Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos insists he’s a big fan of the First Amendment.

That’s what the Republican legislator from Racine County said to justify his belief that corporations, businesses, labor unions or anyone else should be able to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns.

The Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision, the one that declared that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individual citizens, was spot on, the speaker declared as he and Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca engaged in a debate before a packed WisPolitics.com luncheon last week.

Barca had just declared that the biggest threat to American democracy was the court’s decision that money equals speech. The Kenosha Democrat added that it’s critically important to overturn the decision that opened the floodgates to unlimited spending in political races.

But a smug and confident Vos, cocksure that Scott Walker would be re-elected governor and the Republicans would continue to control the Legislature after Nov. 4, was having none of it. He also declared that not only should corporations be able to give, the so-called independent issue groups should be able to collaborate with a candidate’s campaign as well. (That’s currently illegal under Wisconsin law and its alleged violation by Walker backers is behind the controversial John Doe investigation.)

I’m a huge believer in the First Amendment, he declared, as if there’s no question that the Founding Fathers intended to include corporations in the Bill of Rights.

It was interesting to learn that Vos suddenly had such respect for the constitutional amendment authored by James Madison to protect minority views from “the tyranny of the majority.” (It’s apparently hard for Vos and the 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court to admit that the Founding Fathers only mentioned individual American citizens in their deliberations.)

Vos is the same guy, after all, who has been a consistent defender of secret legislative caucuses and was behind the move to forbid the Governmental Accountability Board from allowing online access to campaign contribution disclosure forms filed by legislators.

He was also one of the instigators of tough rules to limit demonstrations in the State Capitol during and after the protests in 2011, including prohibiting cameras and other recording devices in the Assembly balconies.

But when it comes to corporations-as-citizens, he’s suddenly a firm believer in that First Amendment.

Original post:
Plain Talk: Robin Vos gets First Amendment religion

Whether the crypto-currency in this documentary film is viewed as the inevitable future of e-commerce or a speculative bubble destined to burst, “The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin” makes for an enlightening primer.

Using his bitcoin-obsessed computer-programmer brother Dan as a tour guide, filmmaker Nicholas Mross takes a straight-ahead, even-handed approach to the controversial payment system.

Tracing the bitcoin to 2009, when a shadowy figure with the moniker Satoshi Nakamoto first floated the open source, peer-to-peer concept of “global decentralized money,” the documentary follows a community of tech geeks who were among the early adopters.

They were soon joined by a parade of high-rolling speculators, libertarians and black market dealers who were all attracted to the notion of a currency that wasn’t tied to the institutional banking system or personal identity.

Inevitably the federal regulators caught up (one of the film’s subjects notes that historically, regulation evolves slower than innovation) and crackdowns and subpoenas followed.

As a result, several of those featured bitcoin millionaires are later shown filing for bankruptcy or, in the case of Charlie Shrem, former chief executive of the early bitcoin exchange BitInstant, being arrested. (Last month he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business.)

Despite subsequent damage inflicted by hackers and scammers, the bitcoin (currently hovering around $380 to $385) endures.

————————————–

‘The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin’

MPAA rating: None

See the original post:
'Rise and Rise of Bitcoin' a clear-cut take on digital currency

By Anne Halliwell

ahalliwell@kykernel.com

After an unexpected demonstration of free speech rights Wednesday, students and teachers from Louisvilles duPont Manual High School received an opportunity to put the lessons they learned into action.

U.S. Senate write-in candidate Robert Ransdell spoke at Citizen Kentuckys Constitution Day event at the Student Center Wednesday and voiced his controversial political beliefs to the audience. Ransdell had used the event to speak about his With Jews We Lose campaign for the 2014 election. James Miller, a duPont Manual journalism teacher, spoke immediately after Ransdell was removed from the stage and denounced his use of the public platform to promote his ideology.

Several duPont Manual student reporters for the Manual Red Eye school media website stayed in their computer lab after school to put video and a print story online, Miller said.

