantage of the platform's features to block certain constituents. According to the ACLU, "that's unconstitutional censorship."

The arguments are similar in Kentucky and Maryland, where numerous constituents have come forward to challenge the 21st century version of being banished from the public commons. In Utah, the ACLU has put the state's federal congressional delegation on notice after similar complaints from constituents.

Already, experts anticipate the cases in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland will shape the environment for the high-profile case involving President Donald Trump blocking Twitter users.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit against the president in June arguing it is unconstitutional for an elected public official using a "designated public forum," like Twitter, to block speech just because it is critical or disagreeable.

"It's a new area of law," Sway said in an interview with WGME News. "We think courts will agree with us ... that this is an open platform, that the government cannot kick people off just because [they] dont agree with them."

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the pending social media cases beg for a "firm declaration" from the courts that blocking political speech on social media a violation of the First Amendment.

"If you're a government official, your social media is an extension of your office and you cant block people for innocuous reasons, or for political reasons" he emphasized. "If you're a government official, especially a governor, I don't think you can bifurcate your personal speech from your official speech."

In Maine, LePage has worked to do just that and distance his official position from his official social media accounts.

A few weeks ago, the governor's "about" page on Facebook was updated. It now states that the page is "official-but not managed by gov't officials," was a fan page but is now home to LePage supporters. However, the page was verified on behalf of the governor and LePage even opted into Facebook's "Town Hall" feature, which helps connect constituents and their government representatives.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and by January 2017, Hogan had reportedly blocked 450 people.

"He didnt like [the posts], but thats not enough," Legal Director for ACLU Maryland Deborah Jeon told WBFF earlier this month. "People have a First-Amendment right to their own opinions. And when the governor establishes a forum for speech between constituents and the government, then he has to listen to what they have to say, whether or not he likes it."

The governor never responded to the ACLU's letter asking him to reinstate the seven individuals banned.

Hogan reacted to the lawsuit saying it was "frivolous" and motivated by partisan politics.

"Its silly, its ridiculous," Hogan told reporters last week. "We have about a million people a week on our Facebook page. Four of them were blocked for violating our Facebook policy and now the Maryland Democratic party got them to file suit with the ACLU."

The governor has defended blocking constituents on the basis of his office's "social media policy," which ACLU claims violates the state's social media policy. Under Hogan's personal policy, comments and users can be blocked if they are deemed irrelevant to the governor's announcements or initiatives, and if the users engage in a "Coordinated Effort" to petition the office. The office claims the right to block users and comments "at any time without prior notice or without providing justification."

"I don't buy that argument," he noted, adding that such arguments get into "untested" legal areas. "This is public business. This is clearly a first amendment issue with political speech implications and the right to petition government."

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin has argued that the only comments or users being blocked are "abusive trolls" and others who are posting obscene or inappropriate content.

"Gov. Bevin is a strong advocate of constructive dialogue," his communications directed said responding to the ACLU suit. "Blocking individuals from engaging in ... inappropriate conduct on social media in no way violates their free speech right under the U.S. or Kentucky constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum."

According to the plaintiffs, there are "hundreds" of users who have been permanently blocked by Bevin, including "Kentuckians Against Matt Bevin," a public Facebook group with over 1,900 followers.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Mary Hargis, noted that while she has been critical of the governor on certain issues she was "shocked" to discover he had blocked her. "I may not have voted for Governor Bevin, but I'm one of his constituents," she said. "He shouldn't be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

As these suits are litigated and President Trump squares off against his blocked Twitter followers, it is unclear how the courts will rule, though U.S. courts tend to rule firmly in favor of protecting political speech.

"If these cases keep getting litigated and appealed ... I can actually see the Supreme Court weighing in on this a year or two down the road," Gutterman suggested. "I think it would be a soft ball."

Just recently the Court handed down its first major decision on a social media case in June, ruling unanimously that the First Amendment protected an individual from being refused access to social media. The question before the court was whether a convicted sex offender could be blocked from Facebook , Twitter and other popular social media sites.

The Supreme Court ruling is likely to provide a strong argument for the plaintiffs as the Facebook blocking cases move forward.

"Political speech ... has always been the highest level of First Amendment activity," Gutterman stated. "There's clear First Amendment action here. You've got government activity, government action and citizen expression."

Read more from the original source:
First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block ... - WJLA

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block … – WJLA

Jeffrey Lord: ‘CNN caved on the First Amendment’ when it fired him – Fox News

Posted: at 1:52 am

Conservative commentator Jeffrey Lord spoke out about being fired from CNN, saying "CNN caved" when they let him go on Thursday.

