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

Liberty House – 207 Photos – American (New) – Jersey City …

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty House – 207 Photos – American (New) – Jersey City …
Aug 082015
 

I was here last night for dinner, with 3 girlfriends. We made a reservation weeks prior, simply due to the fact that it’s the holiday season and we figured it would be busy!

Once we walked in, we were greeted by the hostess, she showed us to our table and gave us the drink menu. Within 5 minutes we were introduced to our waiter, he took our drink order, told us the specials and left us with menus.

Being that this was all of our first times here we order a little bit of everything. For starters, drinks, obviously the most important, 3 cosmos and an extra dirty martini, all super yummy, yet a tiny bit to strong. For appetizer we ordered the sushi special, which was average, I’ve had better sushi at a take out place. The sausage risotto, which had wayyyyyy to much blue cheese on it, the organic salad, just your plain old salad, and the calamari, which was actually perfectly cooked. For dinner, we ordered the hanger steak, short ribs and the cod special. Presentation was very nice portion size was decent, but in my opinion a little small considering the large price tag. Everything was fresh though! For dessert we ordered the apple strudel, which was alright, not the best I’ve had. All that for 4 people came to $238, my opinion, just a tad pricey!!!

The view is great, but, during the winter you can’t really sit outside and enjoy the view, and to be honest, I’m not paying for the view, I’m paying for the food!

Service was great! Our server was clearly knowledgeable of the food he was serving which is great!

All in all, I would come back! Maybe during the summer so I can enjoy the view!

Here is the original post:
Liberty House – 207 Photos – American (New) – Jersey City …

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker
Jul 222015
 

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup dtat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.

But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outr constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weaponslike tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weaponslike, say, an assault rifleor so it appears. The full meaning of the courts Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressureas they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.

Photograph by Mario Tama/Getty.

Sign up for the daily newsletter.Sign up for the daily newsletter: the best of The New Yorker every day.

Read more:
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? – The New Yorker

Tax Havens

 Tax Havens  Comments Off on Tax Havens
Jun 032015
 

Offshore tax havens were once associated with very wealthy individuals, which is no longer the case nowadays. More than a decade ago we, a group of lawyers and accountants, started using offshore havens for our own investment purposes. The use of offshore entities in tax havens proved to be a wise and rewarding decision. We started off by providing these same services to friends and family, and then in 2002 we expanded our services, which proved to be a success, because we are still offering very personal services for our friends and families and a large customer base and at low-costs.

We have our sister companies or our lawyers licensed to provide offshore services in all tax havens that we offer, so you can be assured that our services are regulated and in all these districts, strict confidentiality is assured by law.

We sell two several types of tax free or low tax company packages. The International Business Corporation, IBC , the Limited Liability Company, LLC, the UK Limited Liability Partnership and US LLCs.

We offer fast, low cost and professional offshore company incorporation services online in Anguilla, Belize, BVI, Dominica, Gibraltar, Nevis, Panama and Seychelles. We also make sure we have the full range of supplementary services, such as bank accounts in well established banks in Europe and the Caribbean.

We offer offshore trust formation services in Belize and Nevis, two places that, in our opinion, offer best legislation for the trust . The trust is well suited for asset protection and wealth planning.

We offer offshore foundations formation, and registration services offshore foundations which have a similar concept to the trust, but have a legal personality on their own and are based on a mixture of civil and common law concepts. Offshore Private Interest Foundations have gained significant popularity among professionals and private investors and have been successfully utilized for asset protection and inheritance planning. We sell foundations from countries that have rewritten modern and attractive laws for the foundation . The following offshore foundations are offered by our company: Anguilla Foundation, Belize International Foundation, Nevis Multiform Foundation and Panama Private Interest Foundation.

Inour highly litigated world every business person orwealthy individual has toadopt some kind ofasset protection structure. Properly utilized offshore asset protection strategies will protect your wealth and property inthe best possible manner. Weoffer specially designed bulletproof offshore asset protection packages that include the trust orfoundation, anLLCor anIBC.

Our main clients are businessmen and individual investors who wish toreorganize orexpand their businesses inamore profitable way, save ontax payments orsafeguard their investments inasafe haven environment. Wealso provide services tocorporate clients, some ofwhom are multinational well recognized companies.

Please take your time tobrowse through our website. Wehope that you find the answers toyour questions and chooseus tobecome your offshore service provider.

More here:
Tax Havens

Volokh Conspiracy: Federal court rejects Third Amendment claim against police officers

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Federal court rejects Third Amendment claim against police officers
Mar 242015
 

Back in 2013, a lot of attention focused on a Third Amendment claim against Henderson, Nevada police officers. I wrote about the case here. The Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owners consent, is often the butt of jokes because it is so rarely litigated. But in this case, a Nevada family claimed that local police had violated the Amendment by forcibly occupying their home in order to gain a tactical advantage against suspected criminals in the neighboring house.

In this recent ruling, federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed the Third Amendment claim [HT: VC reader Sean Flaim]. Although it occurred several weeks ago, the ruling seems to have gotten very little attention from either the media or legal commentators outside Nevada. That is unfortunate, because the ruling raises important issues about the scope of the Third Amendment, and its applicability against state and local governments. A Here are the key passages from the opinion:

In the present case, various officers of the HPD and NLVPD entered into and occupied Lindas and Michaels home for an unspecified amount of time (seemingly nine hours), but certainly for less than twenty-four hours. The relevant questions are thus whether municipal police should be considered soldiers, and whether the time they spent in the house could be considered quartering. To both questions, the answer must be no.

