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



FREEDOM PARTNERSHIP! (UPDATE GAMEPLAY)
Im soo happy ! :D i cant belive it ! :D JOIN ME RIGHT NOW! ————————————————– Join us : http://www.freedom.tm/ ————————————————…

By: TheKid

Read more:
FREEDOM PARTNERSHIP! (UPDATE GAMEPLAY) – Video



Political Science: Const Law: Civil Liberties
Investigation of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, rights of the accused, and the right to privacy. Prerequisite: POLS 021.

By: UVM Continuing Ed

See the rest here:
Political Science: Const Law: Civil Liberties – Video

Published: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 4:45p.m. Updated 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON The push and pull over the Second Amendment right to bear arms is heating up again, thanks in part to a former Supreme Court justice’s new book.

On Friday, the high court will consider whether to hear a challenge to a New Jersey law restricting the right to carry guns in public. If the court grants the petition, it would be the most important gun control case since the justices upheld the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense in 2008.

While the justices ponder what the Constitution’s framers meant with the words 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, former Justice John Paul Stevens suggests it be rewritten.

In his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens, 93, advocates adding the words when serving in the militia to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths about 88 per day that occur in the nation.

Stevens was on the losing side of the court’s 5-4 ruling in 2008 that established the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense. Two years later, he was again in the minority when the court ruled that Chicago could not prohibit private citizens from owning handguns.

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands, Stevens writes. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

The gun lobby seeks to move in the opposite direction. Despite losses at federal district and appeals courts, groups including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners Foundation back the effort by New Jersey gun owners to legalize gun possession outside the home.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense not just for self-defense within the home, but for self-defense, period, the NRA argues in its brief to the high court.

New Jersey law enforcement groups defend the state’s requirement that citizens prove a justifiable need to carry handguns outside the home, whether openly or concealed from view. In their brief, they claim the law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.

Read more here:
Gun rights to return to Supreme Courts agenda



The PowerMind Experience: Right to Free Speech pt.2
Welcome to the PowerMind Experience Series! In this educational series Free Speech pt. 1, Troop Genius CEO Rachel Cannella discusses our Constitutional First…

By: mzcannella080910

Read more here:
The PowerMind Experience: Right to Free Speech pt.2 – Video



Connecticut Second Amendment Rally – 04/05/2014
Rally for the Second Amendment and the Right to bear arms uninfringed.

By: jonah70757

Go here to read the rest:
Connecticut Second Amendment Rally – 04/05/2014 – Video



Does Mozilla CEO Really Deserve To Lose His Job Simply For Exercising His First Amendment Right?
Does Mozilla CEO Really Deserve To Lose His Job Simply For Exercising His First Amendment Right?

By: Gaurav Solanki

Here is the original post:
Does Mozilla CEO Really Deserve To Lose His Job Simply For Exercising His First Amendment Right? – Video



Right Sector Seeks New Recruits In Kyiv
Ukraine's ultranationalist Right Sector movement has set up a recruitment center in the capital, Kyiv. One volunteer told RFE/RL he was joining the group bec…

By: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Read the original post:
Right Sector Seeks New Recruits In Kyiv – Video



Freedom of Expression – Human Rights Project
For our Levinquist human rights project, Isabelle Reich and I, Allie Simpson, decided to make a PSA about human right #19, the right to express yourself free…

By: Allie Simpson

See the article here:
Freedom of Expression – Human Rights Project – Video

John Cinque of Branford recently claimed in a Hartford Courant essay that Connecticuts gun-control laws attack his rights as a gun owner. Cinque believes gun-control advocates are on a mistaken ideological crusade.

Cinques interpretation of the Second Amendment would give him an almost unlimited right to bear arms. He quotes Marko Kloos of New Hampshire, apparently a mentor of his philosophy, as saying that people can deal with each other only by reason or by force.

Therefore if reason does not work, does one have the right to use force?

Cinque goes on to say that the people will no longer allow further encroachment on our natural rights and an armed society is a polite society.

He should try telling that to opponents of the Taliban of Afghanistan, the opposition in Iraq, and people in a myriad other locations throughout the world where innocents are being politely killed within armed societies.

The Second Amendment is clear. Even the present justices of our Supreme Court who overruled predecessor courts, which held in United States vs. Cruikshank (1876) that the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence do not dispute that the Second Amendment requires a well regulated militia.

In another prior case, United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

So much for the concept of stare decisis that Judges Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia swore to uphold when they were confirmed.

Even in the Heller case (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008), the current court, in its controlling opinion, does not doubt that the words of the Second Amendment refer to a well regulated militia.

The exact language of the Second Amendment is this: 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.