"I want to make something very clear. I have nothing but respect, affection and love for CNN. I think the world of CNN," Lord told The Associated Press. "I think they're terrific people and serious people."

Lord was given the boot after he tweeted a Nazi salute at a critic.

A network spokesperson called the Nazi salute "indefensible" in a statement, confirming that Lord was no longer with the network hours after Lord tweeted the Nazi slogan "Sieg Heil!" at the head of a liberal advocacy group, Media Matters for America.

Lord called himself a "First Amendment fundamentalist" and said CNN's decision was disappointing.

"From my perspective CNN caved on the First Amendment of all things. I disagree. I respectfully disagree."

He said his "Sieg Heil!" tweet was not an endorsement of Nazism or fascist tactics, but was meant to mock Media Matters and its use of boycotts.

He declined to get into specifics of how he was fired, saying he wanted to keep that a private conversation.

Lord may think CNN made the wrong move in letting him go, but many people on Twitter felt the network was right in saying "good riddance."

Lord is a former Reagan administration staffer who is currently a columnist for the conservative magazine The American Spectator. He was brought on to CNN in 2015 as one of the first fully pro-Trump commentators after the then-candidate first entered the GOP primary race. The network has since added pro-Trump contributors following the election.

Caving to bullies, caving to people who use fascist and Nazi-style tactics to try and remove people from the air is unacceptable, Lord toldEntertainment Weeklyafter his dismissal.

I mocked this guy. Mocking Nazis is OK. Thats a good thing, not a bad thing. A writer has only a handful of tools in his writers box, and mockery is one of them. To suggest that this is anything other than that, to my way of thinking, is caving in. And Im not going to cave.

The Anne Frank Centertweeteda rebuke of Lords use of the phrase.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The rest is here:
Jeffrey Lord: 'CNN caved on the First Amendment' when it fired him - Fox News

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Jeffrey Lord: ‘CNN caved on the First Amendment’ when it fired him – Fox News

Ripple Price Forecast: Factors Suggest XRP Cryptocurrency …

Posted: at 1:50 am

By Gaurav S. Iyer, IFC Published : August 9, 2017

While most headlines in the cryptocurrency space involve Bitcoin or Ethereum, an increasing number of investors are thinking about investing in Ripple, the bank-focused blockchain company that is taking the crypto world by storm. With that in mind, Ive put together this report with a complete Ripple price prediction in 2018.

I know the names, tokens, and details can become overwhelming. Blockchain technology is widely misunderstood in part because the industry is so young; so the articles explaining it are still technical and full of jargon. Ill do my best to fix that.

But theres another reason that blockchain is so hard to understandit is radically different from anything thats come before it.

Ripple is certainly part of this story, and not just as a Bitcoin-imitator. It is much more than that.

There are fundamental differences between Ripple and Bitcoin, Bitcoin and Ethereum, and Ethereum and Ripple. Its not enough to say Ah! Forget these crypto coins or whatever they are called! Theyre more trouble than theyre worth!

Ripple is up 3,868% from its opening price in 2013. Even in its current lull, Ethereum prices are up 5,460% in the last two years. Can you really afford to pass up these gains?

I write about investments for a living and I rarely see four-digit growth in two or three years. Those are like shooting stars on the stock market, yet they happen on a monthly basis in the crypto world.

I think the risk is potentially worth the reward, hence this investigation.

Exclusive Free Report:

The first thing to know is that Bitcoin was viewed with hostility by many banks. Bitcoin wants to eradicate them as the middlemen of transactions, which obviously represents a ton of money for the banks. They like making money every time we use a piece of plastic.

Bitcoin is fundamentally opposed to that kind of top-down control, in which the banks are at the top and we are at the bottom. Its idea is to decentralize the payments process.

Bitcoin also wants to increase transparency, which as we all know is contrary to the modus operandi of many banks. Secrecy is, and perhaps always has been, closely tied to banking.

Also Read:Bitcoin Price Prediction 2018: Should You Invest in Bitcoin?

Thats why it was so shocking to see Ripple raise $55.0 million in venture capital from a bunch of banks and other financial firms. These were the exact middlemen that looked down their nose at Bitcoinso why did they love Ripple so much?

Its about control.

In Bitcoin transactions, a record of the transaction is recorded on the public distributed ledger, which is just a fancy way of saying a universal list that is shared across the network of Bitcoin computers. Since no one person owns all the computers involved, power is distributed.