I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment. This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment. Because I hold that municipal officers are not soldiers for the purposes of this question, I need not reach the question of whether the occupation at issue in this case constitutes quartering, though I suspect it would not.

This reasoning is very plausible and quite possibly correct. But it may too readily conclude that municipal police can never be considered soldiers for purposes of the Amendment. When the Amendment was enacted in 1791, there were virtually no professional police of the sort we have today. The distinction between military and law enforcement officials was far less clear than in the world of 2015. Moreover, many parts of the Bill of Rights were in part of inspired by abuses committed by British troops attempting to enforce various unpopular laws enacted by Parliament.

A second complicating factor is the increasing militarization of police forces in many parts of the country, which has resulted in cops using weapons and tactics normally associated with military forces. If a state or local government decides to quarter a SWAT team in a private home, it is not clear whether that is meaningfully different from placing a National Guard unit there.

In sum, Judge Gordon may well be right that the officers involved in this case are not plausibly considered soldiers under the Third Amendment. But he is too quick to conclude that no municipal police officer could ever qualify as such.

The issue of how long the soldiers (or militarized police) have to stay in a private home before their occupation of it qualifies as quartering is also a tough question. Without actually resolving the issue, Judge Gordon suspects that a 9 to 24 hour period is too short. I am not convinced. It seems to me that spending one night in the house does qualify as quartering, albeit for only a brief period. Just as the First Amendment covers even brief restrictions on freedom of speech and the Fifth Amendment requires compensation for the taking of even small amounts of private property, so the Third Amendment forbids even brief involuntary quartering of troops in private homes.

It is also worth noting that the Third Amendment is (along with the Seventh Amendment) one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights that has not yet been incorporated against state governments by the Supreme Court. Judge Gordon follows a 1982 Second Circuit decision in concluding that the Amendment does apply to state governments. I think that is almost certainly the right conclusion. Over the last few decades, leading scholars on different sides of the political spectrum have converged on the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment was originally understood to incorporate all of the individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It would be anomalous for courts to refuse to apply the Third Amendment to the states when almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights does apply to them. A future Supreme Court decision on the subject would need to address the issue in more detail than Judge Gordon gives it here.

The difficult issues raised by the militarization of police forces suggest that it may be time to stop treating the Third Amendment as just a punchline for clever legal humor. Contrary to popular belief, there have been some egregious violations of the Amendment in the past, and we should not be too quick to assume such things wont recur.

Follow this link:
Volokh Conspiracy: Federal court rejects Third Amendment claim against police officers

Oklahoma fraternity’s racist song: Opinion Show for March 18, 2015 – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Oklahoma fraternity’s racist song: Opinion Show for March 18, 2015 – Video
Mar 242015
 



Oklahoma fraternity's racist song: Opinion Show for March 18, 2015
Elizabeth Sullivan leads the discussion as to whether the Oklahoma fraternity's racist song video that was made public recently and the punishment violates the First Amendment right to…

By: cleveland.com

Read the original post:
Oklahoma fraternity’s racist song: Opinion Show for March 18, 2015 – Video

Spotlight On: Tribal Worldwides Director of SEO, Steve Liu

 SEO  Comments Off on Spotlight On: Tribal Worldwides Director of SEO, Steve Liu
Mar 092015
 

Tribal Worldwide’s director of SEO, Steve Liu, established the search practice of the agency when he joined in 2012. He now leads the department, working on anything and everything SEO, including keyword search, content strategy, link strategy, and social media.

Search Engine Watch (SEW):Some say that SEO is dead. What are your thoughts on that?

Steve Liu (SL): I think there are two schools of thought on SEO. One school is you use technical tactics. For example, you use certain keywords, and you try to acquire links. Another school is you try to optimize user experience. Instead of saying we need to start using these keywords in this content, we say that we want to understand our users, and we want to understand what our users want to read. In that process we can use certain types of words.

The best way I can answer this is that if your definition of “SEO” is merely a collection of techniques and tricks meant to reverse-engineer and manipulate Google’s algorithm then yes, SEO died a long time ago.

On the other hand, if your definition of “SEO” is having a deep understanding of your users’ needs, understanding what words they use in searching for answers, understanding what kinds of content they want to consume to find answers, and understanding how this information is shared, then SEO is alive and well.

Put another way, up to a few years ago SEO was typically done in a silo companies would develop their Web properties and then almost as an afterthought send it to a SEO consultant or agency to “do SEO.” I think today, proper SEO should be approached less as a one-off, specialized task and more so integrated into every part of building digital projects, serving as continual validation of a site’s technical development, UX, content strategy, and outreach strategy.

SEW: In your opinion, which one is more important, keyword ranking or traffic?

SL: Honestly, at the end of the day, neither of these things mean anything if you don’t care about conversion or the engagement on your site. I think keyword rank and traffic are both important, but they are almost secondary to helping users accomplish what they want to accomplish on your site.

I think different clients have different philosophies. From my perspective, both are important.

SEW: It appears that SEO isn’t just about keyword search anymore and has evolved into many things. This is evident in the areas that your team has been working on. What evolutionary changes have you seen in SEO in the past few years?