We had a lengthy discussion about the First Amendment, freedom of speech, the obligation of public and private universities to provide a platform for invited speakers, said Miller, who attended the event with 35 students to receive the Enoch Grehan Journalism award.

Miller provided expertise and a sounding board for his journalism students, along with his wife, Liz Palmer, who also won the Enoch Grehan award Wednesday and is a teacher at duPont Manual. Palmer and Miller did not control the content that the students produced, Miller said.

We are very much in mind of a prevailing idea that the students are the editors, he said.

Some of Millers students have expressed disbelief about Ransdells right to speak at all, which is not the point of his speech immediately following Ransdells speech on Wednesday, Miller said.

The issue is not whether Ransdell has the right to share his opinions with the public, but whether UK should have informed Miller and Palmer about Ransdell so they could decide for themselves whether to warn their students or opt not to attend, Miller said.

View post:
duPont Manual High School students learn from speech

Sep 172014

Stuff.co.nz

John Key says journalist Glenn Greenwald got it wrong over mass surveillance taking place in New Zealand.

Prime Minister John Key cannot rule out that the United States National Security Agency is undertaking mass surveillance of New Zealanders’ data but has rejected claims New Zealand spies would have access to such information.

“What I can say is the GCSB [Government Communications Security Bureau] does not have access to any information through XKeyscore or any other database, unless they basically comply with the New Zealand law, and the New Zealand law forbids that unless there is a warrant to do so,” he said.

Asked whether that was an admission GCSB spies on occasion used the controversial XKeyscore programme, Key declined to elaborate.

“I don’t talk about whatever programmes they have,” he said.

* Beehive Live

* NZ spied on allies: Greenwald

*Opinion: We deserve answers on spying

* Opinion: Spy scandal impact on election far from certain

See the article here:
NSA spying can't be ruled out: PM

Many have criticized a message sent around last week by University of California atBerkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, which spoke about free speech and civility. (See, for instance, the items by Ken White (Popehat) and Greg Lukianoff (FIRE).) I think much of the criticism has merit, and, like many institutional exhortations, the message was mushy enough that it could be used in many different ways, some bad.

But one thing at the heart of the e-mail (which I quote at the end of the post) strikes me as quite right: civility is extremely important to the work of the university as it is to the work of other institutions and it is quite right that universities stress this to incoming students. Universities shouldnt have speech codes restricting uncivil speech; but lots of things that shouldnt be forbidden should nonetheless be spoken out against, especially by institutions whose job is to teach. The skills and habits of civil, productive discourse are worth teaching, just as are other skills and habits related to the acquisition and discussion of knowledge.

If Dirkss message is indeed, as some understandably suspect, a prelude to an attempt to punish supposedly uncivil speech, that would be bad. (I set aside here the proper power of professors to ensure that class discussion is civil by cutting off students who insult other students.) But if it is an attempt to persuade people to act civilly, then this goal strikes me as something that a university chancellor should indeed be trying to promote.

And that civility is hard to precisely define, and that people may disagree about what exactly it means in particular contexts, is hardly a reason to stop urging it. Unsound argument, disingenuosness, and lack of scholarly rigor are hard to define, too, but that doesnt mean that universities shouldnt try to teach students the opposite. It would be a great loss if rejecting civility codes turned into rejecting civility norms and the speech (by chancellors, deans, professors, and others) used to buttress those norms.

Here is how I would have written Dirkss message, using many of his words and trying to keep close to the length of the original. I think this might be pretty close to what Dirks meant to say (in my experience, most scholars of all ideological stripes do care a lot about civility), but in any case, I think its worth saying.

This Fall marks the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, which made the right to free expression of ideas a signature issue for our campus, and indeed for universities around the world. Free speech is the cornerstone of our nation and society which is precisely why the founders of the country wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution. For a half century now, our University has been a symbol and embodiment of that ideal. We continue to honor it today.

But while protecting free speech is necessary to maintaining an open, democratic society and to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the universitys mission it is not sufficient. We also need a willingness to listen. We need a willingness to engage in intellectually honest debate rather than in demagoguery. We need commitment to the requirements and disciplines of academic knowledge, so that what we say will be more likely to be factually accurate and logically sound.