This shattering of power is essential to Bitcoin. Its an open secret that the core community of developers got on board because they lost trust in the global financial system, so the success or failure of Bitcoin is tied to a political objective.

They need to get rid of central banks. They need to remove middlemen from transactions. They need to draw on a critical mass of vendors through popular support.

That is an awfully high bar for success. Ive always said that Bitcoin hurt its own potential by aiming so high.

Ripples aims are, by comparison, much more modest, which is why my Ripple price prediction for 2018 might seem overly generous.

The company is working to smooth out the settlement process between existing banks and financial institutions (using their XRP token, of course). Plus, their system doesnt allow for the kind of anonymity that made Bitcoin popular on the black market.

In other words, there is an added measure of control in Ripple. But I dont care about the purity of the technology as much as I care about its potential to succeed in the real world.

Banks from China, Japan, India, Switzerland, Australia, America, and Canada are already working with Ripple. There are literally dozens of partners lining up to take the best parts of blockchain technology and integrate them into their firms.

To me, that looks like a successful business model. Dont throw a Molotov cocktail through someones window. Just figure out what they need, how to work with them, and then go laughing to the bank.

Like all cryptocurrencies, Ripple experienced a fierce tailwind in May. It lifted straight off the ground and took flight, reaching $0.414795 at one point. I realize that the Ripple XRP price doesnt have an impressive four-digit price like Bitcoin, but dont let that fool you.

Investing is about the percentage gain. It is a lot easier to double the Ripple price from $0.41 to $0.82 than the Bitcoin price from $1,900 to $3,800.

So dont let size confuse you. Or if you must, look to market capitalization. Its a more honest reflection of where each currency stands.

Bitcoin has the largest market cap, at $31.29 billion; Ethereum is next, at $14.03 billion; and Ripple gets the bronze, at $6.82 billion. But dont forget that Ripple has raised about $100.0 million worth of actual money from its venture capital (VC) backers.

Now, lets get to the meaty questions like Is Ripple better than Bitcoin?

Heres my take on it.

Im extremely bullish on blockchain, not Bitcoin. There is still room to the upside for BTC prices, but the incessant Bitcoin volatility suggests that it can never become a global currency. Money needs to be stable and Bitcoin is anything but stable.

So Bitcoin has a low likelihood of succeeding.

Meanwhile, Ripple is not trying to become a global currency. It is working with existing powerbrokers to become a modern blockchain-based settlement system. It has a high likelihood of succeeding, hence the high Ripple price prediction for 2018.

Faced with those two options, Im almost always going to pick the likelier outcome. Its just a matter of odds for me, not a philosophical battle about good versus evil, us versus the central banks. I have no interest in that kind of political fight.

I just want to make money. Right now the XRP price looks deliciously favorable to that objective.

See more here:
Ripple Price Forecast: Factors Suggest XRP Cryptocurrency ...

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Ripple Price Forecast: Factors Suggest XRP Cryptocurrency …

Can NEO Become The Largest Cryptocurrency in the World? – HuffPost

Posted: at 1:50 am

Cryptocurrencies are the talk of the town these days, and investors and programmers around the world are searching for systems that will provide the greatest level of support and return. One such currency, NEO, has the makings of the largest and most important cryptocurrency in the world.

The cryptocurrencies that most people are familiar with are Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin has been in the news because of the recent fork in the currency, resulting in Bitcoin Cash. However, the blockchain that Bitcoin is supported by is limited in its effectiveness for creating and running programs. In fact, only currencies and not programs are not possible on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Ethereum was invented four years ago as a way to both monetize the blockchain and allow for programmers to build apps and programs on the chain itself. Ethereum is both a cryptocurrency (ETH) and a blockchain that allows for smart contracts and some programming languages. Built by Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum still retains the anti-establishmentarianism of Bitcoin, while allowing for more programming and transaction applications.

NEO is the new name for the upgraded version of Antshares, a digital platform developed in China. NEO is a radically different and more powerful version of Antshares and presents massive opportunity for investors and programmers alike.

To begin with, NEO creates a unique digital economy around its token. NEO is a full integration of digital assets, digital identity, and smart contracts, creating a fully digitized economy that will be transparent and safe, and make money laundering and underground dealings difficult or impossible. Because of the ability of the new NEO blockchain system, companies and developers will be seeking to use NEO for various applications. The proliferation of smart contracts will make investment on the NEO platform simple and safe.