Go here to read the rest:
Spotlight On: Tribal Worldwides Director of SEO, Steve Liu

Argument analysis: How does requiring a warrant interfere with surprise police searches of hotel guest registers?

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Argument analysis: How does requiring a warrant interfere with surprise police searches of hotel guest registers?
Mar 072015
 

The first case argued Tuesday morning, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, was about whether a Los Angeles ordinance that requires motel operators to allow the police to examine hotel guest registers, without seeking a warrant first, is constitutional. The en banc Ninth Circuit ruled that is is not, because the ordinance lacks an essential procedural safeguard pre-compliance judicial review. Prior to argument, many observers thought this meant that some judicial administrative warrant process was required. But now, after reviewing the argument transcript, confusion regarding exactly what the plaintiffs are seeking, as expressed by more than one Justice, may lead to reversal and remand rather than a substantive Fourth Amendment ruling.

Background

Recall from the preview that a group of motel owners sued Los Angeles, seeking to invalidate a municipal ordinance that requires them to make information about guests that they are required by law to record, available to any [LAPD] officer for inspection at a time and in a manner that minimizes any interference with the operation of the business. But no trial or evidentiary hearing was ever held; instead, the parties stipulated to a few facts and then agreed that the sole issue remaining was a facial constitutional challenge to the ordinance.

One stipulation was that, under the law in question, the motel operators have been subject and continue to be subject to searches and seizures of their motel registration records by the [LAPD] without consent or warrant. The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled that this without a warrant stipulation rendered the law unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

In its petition for certiorari, Los Angeles presented what amounts to three questions: (1) whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are ever permissible under the Fourth Amendment; (2) whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry; and, if so, (3) whether the ordinance is unconstitutional because it does not require a warrant or other pre-compliance judicial review. Whether the Court should answer all of these questions, or whether the first one is instead dispositive, seemed to be a primary focus of oral argument yesterday.

Tuesdays oral argument and expectations of privacy

Observers, including this observer, sometimes forget how much close attention the Justices pay to the questions presented. At Tuesdays argument, Joshua Rosenkranz (arguing on behalf of the city) went immediately to the third question that is, the substantive constitutionality of the ordinance in question. The parties (and the Ninth Circuit) appeared to consider the second question to be moot, because they agreed by the time of argument that motel operators do have some limited expectation of privacy in their registers. But Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to still be concerned: If a member of this Court sits down to write the opinion, does he or she have to use the phrase reasonable expectation of privacy, or do we just forget [it]? Then referencing prior administrative search cases, he asked whether the phrase closely regulated is another way to talk about reasonable expectation of privacy?

Both Rosenkranz and Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben (arguing on behalf of the federal government in support of Los Angeles) quickly picked up on the point: noting that the ordinance has been on the books for many years, Rosenkranz argued that no one goes into the hotel business unaware that their registers will be inspected. Dreeben later chose to begin his argument by proposing a much narrower basis: the ordinance involves an entry only into the public lobby area of a motel. Although Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor quickly took issue with Dreebens suggestion, the second question (whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, how that affects the case) does not appear to be dead.

The substantive merits: The warrant requirement argument appears to be obscured.

With only twenty minutes (because the city was sharing its time with the federal government), Rosenkranzs opening argument otherwise focused entirely on the merits of the ordinance; the facial challenge aspect of the case was not raised until Dreeben stood up. Rosenkranz began by dramatically asserting that this case is about whether to deprive cities of one of the most effective tools they have to deter human trafficking and other short-term criminal activity in motels. He argued that it is necessary to allow frequent, unannounced spot inspections in real time without notice.

Read the original:
Argument analysis: How does requiring a warrant interfere with surprise police searches of hotel guest registers?

Phil Robertson Thinks STDS Are The Revenge Of The Hippies

 Misc  Comments Off on Phil Robertson Thinks STDS Are The Revenge Of The Hippies
Feb 282015
 

NeNe Leakes And Kim Zolciak Want To Film A Real Housewives Of Atlanta Spin-Off | Home

February 27, 2015 04:00 PM by Stephanie Gustafson

If you or somebody you know has suffered from a sexually transmitted disease, you can place all of the blame for this predicament on the hippies. At least, thats what Phil Robertson thinks! TheDuck Dynastyrecently received the Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award at the Conservative Political Action Conference and his acceptance speech is already causing quite the stir on Facebook!

Phil Robertson managed to keep a low profile for the last few months of 2014, but that has all changed now that the reality star has once again been highlighted as a conservative role model. No longer content to sit back and keep his mouth shut, Phil is once again trying his best to get a rise out of his many haters on Twitter. Thus far, hes proven incredibly successful, having caused plenty of outrage with his long, rambling speech at CPAC.

Grateful to be recognized for his commitment to First Amendment rights, Phil used his acceptance speech as another excuse to talk at length about sexual sin. He advised his fans, Youre disease-free and shes disease free, you marry, you keep your sex right there. You wont get sick from a sexually transmitted disease.

This is all pretty normal stuff for Phil and really, for the entireDuck Dynasty clan. But he certainly didnt stop there. Things began to get bizarre when the reality star mused about beatniks and hippies, claiming that the 110 million Americans with sexually transmitted diseases were the revenge of the hippies. According to Phil, the age of rock n roll was the beginning of the end.