And we particularly need civility. Learning, research, and debate are social endeavors, which work best when people engage in them graciously and politely, and which work poorly when people are needlessly rude and disrespectful to each other. When people know that expressing certain views will lead to name-calling and ad hominem arguments, they will be less likely to express those views. When people are treated disrespectfully by some on the other side of a debate, they will be less open to being convinced, and less likely to work hard to convince others. And this is true not just of political speech on Sproul Plaza, but also in our everyday interactions with each other in the classroom, in the office, and in the lab.

This is especially so when issues are inherently divisive, controversial, and capable of arousing strong feelings. We will protect peoples rights to freely express themselves on these issues (even when they do so uncivilly), and we strongly encourage people to engage those issues. Indeed, the work of the University and a commitment to intellectual honesty demand that people engage those issues, despite their controversial nature. But nearly every idea that people want to express can be expressed politely and expressing it politely is almost always more persuasive, as well as being more conducive to learning, debate, and the discovery of knowledge.

Finally, the university is a place to learn, and one of the habits and skills we teach is constructive, thoughtful discussion that persuades rather than alienating. You will need these habits and skills as scholars, as professionals, and as participants in civic life. Committing ourselves to civility as well as to free inquiry is an important step for all of us in our continuing education.

View original post here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Free speech and civility at universities

Sea Shepherd activists being arrested for obstructing a whale hunt in the Faroe Islands. Photo: Sea Shepherd.

An Australian filmmaker arrested in a Faroe Islands protest has described as horrendous apilot whale hunt she was trying to prevent.

Krystal Keynes, 28, was driving a Sea Shepherd speedboat, donated to the campaign by US actor Charlie Sheen, when she was chased down by the Danish navy.

Ms Keynes, from Exmouth in Western Australia, said she was brought ashore under arrest and marched past whales killed in the local community’s “grind”, or whale hunt.

“We were led past a pile of dead whales, and the people who did it were walking around with their children, laughing and joking,” Ms Keynes told Fairfax Media.

Advertisement

“It was one of the most horrendous things I’ve ever seen in my whole life. It’s as ifthe Faroese live in a bubble where this is all right.”

The WA woman was among activists attempting to end the controversial tradition in the North Atlantic islands.

The hunt involves men in small boats herding passing pilot whales onshore at outlying islands of the Danish dependency. The whale meat is eaten.

The activists claim to have driven three pods of pilot whales away from the islands successfully until last Saturday when a large pod was surrounded.

Continue reading here:
Australian arrested in Sea Shepherd whale hunt protest



TheSpeaker … A Film About Freedom
This controversial movie was produced by the American Library Association in 1977 to encourage discussion around the First Amendment and freedom of speech. It was digitized and provided in…

By: OIFTube

View post:
TheSpeaker … A Film About Freedom – Video

Chief James Craig on citizens’ use of guns: Detroit’s top cop explains his controversial support of the Second Amendment Craig said he is not encouraging vigilantism, saying vigilantes are cowards who take the law into their own hands and should be punished. / Daniel Mears / The Detroit News

See the original post:
Craig stands by 2nd Amendment support in wake of NRA magazine cover story

Several high-profile commencement speakers have withdrawn or been ‘disinvited’ because of protests. Free-speech advocates worry that today’s students only want speech they like.

The decisions by both International Monetary Fund director Christine Lagarde and Robert Birgeneau, former chancellor of the University of California, to withdraw as planned commencement speakers are only the latest in a rash of controversies this commencement season.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

Other planned speakers, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, womens rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Oscar-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, have all either been disinvited from speaking or withdrew in the face of significant student protest.

The phenomenon isnt new; its become such a rite of passage in the spring that some free-speech advocates have started calling the spring disinvitation season. But its a trend that some believe is growing, and that many observers worry is shifting college campuses away from being a free marketplace of ideas.