Second, NEO is unique among blockchain cryptocurrencies because of the versatility of the blockchain it is based on. Unlike Bitcoin, which only allows for the cryptocurrencies and no programming, NEO is very simple to learn and understand (unlike Ethereum), and has the ability to work with nearly every (90%) programming language available. NEO uses compilers compatible with Java, C#, and .NET, and will support Python, Go, and others in the near future. Unlike Ethereum, this diversity allows for a far more complex array of programs and apps that can be run on the NEO blockchain, and opens doors for extensive partnerships. With ease of learning and robust compatibility, NEO is poised to overtake Ethereum and others as the blockchain of choice.

Third, NEO is different philosophically. Rather than seeking simple rejection of the overall control of governments, NEO is designed to work within the framework of existing government control, while still providing freedom and autonomy to its users. This is a far more realistic perspective than the anti-government rhetoric of other blockchains, and will result in far greater investment and acceptance.

Fourth, NEO is not based on a proof-of-work mechanism, and so there is no mining necessary. This has been a huge detriment to both Bitcoin and ETH, as mining is so energy intensive and public opinion is turning against miners and the blockchain systems they support. NEO utilizes an ether-gas system for production and continuation, but protects the environment against over consumption of energy.

NEO, though relatively new, has already entered the top ten list of cryptocurrencies based on overall market cap. While this may seem like a small feat, a newer coin that has been recently released never enters the top ten in this way. NEO has had an explosive beginning as a cryptocurrency.

The future for NEO is bright, as the world begins to understand the complexity and simple elegance that is built into the NEO blockchain system. NEO will continue to gain market share (as already evidenced), and may surpass even Bitcoin in terms of its market share. As companies, investment firms, programmers and others realize the power and versatility of NEO, it may well grow to be the largest cryptocurrency in the world. Its design and features have positioned NEO to be massively successful in the coming years.

Brian is an international speaker and branding expert. Say hi to Brian at connect@brianrashid.com

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more here:
Can NEO Become The Largest Cryptocurrency in the World? - HuffPost

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Can NEO Become The Largest Cryptocurrency in the World? – HuffPost

What Would Happen if Cryptocurrency Became More Popular Than Cash? – Futurism

Posted: at 1:50 am

In BriefIt's not outlandish to think that our current financial systemwill soon be replaced by cryptocurrency, and the shift will bringabout some big changes to the global economy. The Flippening

For a time, Bitcoin seemed unassailable in its dominance of the cryptocurrency market,being the first digital currency to really take root and establish itself in the mainstream. Since then, a host of worthy competitors have emerged, and theres a real possibility that the balance of power could flip.

Many who have been regularly followingdevelopments in the cryptocurrency market refer to the tipping point where one digital currency supersedes another as the flippening We almost saw this occur in May 2017, when Ethereums market cap approached Bitcoins amid a surge in popularity.

When individuals have significant amounts of money invested in one cryptocurrency over another, its no surprise that tensions run high when they go head to head. However, these squabbles over which coin is best might be distracting us froma more pressing issue.

Some observers would argue that the true flippeningisnt a case of competition between two different forms of cryptocurrency at all. Thesea of change yet to come could have more far reaching consequences, if and when digital currency as a whole becomes more popular than conventional fiat currency.

There would be some major advantages to an all-cryptocurrency future: its value cant be manipulated as easy as fiat currency, and it lends itself to the concept of universal basic income.In fact, several different programs, such as uCoin and Cicada, are already using cryptocurrencyto distribute UBI.

In a future where our transactions with shops and services are likely to be handled by automated systems, cryptocurrency removes many of the intermediaries that would take their own cut. There are many benefits for the individual, but the flippening stands to pose some major challenges for the global economy in its current form.

Should cryptocurrency manage to jump ahead of fiat money in terms of usage, cash wont be able to close the gap. Thats the trick to the flippening once changeover takes place, the losing party loses value and cant do anything about it.

If everyone begins using cryptocurrency, infrastructure would need to bedevelopedwith that in mind. It might not take too long for cash to become incompatible. At this point,it remains to be seen whether established financial institutions could pivot to that new status quo in time.

At the highest level, governments will be hit hard, as they will no longer exercisethe same level of control over the countrys currency. The idea of printing more money has been raised time and time again in response to financial turmoil, but that option disappears once currency has to be mined.

The flip from fiat money to cryptocurrency is a very real prospect, and it could well change the face of how our society spends and saves.

See the rest here:
What Would Happen if Cryptocurrency Became More Popular Than Cash? - Futurism

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on What Would Happen if Cryptocurrency Became More Popular Than Cash? – Futurism