What do you think of Phil Robertsons latest tirade? Feel free to share your opinion in the comments section below!

MORE ON DUCK DYNASTY

Sadie Robertson Ready To Take Her Next Big Step In Showbiz Phil Robertson To Receive Andrew Breitbart Defender Of The First Amendment Award Sadie Robertson Sounds Off On Engagement Rumors

Read the original:
Phil Robertson Thinks STDS Are The Revenge Of The Hippies

Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent …

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent …
Feb 242015
 

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added, citations omitted, as usual),

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

The question, then, is whether this presumpti[on] of validity can ever be rebutted for instance, if a persons felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both. Todays Suarez v. Holder (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2015) concludes that the presumption was indeed rebutted in this case, where the past felony conviction was in 1990, the claimants last misdemeanor conviction was in 1998, and the claimant has otherwise shown that he is now a law-abiding citizen (here by, among other things, having gotten a security clearance for his work with Department of Defense clients). And this is so even though the 1990 felony conviction was for illegal carrying of a gun (and the facts showed that he was drunk at the time), and the 1998 misdemeanor conviction was for drunk driving:

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not shown that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society. First, they emphasize that at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, he was carrying a .357 Magnum handgun and two loaded speed-loaders while intoxicated to the point that he was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. They argue that possessing a firearm while intoxicated poses such a danger that many jurisdictions impose criminal sanctions for doing so. We agree with Defendants that the circumstances of Plaintiffs arrest were dangerous. But the inquiry is whether the challenger, today, not at the time of arrest, is more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen or poses a continuing threat.

There are two ways in which a challenger may fail to show he is not dangerous. One, the challengers conviction is for acts so violent that even after twenty-five years of nonviolent behavior he would continue to be dangerous and to pose a threat to society. This is not that case. Or [two], the facts and circumstances since the conviction show that the challenger remains dangerous. As revealed in our discussion above, we find Plaintiffs background and circumstance establish that, today, he is not dangerous and does not pose a risk to society.

Second, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs predicate conviction was not violent, empirical studies reveal that those like Plaintiff have a high rate of violent recidivism, and thus Plaintiff continues to be dangerous and pose a societal threat. While we agree that the generalized results of an empirical study are useful to refute a facial challenge and demonstrate that a statute survives some sort of means-end scrutiny, we do not find that generalized conclusions are particularly useful in as-applied challenges to demonstrate whether Plaintiff, himself, is dangerous or poses a continuing threat. Accordingly, we find the studies of little moment and decline to rely on them to find that Plaintiff is dangerous.

For other cases that reach similar results, see Binderup v. Holder (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Second Amendment), Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009) (state constitutional right to bear arms), and Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (state constitutional right to bear arms). For federal opinions that say that people can regain their Second Amendment rights in such situations (though without holding that the particular claimant regained those rights), see United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185, 187 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, J., concurring); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049-50 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring). Congratulations to Alan Gura, who won this case and Binderup (as well as, of course, Heller and McDonald in the Supreme Court, and other lower court Second Amendment cases as well).

(Note that Suarezs 1990 conviction was labeled a misdemeanor under Maryland law, but the district court held correctly, I think that the conviction was treated as a felony under federal law, because the maximum punishment was three years in prison, above the two-year cutoff that the federal statute uses as the misdemeanor/felony line in such cases.)

The government has appealed the Binderup case, and is thus likely to appeal this one. But I expect both Binderup and this case will stand up on appeal, given the Third Circuits Barton precedent; and I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent …

Have an opinion? Stuff it!

 Freedom  Comments Off on Have an opinion? Stuff it!
Feb 242015
 

How come freedom of speech is limited to a select few who can say what they please while the majority spend a night in the lock-up for doing the same?

COMMENT

When I was growing up, reading the daily newspaper and watching the 8pm news was a must in my home. And every day during family time, my dad would open the floor for discussion. We used to discuss (and sometimes debate) various issues politics, social, religion, entertainment, the works. Sometimes we got too excited over certain issues that we continued the same discussion for a few days.

Thanks to my dad, my brothers and I grew up having the ability to form our own opinions on matters that concerned us. And having strong opinions meant standing up to it as well.

But lately, Ive begun to wonder if my dad made a big mistake having raised us the way he did. Because of my dad, I now have a tough time keeping my thoughts to myself and my mouth shut.

Like the other day, when I wrote about why I wasnt offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I received piles of hate messages.

And then there was one time when I politely advised the security guards in my apartment that it was against the law for them to hold a visitors important documents and the head of security raised his baton over my head.

Since when did freedom of speech and expressing oneself become an offence?

This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine who was arrested recently on a sedition charge for criticising the Federal Court judgement over the Anwar Ibrahims sodomy case.

All he did was to post his opinion of the case on Facebook. He had to spend one night in a lock-up filled with creepy crawlies simply because he had trouble zipping his mouth. I bet he too was raised to stand up for what he believed in.

See the article here:
Have an opinion? Stuff it!