Its incredibly disappointing that commencement speakers get cancelled because of the controversial nature of their remarks, says Ken Paulson, president of Vanderbilt Universitys First Amendment Center and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. We need more people to come in and raise hell on college campuses and provide challenging ideas and concepts.

By booking someone to speak at your commencement, youre not issuing a blanket endorsement of who they are or what they do, he adds. Given the amount of boring commencement speakers weve all heard, youd think it would be refreshing to hear someone provocative.

Ms. Lagarde, the IMF chief, was scheduled to speak at Smith College until a petition began circulating among students criticizing the IMF as a primary culprit in the failed developmental policies implanted in some of the worlds poorest countries and demanding that Lagarde be reconsidered as the commencement speaker.

Share those pearls of wisdom, send us your best graduation advice!

Read more from the original source:
Protesting commencement speakers: What happened to free speech on campus? (+video)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) — Free speech has consequences — especially when business interests are involved.

That’s a lesson most recently learned by real estate professionals David and Jason Benham, who lost the HGTV show they were scheduled to host after a recording of David Benham’s anti-homosexuality views emerged.

Should the Benham brothers have lost their HGTV show?

After the site Right Wing Watch published a post about the pair and posted a recording of Benham talking to a talk show host about “homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation,” HGTV dropped their planned show, called “Flip It Forward.”

“HGTV has decided not to move forward with the Benham Brothers’ series,” the network tweeted after the post went public.

The Benhams aren’t the first ones to lose work over their words. Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was banned for life from the team’s day-to-day operations and facilities — and fined $2.5 million — for racist comments that were recorded and posted online. Paula Deen became an ex-Food Network host after she admitted to using a racial slur. “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson was suspended after his controversial comments on homosexuals were published, though the A&E show has stayed on the air.

Opinion: What happened to Sterling was morally wrong

Regardless of the platform, the personal, political and corporate have ways of getting entangled with one another these days — particularly when corporations try to maintain very public reputations of welcoming diversity and inclusiveness, says crisis management consultant Eric Dezenhall.

“I defy you to go to a corporate meeting and not hear words incanted over and over again: ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusiveness,’ ‘transparency,’ ‘corporate social responsibility,’ ‘sustainability,’ et cetera,” he says. “If you step out of the narrow margins on some of these issues, there’s going to be a problem.”

Go here to read the rest:
Underneath all the speech controversies, it's just business

Summary: The bill, passed by Russia’s upper house, will land on Putin’s desk. Opponents worry the law will stifle political expression and protest in a region dogged by free speech issues.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to sign into law in the coming days a bill that passed the upper house of the state parliament on Tuesday.

Critics have likened the controversial bill as an attempt to stifle online dissent and anger that has been building by Putin’s opponents over the past two years.

The Federation Council approved by a wide majority new controls on Russian blogs and websites that see more than 3,000 daily visits. The Russian government says the law is designed to formalize “blogging” under Russian law, whereas opponents say it will restrict free speech in the country.

The law now needs to be signed into force by Putin, a former agent with the country’s internal security service. Putin rarely declines to sign or vetoes legislation passed by the two houses of the State Duma, which is dominated by the political party loyal to the president.

With more than 61 million online users in the country, Russia remains one of the largest growing online economies in the world.

The international community has in recent months continued to mount pressure against Russia for its domestic and foreign policies.

Russia remains in exile from the G8 economic member states after it annexed Crimea, a district of Ukraine, earlier this year following a referendum widely believed to be illegal under international law.Economic and trade sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. and the West, although European countries remain on the sidelines as they rely heavily on Nordic and Russian gas supplies.

The law will allow the government to fine bloggers, citizen journalists, and activists,up to $900 who fail to register as members of the media, and further fines if bloggers fail to uphold the Kremlin’s strict media rules.

Affected Russian bloggers and citizen journalists will be forced to check facts which can be disputed by the courts and the government, and to remain silent during elections. Injunctions can also be imposed on those classified as spreading “extremism,” which can include pornography or “obscene language.”