Continue reading here:
Second Amendment: Well regulated is the key

Republican Senator Rand Paul has been making a big play for millennials lately, most notably by taking his civil liberties pitch to colleges around the country. Paul has got the right idea when he says his party must evolve, adapt or die (although I think the first two are virtually the same thing).Katie Glueckof Politico wrote that The Kentucky senator drew a largely friendly reception at the University of California-Berkeley as he skewered the intelligence community.

Sen. Paul spoke of dystopian nightmares and added that your rights, especially your right to privacy, are under assault. Paulalso saidhe perceives fear of an intelligence community thats drunk with power, unrepentant and uninclined to relinquish power.

Virtually all of the other politicians taking that stand come from the left side of the political spectrum. They include figures like independent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. Rand Paul is not like these other defenders of civil liberties.

Rand Paul, like his father, prefers to package his fairly old-school brand of economic conservatism under the trendier name of libertarianism. Thats not just a labeling change. It also means Paul has paired his retrograde economic ideas with a very outspoken stance against militarism and the espionage state. Its a mixture that Paul hopes can make inroads with groups that are not traditionally Republican voters.

Pauls play for millennials was almost inevitable. As a recent Pew studyreported, that generations disaffection with the two-party system appears to be at record levels. Fifty percent of millennials polled said that they do not associate themselves with either party, which is the highest percentage recorded thus far. Its also a 10 point jump from their equivalent age groups level of political affiliation only seven years ago.

But Rand Paul gravely misunderstands the nature of that political disaffection. Yes, millennials feel alienated toward political and other institutions. They have a right to feel that way. AsJoshua Hollandsays, millennials didnt abandon these institutions. The institutions abandoned them.

But Rand Paul and libertarianism are not the answer. His economic strategy can be summed up in a quota used for one of his bills: remove the shackles of big government byreducing taxes, regulations, and burdensome union work requirements.

In other words, more of the same conservative philosophy that got us in this mess in the first place. Here are 10 reasons why millennials should be extremely wary of the senator from Kentucky.

1. His philosophy of deregulation created your jobs problem.

Rand Paul loved to preach the gospel of deregulation. He went so far as to proclaim that Obama was putting his boot heel on the neck ofget thisBritish Petroleum. Why? Because BP was being asked to bear part of the cost for the oil spill it created.

Go here to read the rest:
10 reasons Americans should be wary of Rand Pauls libertarianism especially millennials

Thanks to online abuse, MPs may be about to remove our right to be offensive. But giving offence is a vital part of democracy Social media is supposed to be the great enabler of free speech, but in fact it's full of paradoxes. Posting on Twitter or Facebook is sometimes the quickest way to get censored. Governments like China and Vietnam closely monitor the online space for any sign of dissent …

Read the original:
Free speech will suffer if politicians get tough on offensive tweets



2003 P71 CVPI Liberty City Police Demo REL
LINK: http://www.lcpdfr.com/files/file/5295-2003-p71-crown-victoria-liberty-city-police/ *** ReadDescription *** HARACIO MADE THE VIDEO BTW AND NO COPY RIGHT…

By: GroveStGamingProd

Read the original here:
2003 P71 CVPI Liberty City Police Demo REL – Video



RWW News: Beck Vows To Leave Lots Of Money To Liberty U When He Dies
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-liberty-university-and-right-be-different Right Wing Watch reports on the extreme rhetoric and activities of…

By: RWW Blog

Read more here:
RWW News: Beck Vows To Leave Lots Of Money To Liberty U When He Dies – Video

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his recently published book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, is calling for a change to six amendments which he believes are outdated. In particular he focuses on the Second Amendment he is advocating for only those in the military to have the right to bear arms. He proposes changing the Second Amendment so that it reads (emphasis added to show the change):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

Wikimedia Commons/Supreme Court of the United States: Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Essentially, Stevens is calling for those serving in the military to have the ability to carry firearms for protection. In short, hes attempting to stop the majority of the population from having this right.

Stevens has told Bloomberg Business that he thinks recent court decisions, specifically District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, placed too much emphasis on individual rights instead of what he believes was the Founding Fathers primary goal: to answer the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment would allow an individual in Washington, D.C. to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as protection of home and family. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment protect extended in Heller applies to individuals in the states as well.

Among the many problems with Stevens proposal is that he overlooks the fact that the Second Amendment was created by our Founding Fathers to protect our unalienable rights, one of which is the ability to protect ourselves.

While limiting arms to those in the military may seem like it would help lower the potential for dangerous situations, removing several benefits individuals enjoy by possessing firearms. These include the ability to protect themselves and their families, the ability to protect their homes against intruders and the peace of mind they will have knowing knowing that theyre able to safeguard themselves from potential harm.