Kicked By Illuminati – Battlefield 4 – Video

 Illuminati  Comments Off on Kicked By Illuminati – Battlefield 4 – Video
Feb 192015
 



Kicked By Illuminati – Battlefield 4
Just a new commentary Concept I wanted to try out! Hope you guys enjoy! For My Quantum Break Opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6xy5YI9bA0 For My Battlefield Hardline Opinion: …

By: UnVanced

See the original post here:
Kicked By Illuminati – Battlefield 4 – Video

Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent felony convictions

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent felony convictions
Feb 192015
 

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added, citations omitted, as usual),

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

The question, then, is whether this presumpti[on] of validity can ever be rebutted for instance, if a persons felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both. Todays Suarez v. Holder (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2015) concludes that the presumption was indeed rebutted in this case, where the past felony conviction was in 1990, the claimants last misdemeanor conviction was in 1998, and the claimant has otherwise shown that he is now a law-abiding citizen (here by, among other things, having gotten a security clearance for his work with Department of Defense clients). And this is so even though the 1990 felony conviction was for illegal carrying of a gun (and the facts showed that he was drunk at the time), and the 1998 misdemeanor conviction was for drunk driving:

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not shown that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society. First, they emphasize that at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, he was carrying a .357 Magnum handgun and two loaded speed-loaders while intoxicated to the point that he was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. They argue that possessing a firearm while intoxicated poses such a danger that many jurisdictions impose criminal sanctions for doing so. We agree with Defendants that the circumstances of Plaintiffs arrest were dangerous. But the inquiry is whether the challenger, today, not at the time of arrest, is more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen or poses a continuing threat.

There are two ways in which a challenger may fail to show he is not dangerous. One, the challengers conviction is for acts so violent that even after twenty-five years of nonviolent behavior he would continue to be dangerous and to pose a threat to society. This is not that case. Or [two], the facts and circumstances since the conviction show that the challenger remains dangerous. As revealed in our discussion above, we find Plaintiffs background and circumstance establish that, today, he is not dangerous and does not pose a risk to society.

Second, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs predicate conviction was not violent, empirical studies reveal that those like Plaintiff have a high rate of violent recidivism, and thus Plaintiff continues to be dangerous and pose a societal threat. While we agree that the generalized results of an empirical study are useful to refute a facial challenge and demonstrate that a statute survives some sort of means-end scrutiny, we do not find that generalized conclusions are particularly useful in as-applied challenges to demonstrate whether Plaintiff, himself, is dangerous or poses a continuing threat. Accordingly, we find the studies of little moment and decline to rely on them to find that Plaintiff is dangerous.

For other cases that reach similar results, see Binderup v. Holder (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Second Amendment), Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009) (state constitutional right to bear arms), and Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (state constitutional right to bear arms). For federal opinions that say that people can regain their Second Amendment rights in such situations (though without holding that the particular claimant regained those rights), see United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185, 187 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, J., concurring); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049-50 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring). Congratulations to Alan Gura, who won this case and Binderup (as well as, of course, Heller and McDonald in the Supreme Court, and other lower court Second Amendment cases as well).

(Note that Suarezs 1990 conviction was labeled a misdemeanor under Maryland law, but the district court held correctly, I think that the conviction was treated as a felony under federal law, because the maximum punishment was three years in prison, above the two-year cutoff that the federal statute uses as the misdemeanor/felony line in such cases.)

The government has appealed the Binderup case, and is thus likely to appeal this one. But I expect both Binderup and this case will stand up on appeal, given the Third Circuits Barton precedent; and I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case.

See the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent felony convictions

First Amendment Rights [ushistory.org] – US History

 First Amendment  Comments Off on First Amendment Rights [ushistory.org] – US History
Feb 162015
 

American Government 1. The Nature of Government a. The Purposes of Government b. Types of Government c. What Is a Democracy? d. Democratic Values Liberty, Equality, Justice 2. Foundations of American Government a. The Colonial Experience b. Independence and the Articles of Confederation c. Creating the Constitution d. The Bill of Rights 3. Federalism a. The Founders and Federalism b. Tipping the Scales Toward National Power c. Federal-State Relations Today: Back to States’ Rights? 4. American Political Attitudes and Participation a. American Political Culture b. What Factors Shape Political Attitudes? c. Measuring Public Opinion d. Participating in Government e. Voting: A Forgotten Privilege? 5. How Do Citizens Connect With Their Government? a. Political Parties b. Campaigns and Elections c. Interest Groups d. The Media e. The Internet in Politics 6. Congress: The People’s Branch? a. The Powers of Congress b. Leadership in Congress: It’s a Party Matter c. The Importance of Committees d. Who Is in Congress? e. How a Bill Becomes a Law 7. The Presidency: The Leadership Branch? a. The Evolution of the Presidency b. All the President’s Men and Women c. Selection and Succession of the President d. The President’s Job e. Presidential Character 8. The Bureaucracy: The Real Government a. The Development of the Bureaucracy b. The Organization of the Bureaucracy c. Who Are the Bureaucrats? d. Reforming the Bureaucracy 9. The Judicial Branch a. The Creation of the Federal Courts b. The Structure of the Federal Courts c. The Supreme Court: What Does It Do? d. How Judges and Justices Are Chosen e. The Power of the Federal Courts 10. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights a. Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens b. First Amendment Rights c. Crime and Due Process d. Citizenship Rights 11. Policy Making: Political Interactions a. Foreign Policy: What Now? b. Defense Policy c. Economic Policy d. Social and Regulatory Policy 12. State and Local Governments a. State and Local Governments: Democracy at Work? b. Financing State and Local Government c. Who Pays for Education? 13. Comparative Political and Economic Systems a. Comparing Governments b. Comparing Economic Systems c. A Small, Small, World?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” -First Amendment to the Constitution

A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have evolved throughout American history, and the process continues today.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in two clauses the “establishment” clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official church, and the “free exercise” clause that allows people to worship as they please. Notice that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the First Amendment, nor is it found anywhere else in the Constitution. Most people do not realize that the phrase was actually coined later by Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, when he was President, he wrote the opinion that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause was designed to build “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Court cases that address freedom of religion have dealt with the rejection of prayer in public schools, the denial of aid to parochial schools, the banning of polygamy (the practice of having more than one wife), the restriction of poisonous snakes and drugs in religious rites, and limiting the right to decline medical care for religious purposes.