Read this article:
Russia's free speech crackdown aims to stifle bloggers, censor Putin's political rivals

The Eleventh Circuit, the FISC, and Magistrate Judge Facciola have cases pending (or recently handed down decisions) involving this controversial new approach to the Fourth Amendment. Here's a run-down of the latest developments.

Read more here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Courts grapple with the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment

Activists protesting the shooting death of 13-year-old Andy Lopez will have a free speech platform near the food court of the Santa Rosa Plaza, where just three weeks ago security guards ordered them to leave.

With the cooperation of mall owner Simon Property Group, the activists are scheduled to set up a table to distribute political literature, buttons and T-shirts related to the controversial Oct. 22 shooting death of the 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy.

The literature will include a fact sheet about the shooting and a petition calling for the prosecution of Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy Erick Gelhaus. The 24-year law enforcement veteran told investigators he shot Lopez on Moorland Avenue, just outside city limits, because he mistook the boy’s airsoft BB gun for an assault rifle.

Simon gave its consent Wednesday afternoon in a letter sent to Jonathan Melrod, the attorney for the Justice Coalition for Andy Lopez.

Mall management has confirmed that they are happy to cooperate and accommodate this request and have advised that they will provide a 6-8 foot skirted table to meet your needs, wrote Mark Payne, Simon’s senior associate general counsel.

Melrod called Simon’s concession a great victory for free speech rights that provides a modicum of respect to the loss the Lopez family suffered.

The move on Simon’s part represents a significant departure from its strict policy of not allowing protest banners, signs or shirts on the day of a scheduled protest, Melrod said.

Payne’s letter Wednesday was a response to a letter Melrod sent Monday notifying Simon that activists were planning to set up the table on March 29 for an indefinite period.

Melrod said the table was aimed at exercising free speech rights spelled out in the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, which he said affirms the California Constitution’s extension of First Amendment rights at semi-public areas such as shopping centers.

(page 2 of 2)

See original here:
Lopez activists to get 'free speech' table at Santa Rosa mall

Activists protesting the shooting death of 13-year-old Andy Lopez will have a free speech platform near the food court of the Santa Rosa Plaza, where just three weeks ago security guards ordered them to leave.

With the cooperation of mall owner Simon Property Group, the activists are scheduled to set up a table to distribute political literature, buttons and T-shirts related to the controversial Oct. 22 shooting death of the 13-year-old Santa Rosa boy.

The literature will include a fact sheet about the shooting and a petition calling for the prosecution of Sonoma County sheriff’s deputy Erick Gelhaus. The 24-year law enforcement veteran told investigators he shot Lopez on Moorland Avenue, just outside city limits, because he mistook the boy’s airsoft BB gun for an assault rifle.

Simon gave its consent Wednesday afternoon in a letter sent to Jonathan Melrod, the attorney for the Justice Coalition for Andy Lopez.

Mall management has confirmed that they are happy to cooperate and accommodate this request and have advised that they will provide a 6-8 foot skirted table to meet your needs, wrote Mark Payne, Simon’s senior associate general counsel.

Melrod called Simon’s concession a great victory for free speech rights that provides a modicum of respect to the loss the Lopez family suffered.

The move on Simon’s part represents a significant departure from its strict policy of not allowing protest banners, signs or shirts on the day of a scheduled protest, Melrod said.

Payne’s letter Wednesday was a response to a letter Melrod sent Monday notifying Simon that activists were planning to set up the table on March 29 for an indefinite period.

Melrod said the table was aimed at exercising free speech rights spelled out in the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, which he said affirms the California Constitution’s extension of First Amendment rights at semi-public areas such as shopping centers.

(page 2 of 2)

See the article here:
Lopez activists to get mall spot



Religious freedom or discrimination?
Crossfire hosts Van Jones S.E. Cupp debate the controversial Arizona 'religious freedom' bill with Neera Tanden and Peter Sprigg. More from CNN at http://w…

By: CNN

Continue reading here:
Religious freedom or discrimination? – Video



Controversial Religious Freedom Bill
Celebrations erupted after Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the controversial Religious Freedom Bill.