Last wintera Detroit high school girls basketball coach walked two of his two players to their cars across a dark parking lot during the night. They were approached by two young men who reportedly pulled out a gun and threatened the coach.

The coach, a former police officer, had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying a handgun. Due to this he protected both his players and himself from the two men. Had Stevens revision to the Second Amendment been enacted, a different outcome would have certainly resulted from the incident and neither the coach nor his players would have been able to protect themselves.

See the rest here:
Justice Stevens proposed change to Second Amendment dismantles self-protection



They're no First Amendment Right to Film Law Enforcement

By: pay-per-click

See more here:
They’re no First Amendment Right to Film Law Enforcement – Video

Michael D. Young, UCSBs Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, sent an email Wednesday to all university students expressing his views on free speech and reminding the campus that We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak. Young doesnt directly address the elephant in the room that likely prompted the communique theft and battery charges filed against a UCSB faculty member in the wake of her confrontation with anti-abortion activists but notes that recent events made the the schools longstanding value of freedom of expression worthrepeating.

Read the full letterbelow:

DearStudents:

Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims. Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of ouruniversity.

What is happening now is not new: evangelical types have been visiting UCSB and university campuses since time immemorial. What we see at UCSB today is simply the most recent generation of true believers, self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs. During the past few weeks, UCSB has been visited by various anti-abortion crusaders. Some have been considerate and thoughtful in promoting their message; others have openly displayed images that many in our community find distressing and offensive. We have also seen earnest and thoughtful religious missionaries, and we have seen proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief. As a consequence of interactions with the more extreme of our visitors, students have expressed outrage, pain, embarrassment, fear, hurt, and feelings of harassment. Moreover, I have received requests that the campus prohibit the peddling of fear, hate, intolerance, and discord here atUCSB.

Those of you who know me are aware that I have strong views on the matter of intolerance. You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech. If you have heard me speak at Convocation or at anti-hate events, or if you have seen me officiating at the Queer Wedding, you know that my message on both counts is clear. Recent events lead me to believe that this message bearsrepeating.

First, the principle of freedom of expression resides at the very foundation of our society and, most certainly, at the foundation of a world-class university such as UC Santa Barbara. Freedom and rights are not situational: we either have freedom of speech or we do not. We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak. If that were the case, then only those in chargethose holding powerwould determine who gets to speak and whose views areheard.

Second, freedom is not free. The price of freedom for all to speak is that, at times, everyone will be subjected to speech and expression that we, ourselves, find offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil. So be it! Law and policy ban only an extremely narrow band of speech and expressionyelling fire! in a crowded theatre, for example, and child pornography. The price we pay to speak our own minds is allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own. Our Founding Fathersall white men of privilege, some even slave ownersgot it right when designing the First Amendment of theConstitution.

Having firmly stated my support for freedom of expression, I hasten to follow with a lesson my mother taught me when I was a small child, a lesson that has remained with me the rest of my life and that I relay to our entering students every fall at Convocation. My mother taught me that just because you can say or do something doesnt mean that you should. Civility plays an important role in how we choose to exercise our right to expression. We all have the right to say odious things, to display offensive slogans and placards, and to hurt and disrespect groups and individuals that disagree with us. The question is: should we? Should we engage in these behaviors just because we can or because they serve our political, religious, or personalagendas?

At UCSB, our students have proven that we are better than this. While it has not always been easy, time and again UCSB students have demonstrated that they can disagree about the critical issues of our timefundamentally and passionately but within a framework of humanity and civility, respecting the dignity of those whose views they oppose. Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus communityrevealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance andextremism.

View original post here:
UCSB Administrator Issues Statement on Free Speech



Matt Web Services Wholesale SEO Backlinks Supplier Promo Video
Do you own a website? Do you want to get noticed? Well you're in the right place! We are Wholesale SEO Back link and Social Media Suppliers! We have helped n…

By: m6ceb

The rest is here:
Matt Web Services Wholesale SEO Backlinks Supplier Promo Video – Video



Gun Rights Freedom – Background Checks
Idaho may soon become the latest state to stand up to the Obama administration's attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Earlier this week, t…

By: Right Edition

Originally posted here:
Gun Rights & Freedom – Background Checks – Video



Choose the Right SEO Solutions Provider for Your Business
Are you spending your marketing budget wisely on the right SEO providers? Here are 8 reasons why we are the perfect SEO solutions provider for your business.

By: Lourdes Marie Walker

See the rest here:
Choose the Right SEO Solutions Provider for Your Business – Video

Mar 182014



First Amendment Rights
I hope this video is educational for you! I explain the First Amendment, what it covers, and I include a court case that involves this right.

By: Raven Falcon-Sanchez

See the original post:
First Amendment Rights – 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