Free speech is one of the most cherished liberties, but free speech often conflicts with other rights and liberties. The courts have had to consider the question, “What are the limits of free speech?”

The “clear and present danger” test is a basic principle for deciding the limits of free speech. It was set by the famous Schenck v. the United States case from World War I. Antiwar activist Charles Schenck was arrested for sending leaflets to prospective army draftees encouraging them to ignore their draft notices. The United States claimed that Schenck threatened national security, and the justices agreed. The principle was established that free speech would not be protected if an individual were a “clear and present danger” to United States security.

What is free speech? The definition is not easy, and the courts have identified three types of free speech, each protected at a different level:

Many of the same principles that apply to freedom of speech apply to the press, but one with special meaning for the press is prior restraint. The courts have ruled that the government may not censor information before it is written and published, except in the most extreme cases of national security.

Freedom of assembly and petition are closely related to freedom of speech, and have been protected in similar ways. Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, “Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.” Generally, that point of view has prevailed. Freedom of assembly has to be balanced with other people’s rights if it disrupts public order, traffic flow, freedom to go about normal business or peace and quiet. Usually, a group must apply for a permit, but a government must grant a permit provided that officials have the means to prevent major disruptions.

Read the rest here:
First Amendment Rights [ushistory.org] – US History

The Vigilant Christian is a hypocrite! – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on The Vigilant Christian is a hypocrite! – Video
Feb 012015
 



The Vigilant Christian is a hypocrite!
This is a little video about my opinion on the Vigilant Christian,and how he is a hypocrite.TVC talks on how the Illuminati is trying to control us and take away our free speech.Mario(TVC)…

By: Rico theDemonSlayer

Read the original:
The Vigilant Christian is a hypocrite! – Video

Bitcoins:Boycott Bitcoin:It’s for retards! – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on Bitcoins:Boycott Bitcoin:It’s for retards! – Video
Jan 282015
 



Bitcoins:Boycott Bitcoin:It's for retards!
Boycott Bitcoin: its for retards! http://youtu.be/QjhEAUGIc5c It's my opinion RawDog is right, on the money,so I tend to agree with him 99.9% of his video.it's my opinion that Bit-coin traders…

By: Tacos Mananeros Network

See the article here:
Bitcoins:Boycott Bitcoin:It’s for retards! – Video

Argument analysis: What exactly is a routine traffic stop, and should a suspicionless dog sniff be part of it?

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Argument analysis: What exactly is a routine traffic stop, and should a suspicionless dog sniff be part of it?
Jan 232015
 

License, registration, and dog sniff, please? After a somewhat frustrating argument Wednesday morning, Justice Elena Kagan finally expressed concern about the possibility that the federal governments position in Rodriguez v. United States would lead to . . . 40 minutes of free time for police officers to investigate any crimes that they want. Assistant to the Solicitor General Ginger Anders responded that I dont think thats how we envision things, but she then suggested that only the duration of a routine traffic stop under the circumstances defines the Fourth Amendments reasonable limit. This did not answer the question that Justice Anthony Kennedy asked early on: how do you define the traffic stop? But even if the government loses, the Justices expressed a fair amount of indecision over exactly what the rule should be, and they appeared less than satisfied with the arguments offered by Rodriguezs attorney, Shannon OConnor the First Assistant Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska.

The facts, the question, and a few points of clarity

As previewed yesterday, the issue before the Court involves a valid traffic stop for swerving over the highway shoulder line, in which the officer prolonged the stop for seven to eight minutes after he had completed writing a warning, in order to conduct a dog sniff of Rodriguezs car after a back-up officer arrived. The entire traffic stop lasted about thirty minutes, at which point the dog alerted and provided probable cause for further search (which revealed methamphetamine). The Eighth Circuit did not question the lower courts finding that there was no reasonable suspicion for the dog-sniff detention, but it ruled that a de minimis delay to conduct a dog sniff is okay. Since the Courts 2005 ruling in Caballes that a dog sniff conducted simultaneously with a traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment, lower state and federal courts have divided on the appropriate constitutional standards as well as their application when a sniff (or other investigation) extends the time of a stop.

A few things seemed clear from Wednesdays argument. First, a dog sniff of a car stopped for a traffic violation is extraneous to the purpose of that is, not an ordinary incident of a traffic violation stop. Justice Samuel Alito questioned this and accurately noted that the Court has previously held that questions which seem unrelated to the mission of the traffic stop have been routinely upheld, starting with the standard opening license and registration, please and extending, as in Rodriguezs case, to questions about where the driver and the passenger were going and why. Thus, he repeatedly asked, why are those questions part of the mission and the dog sniff is not? But Anders wisely conceded that she was not arguing that a dog sniff should be considered an ordinary incident of most traffic stops. Although no one mentioned Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Courts 2000 decision ruling that routine drug checkpoints employing dog sniffs without suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment, the Justices did not seem ready to accept the routine addition of dog sniffs to valid traffic stops.