By: Oregons FOX

Go here to see the original:
Controversial Religious Freedom Bill – Video

By Ryanne Wise and Erika Brock

The minority leader in the Indiana House is drafting an amendment to strip the controversial second sentence out of a constitutional proposal to ban same sex marriage.

But Rep. Scott Pelath said he’s not certain he’ll call the language for a vote. Instead, the Michigan City Democrat said he’s analyzing the best way to defeat the proposal.

The constitutional amendment – House Joint Resolution 3 – would, first, define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The second sentence would prohibit any legal relationship that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage.

“My first approach is to extinguish the obvious stink bomb of the second sentence and if they are going to insist to move this forward, let’s at least get that monstrous language out of there,” Pelath said. “The second approach is letting HJR 3 die under its own lumbering brontosaurus-like weight.”

Pelath said he’ll talk to members of the Democratic caucus – who hold just 31 of the chamber’s 100 seats – before deciding how to proceed.

An amendment to HJR 3 means the constitutional amendment process would likely restart. That could postpone a possible ratification by voters from this fall to 2016.

Republicans will likely be waiting for Pelath’s decision as well. Rep. Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne, voted for HJR 3 when it came before the House Elections Committee this week. But later, he said that he may vote against the proposal when it reaches the House floor next week.

Cox said he wants to “reconsider” the second sentence. He cited concerns raised by a lawyer with Indiana University, who said the provision threatens the school’s ability to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

“I thought IU’s council made some points that certainly need further discussion,” Cox said. “The caucus really wanted this to come to the floor. I can understand that. If it remains intact, I certainly reserve the right to vote no.”

Excerpt from:
Pelath seeks best strategy for defeating HJR 3



Duck Dynasty s Hometown Shows Devil Coming. The Accuser cast out of heaven. Illuminati Freemason .
Duck Dynasty s Hometown Shows Devil Coming. The Accuser cast out of heaven. Illuminati Freemason . An investigative look into the Controversial Duck Dynasty …

By: Video Max Tex

See the article here:
Duck Dynasty s Hometown Shows Devil Coming. The Accuser cast out of heaven. Illuminati Freemason . – Video

The city of Seattle will pay $38,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation over failure to release public records relating to Mayor Mike McGinns January gun buyback.

The settlement was signed today by Carl Marquardt, legal counsel to mayor Mike McGinn, and includes an apology for the mayors offices failure to releaserecords about the controversial buyback program that netted about 700 guns but also provoked criticism from public health and gun-rights advocates that it wouldnt reduce gun violence.

The city of Seattle acknowledges that it had a duty under the Washington Public Records Act to provide all documents in response to the Second Amendment Foundations public disclosure request in a timely manner, and that it did not do so While the initial failure to produce records in this case was unintentional, the city acknowledges that it did not meet the requirements of the Public Records Act, and for that we sincerely apologize.

The statement goes on to say that the city is working to improve its processes for locating documents and responding to public-records requests. The Seattle Police Department earlier this year paid $20,000 to The Seattle Times to settle a claim that it had not released public records as required by state law.

In February, the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, requested all communications and related documents about the gun buyback andin response received from the city more than 1,500 emails between five McGinn staffers. But in June, a reporter for Seattlepi.com wrote thathis own public-records request showedthat the states most prominent gun control group, Washington CeaseFire, was not notified about the gun buyback before it was announced.

Ralph Fascitelli, president ofWashington CeaseFire, emailed the mayor when he learned of the plans and told him that buybacks often backfire and thatthe overwhelming research shows that they are a waste of resources, according to the Seattlepi.com report.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the emails detailed in the news story were not previously disclosed to the organization. In filing the lawsuit, he accused McGinns staff of playing games with the governments legal requirement to be transparent and accountable.

Here is the original post:
Withheld documents about gun buyback will cost city $38,000



MPs insist Bill not meant to curtail Media freedom
Members of parliament are defending themselves over the passage of the controversial Kenya Information and communications Bill, saying the bill is not out to…

By: NTV Kenya

Originally posted here:
MPs insist Bill not meant to curtail Media freedom – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com