(Incidentally, repeated points of some humor were moments in which Justices referred to having been stopped themselves by the police. Chief Justice John Roberts began this thread by commenting during OConnors argument(to laughter) that people have told me what happens when youre stopped. Justice Sonia Sotomayor later began Anders argument by saying and Chief, Ive been stopped, to which Anders quickly responded, so have I. The underlying point being that perhaps one of the most shared experiences in our national culture is being stopped by the police while driving. Or as Justice Stephen Breyer put it, our experience on stops comes from, unfortunately, being the stoppee.)

A second point that appears clear from yesterdays argument is that the Court will not use this case to reconsider Caballes and examine whether a dog sniff should count as a Fourth Amendment search. Justice Sotomayor appeared to raise this fundamental question briefly is that really what the Fourth Amendment should permit? but then quickly suggested that the Court should cabin it to Caballess simultaneous with writing the ticket holding. Thus while the Caballes holding appears to be in some tension with the constitutional theory of search that Justice Antonin Scalia, among others, has recently advanced, this case will not be used as an occasion to discuss it in the text of the opinion, although it may surface in footnotes or separate opinions.

The basic question: Is suspicionless detention for a dog sniff allowed?

Various Justices the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia Kagan in particular appeared to keep driving the case to its basic question: may the police continue to detain someone, without at least reasonable suspicion, when the Fourth Amendment justification for the stop (that is, the traffic violation) has ended? Toward the end of the argument, Justice Kagan bluntly stated that if the government is arguing that Caballes gives you extra leeway to detain people . I think thats just not right. Chief Justice Roberts appeared to agree, rhetorically asking a bit earlier (generating laughter) whether [i]ts only a violation of the Fourth Amendment for two minutes, right? And Justice Scalia later interjected, apparently along the same rhetorical line, it can prolong it a little bit.

At one point, Justice Breyer began a question for Anders with the announcement that I have a great idea. Reading this, I initially imagined everyone was groaning but then Justice Breyers idea appeared to catch on with the rest of the Court (perhaps for want of any other more specific guidance). Justice Breyer appeared to suggest that the Court simply stick to what it has said in past cases: that a stop cannot last longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, or that a stop cannot be unnecessarily prolonged. He explained that these were not new ideas what an original idea I had, he noted with irony and that after we cite these two cases , [we] reverse. QED, goodbye. And then, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly noted, the issue whether there actually may have been reasonable suspicion about narcotics on the facts of this case, a point not addressed by the court of appeals, would be open on remand. Although OConnor urged the Court to decide that question itself for judicial economy, no Justice seemed likely to agree.

One final point, about Terry v. Ohio

Read more here:
Argument analysis: What exactly is a routine traffic stop, and should a suspicionless dog sniff be part of it?

Volokh Conspiracy: An update to the Virginia constitution that the General Assembly should pass over

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: An update to the Virginia constitution that the General Assembly should pass over
Jan 222015
 

A few weeks ago, Virginia Delegate Rich Anderson (R) and Senator Richard Stuart (R) introduced an amendment in the Virginia General Assembly, HJR 578, which would amend the Virginia constitution by replacing the state equivalent of the Fourth Amendment with an all new version designed to be an update for the 21st century. A reader asked me for my opinion of the proposal. This post provides it.

My overall assessment is that this proposal isnt ready for prime time. First, its a truly radical set of ideas. It would restrict police power to enforce the law in dramatic ways far beyond anything seen before. Second, its a grab-bag of different police restrictions, many poorly drafted and murky as to their scope. And ironically, several of the proposed changes actually arent likely to be changes at all. Theyre drafted in odd ways that probably miss their intended targets.

Heres some context to understand my reaction. The Virginia state constitution has a search and seizure provision that dates back to 1776 and was part of George Masons original Virginia Declaration of Rights. Heres the text:

That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

For most of Virginias history, this provision was the primary protection of search and seizure law that regulated Virginia law state and local law enforcement. In 1949 and 1961, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Fourth Amendment also applies to state and local governments under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of those U.S. Supreme Court developments, state constitutional protections play little or no role in most states. Most state Supreme Courts interpret their state constitutions to match or mostly match the federal Fourth Amendment, and the federal Fourth Amendment already provides a floor below which state and local officials cant go.

Virginia is one of those states. The Supreme Court of Virginia has concluded that the requirements of Virginias 1776 search and seizure provision are substantially the same as those contained in the Fourth Amendment. Lowe v. Commmonwealth, 230 Va. 346 (1985) (quoting A. Howard, I Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia 182 (1974)). States are certainly free to do more. Either by judicial construction, or by express textual amendment, states are free to enact greater protections that will regulate state and local governments more than the federal government. But its an option, not a requirement, and so far Virginias constitution hasnt gone beyond the federal Fourth Amendment.

The new proposal would change that. The proposal would replace George Masons 1776 language in its entirety with the following new language:

That the government shall not violate the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, businesses, lands, papers, and effects, including communications and stored personal information and data. A reasonable search or seizure is one based on probable cause that a law has been or will be broken. An unreasonable search or seizure is one that is not based on a valid law. Warrants and other demands shall be issued only based upon probable cause, signed by a neutral judge or magistrate, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons, property, or things to be seized, or the communications, personal information, or data to be accessed or obtained. A persons disclosure of papers, effects, communications, personal information, or data to another person shall not alone constitute a waiver of this right. The people shall have remedies of exclusion and actions for damages and other remedies wherein defendants shall not enjoy greater immunity than other citizens of the Commonwealth.

What is this language supposed to do? Good question. Just reading it, its somewhat hard to tell what the drafters were thinking. In the Washington Examiner, however, Ken Cuccinelli and Mark Fitzgibbons (C&F) offer an endorsement of the proposal that gives a relatively detailed explanation of it. Its the most thorough discussion I have found, and it gives us enough context to evaluate the proposed amendment sentence-by-sentence.

Lets start at the beginning with the first sentence:

Continue reading here:
Volokh Conspiracy: An update to the Virginia constitution that the General Assembly should pass over

Liberty Global (LBTYB) Downgraded From Buy to Hold

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty Global (LBTYB) Downgraded From Buy to Hold
Jan 122015
 

Editor’s Note: Any reference to TheStreet Ratings and its underlying recommendation does not reflect the opinion of TheStreet, Inc. or any of its contributors including Jim Cramer or Stephanie Link. TheStreet Ratings quantitative algorithm evaluates over 4,300 stocks on a daily basis by 32 different data factors and assigns a unique buy, sell, or hold recommendation on each stock. Click here to learn more.

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Liberty Global (LBTYB) has been downgraded by TheStreet Ratings from Buy to Hold with a ratings score of C+. TheStreet Ratings Team has this to say about their recommendation:

“We rate LIBERTY GLOBAL PLC (LBTYB) a HOLD. The primary factors that have impacted our rating are mixed – some indicating strength, some showing weaknesses, with little evidence to justify the expectation of either a positive or negative performance for this stock relative to most other stocks. The company’s strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its increase in stock price during the past year, compelling growth in net income and revenue growth. However, as a counter to these strengths, we find that the company has favored debt over equity in the management of its balance sheet.”

Must Read: Warren Buffett’s 25 Favorite Stocks

Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.

Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.

Jim Cramer’s protg, David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street’s radar.

Read more here:
Liberty Global (LBTYB) Downgraded From Buy to Hold

Protecting actual free speech

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Protecting actual free speech
Jan 122015
 

Free speech is one of the greatest things we have that on most occasions we take utterly for granted. The fact that I can stand on a hilltop (or the Internet) and denounce the government and all its evil wrongdoings and not be arrested for it is something that I’m immensely grateful for.

And yes, I will fight tooth and nail for your right to free speech even if what you say is disagreeable to me (I’m paraphrasing that thing that Voltaire didn’t say).

Because if there’s one thing I know about human nature and our long history of being dicks to each other it’s that people in positions of power, like toddlers, need structure. Left to their own devices they will act exactly as they see fit and that can and has involved silencing dissenters (or throwing massive tantrums).

This is why we have laws to protect the people from the mighty. The Bill of Rights Act protects our freedom of expression (among other things).

But this is not permission for anyone to say whatever they like with impunity. We also have laws that cover defamation as well as such pleasant occurrences as “inciting racial disharmony”. So we have free speech but even in a legal sense it’s not absolute. I cannot maliciously lie about someone in order to bring about their downfall like some kind of cartoon villian. Nor can I try and convince people to act unlawfully. Interestingly, our sedition law was repealed several years ago so I’m all okay to encourage insurrection against the state. So I might save that one for a rainy day.

But legality, schmegality. For most people the notion of free speech extends beyond what the state allows you to do. And this is where things get tricky.

For instance, it’s been suggested that organised boycotts against companies or businesses that cause offense either in their products or advertising are in some way an assault on freedom of speech. They’re not. That’s just called “pissing off your customer-base and having to deal with it”.

And that’s still the case, even with the media. If some radio jock or columnist spouts forth in a way that’s so repugnant to you that it actually makes you angry enough to not listen to that radio station any more, or buy that newspaper then that’s just you acting as your conscience dictates. If you go a step further and promote your intention to boycott that media outlet and encourage similar thinking people to do the same, that’s just you exercising your own freedom of expression.

There’s a difference between encouraging people to behave in a different way and forcing them to. The difference is choice or free will. Pointing a gun at someone removes their free will. Voicing your opinion, even very stridently and agressively does not.

Are there potentially implications with regards to media? My word, yes. There is nothing the media fears more than losing precious advertising revenue. If the great unwashed masses get their knickers in a knot every time they hear an opinion that contradicts their world view or strays far beyond what their moral compass says is right is there not some risk that what is published will become crowd-friendly pap?

Go here to see the original:
Protecting actual free speech

Mr. Liu’s Opinion:Libertarianism and Right-to-Work – Video

 Misc  Comments Off on Mr. Liu’s Opinion:Libertarianism and Right-to-Work – Video
Jan 052015
 



Mr. Liu's Opinion:Libertarianism and Right-to-Work
In this video, I distinguish between left- and right-wing libertarians and address their perspectives on US right-to-work laws.

By: Mr. Liu's Opinion

Read more from the original source:
Mr. Liu’s Opinion:Libertarianism and Right-to-Work – Video




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism