Mediaboss Marketing

from the fuck-the-drafting-of-residents-into-Dan-Patrick's-war-over-words dept

Another challenger to the First Amendment has appeared. And his name is Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas.

Apparently offended by a Senate hearing witness garbed in an anti-police t-shirt, the Lt. Governor welcomed all challengers via Twitter to sue him for violating people's free speech rights.

In case you can't see the tweet, it says:

Outraged to see this T-shirt at a Senate Hearing Thur. Future witnesses beware. No one will ever be allowed to wear such a vulgar shirt in a Senate hearing again-especially one that denigrates the brave men & women of law enforcement. Want to take me to court? Ok. Make my day.

If you can't see the shirt (and you can't, because Dan Patrick blurred out the offending words/images), it's a hand with the middle finger extended above the phrase "Fuck the police."

Clearly of the belief that Supreme Court precedent almost exactly on point has no bearing on Texas Senate proceedings, the state's second-in-command has promised to ban any t-shirt he subjectively feels is "vulgar," but "especially" the ones that "denigrate" law enforcement.

The Supreme Court precedent -- delivered nearly 50 years ago -- dealt with a 30-day jail term given to a courthouse attendee who wore a "Fuck the Draft" jacket. That clearly denigrated the brave men and women who decided who was eligible to go die for their country in the United States' most infamous losing effort. The Supreme Court ruled that the government violated the First Amendment by demanding citizens only wear/make the most innocuous of statements while in the government's presence.

Patrick's proposal sounds exactly like a content-based ban on speech, which is exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment guards against. But there are those who believe time-and-place restrictions could allow Patrick's ban to bypass the First Amendment. Why? Because the state legislature can do whatever the hell it wants, apparently.

Chuck DeVore, vice president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, disagrees with Patricks critics.

Legislative chambers, DeVore said, have the power to set their own rules of decorum as a co-equal branch of government. While the courts have the power to review laws passed by a legislature, they cannot tell lawmakers how to pass those laws or run their affairs, he said.

Well, that assertion aside, the desire to ban things that offend one government official sure sounds like something a court should rule on. The Lieutenant Governor is on (Twitter) record as welcoming legal challenges to his "won't someone think of the cops?" content-based restriction. These are the oh-so-brave words of a man willing to spend other people's money to defend a move many of those people likely don't agree with. That's the luxury legislators have: the ability to force people to defend indefensible positions by proxy (but also directly via their tax dollars).

At some point, Patrick and his stupid new rule triggered by his triggering will have their day in court. And it seems highly unlikely he'll prevail. When he's done blowing money on forcing the public to respect cops, maybe the state's residents will be kind enough to vote his censorial ass out of office. Until then, the lieutenant governor will remain dissed like the cops he loves so much that he's willing to violate the Constitution for them.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, dan patrick, free speech, fuck the police, texas

Originally posted here:
Lt. Governor Of Texas Gets Offended By An Anti-Police Shirt, Decides He Needs To Start Violating The First Amendment - Techdirt

A thing about writing a newsletter about technology and democracy during a global pandemic is that technology and democracy are no longer really at the forefront of everyones attention. The relationship between big platforms and the nations they operate in remains vitally important for all sorts of reasons, and Ive argued that the platforms have been unusually proactive in their efforts to promote high-quality information sources. Still, these moves are a sideshow compared to the questions were all now asking. How many people will get COVID-19? How many people will die? Will our healthcare system be overwhelmed? How long will it take our economy to recover?

We wont know the answers for weeks, but Im starting to fear the worst. On Wednesday the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 had officially become a pandemic. A former director for the Centers for Disease Control now says that in the worst case scenario, more than 1 million Americans could die.

This piece by Tomas Pueyo argues persuasively that the United States is currently seeing exponential growth in the number of people contracting the disease, and that hospitals are likely to be overwhelmed. Pueyos back ground is in growth marketing, not in epidemiology. But by now we have seen enough outbreaks in enough countries to have a rough idea of how the disease spreads, and to understand the value of social distancing that is, staying behind closed doors. So I want to recommend that everyone here reads that piece, and consider modifying your behavior if youre still planning events or spending a lot of time in public.

* * *

One risk of having the world pay attention to a single, all-consuming story is that less important but still urgent stories are missed along the way. One such unfolding story in our domain is the (deep breath) Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act, which was the subject of a Senate hearing on Wednesday. Heres Alfred Ng with an explainer in CNET:

The EARN IT Act was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican of South Carolina) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Democrat of Connecticut), along with Sen. Josh Hawley (Republican of Missouri) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Democrat of California) on March 5.

The premise of the bill is that technology companies have to earn Section 230 protections rather than being granted immunity by default, as the Communications Decency Act has provided for over two decades.

For starters, its not clear that companies have to earn what are already protections provided under the First Amendment: to publish, and to allow their users to publish, with very few legal restrictions. But if the EARN IT Act were passed, tech companies could be held liable if their users posted illegal content. This would represent a significant and potentially devastating amendment to Section 230, a much-misunderstood law that many consider a pillar of the internet and the businesses that operate on top of it.

When internet companies become liable for what their users post, those companies aggressively moderate speech. This was the chief outcome of FOSTA-SESTA, the last bill Congress passed to amend Section 230. It was putatively written to eliminate sex trafficking, and was passed into law after Facebook endorsed it. I wrote about the aftermath in October:

[The law] threatens any website owner with up to 10 years in prison for hosting even one instance of prostitution-related content. As a result, sites like Craigslist removed their entire online personals sections. Sex workers who had previously been working as their own bosses were driven back onto the streets, often forced to work for pimps. Prostitution-related crime in San Francisco alone including violence against workers more than tripled.

Meanwhile, evidence that the law reduced sex trafficking is suspiciously hard to come by. And there is little reason to believe that the EARN IT Act will be a greater boon to public life.

Yet, for the reasons Issie Lapowsky lays out today in a good piece in Protocol, it may pass anyway. Once again Congress has lined up some sympathetic witnesses who paint a picture that, because of their misfortune, whole swathes of the internet should be eliminated. It would do that by setting up a byzantine checklist structure that would handcuff companies to a difficult-to-modify set of procedures. One item on that checklist could be eliminating end-to-end encryption in messaging apps, depriving the world of a secure communications tool at a time when authoritarian governments are surging around the world. Heres Lapowsky:

The EARN IT Act would establish the National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, a 19-member commission, tasked with creating a set of best practices for online companies to abide by with regard to stopping child sexual abuse material. Those best practices would have to be approved by 14 members of the committee and submitted to the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission for final approval. That list would then need to be enacted by Congress. Companies would have to certify that theyre following those best practices in order to retain their Section 230 immunity. Like FOSTA/SESTA before it, losing that immunity would be a significant blow to companies with millions, or billions, of users posting content every day.

The question now is whether the industry can convince lawmakers that the costs of the law outweigh the benefits. Its a debate that will test what tech companies have learned from the FOSTA/SESTA battle and how much clout they even have left on Capitol Hill.

The bills backers have not said definitively that they will demand a backdoor for law enforcement (and whoever else can find it) as part of the EARN IT Act. (In fact, Blumenthal denies it.) But nor have they written the bill to say they wont. And Graham, one of the bills cosponsors, left little doubt on where he stands:

Facebook is talking about end-to-end encryption which means they go blind, Sen Graham said, later adding, Were not going to go blind and let this abuse go forward in the name of any other freedom.

Notably, Match Group the company behind Tinder, OKCupid, and many of the most popular dating apps in the United States has come out in support of the bill. (Thats easy for Match: none of the apps it makes offer encrypted communications.) The platforms are starting to speak up against it, though see this thread from WhatsApp chief Will Cathcart.

In the meantime, Graham raises the prospect that the federal government will get what it has long wanted greatly expanded power to surveil our communications by burying it in a complex piece of legislation that is nominally about reducing the spread of child abuse imagery. Its a cynical move, and if the similar tactics employed in the FOSTA-SESTA debate were any indication, it might well be an effective one.

Trending up: Amazon and the Gates Foundation might team up to deliver coronavirus test kits to Seattle homes. The test kits include nose swabs that can be mailed to the University of Washington for analysis.

Trending up: Amazon will give all employees diagnosed with coronavirus or put into quarantine up to two weeks of paid sick leave. The policy includes part-time warehouse workers. COVID-19 has really been a watershed for tech giants treating their contract workers like the human beings they are.

On the policy front:

The White House met with Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, Apple, and Microsoft to coordinate efforts over the coronavirus outbreak. (Reuters)

YouTube will begin letting creators make money from their videos about the coronavirus. Its a reversal of an earlier decision the company made to automatically demonetize videos that talked about the outbreak. That decision angered creators, and now the company has walked it back. (Julia Alexander / The Verge)

On the economy:

Apple is closing all 17 of its retail stores in Italy until further notice as the coronavirus pandemic sweeps the country. (Mark Gurman / Bloomberg)

The coronavirus outbreak is hurting Airbnb hosts as travel screeches to a halt. The economic downturn is also impacting airlines and hotels, but hosts have fewer resources to cope. (Erin Griffith / The New York Times)

Travel influencers also say the spread of COVID-19 has impacted their lives and bottom lines. (Tanya Chen / BuzzFeed)

On the office front:

Google is asking all employees in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa to work from home due to coronavirus concerns. Employees in North American have already been given the same advice. (Isobel Asher Hamilton and Rob Price / Business Insider)

On the conference front:

The Council on Foreign Relations had to cancel a roundtable discussion about doing business under coronavirus due to, well, the coronavirus. Its one of many events that have been canceled or rescheduled in recent weeks to do the viruss spread. (David Welch / Bloomberg)

The biggest trade show in video games, E3 2020, was canceled due to coronavirus concerns. The event was supposed to take place at the Los Angeles Convention Center this June. (Jason Schreier / Kotaku)

On the misinformation front:

A Facebook group called U.K. Preppers & Survivalists is trying to stop misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic from spreading. One of the moderators said that while people should question news and politicians, questioning doctors isnt helpful. (Hussein Kesvani / Mel)

Hackers are sending emails with fake HIV results and coronavirus information that infect computers with malware, according to cybersecurity researchers at Proofpoint. The fake HIV emails are designed to look like they come from Vanderbilt University. (Jane Lytvynenko / BuzzFeed)

WeChat users in China are evading censors by translating a viral interview from a coronavirus whistleblower in Wuhan, China. Theyre rewriting it backward, filling it with typos and emojis, sharing it as a PDF, and even translating it into fictional languages like Klingon. (Ryan Broderick / BuzzFeed)

We need to combat misinformation about coronavirus the same way were combating the virus itself: with a communitarian focus. This strategy emphasizes the needs of the community rather than just focusing on the individual, this piece argues. (Whitney Phillips / Wired)

Elsewhere:

Microsoft, Google, and Zoom are trying to keep up with demand for their software, which allows people to work remotely. The companies have also started giving it away to companies and schools for free, as the coronavirus pandemic intensifies. (Rani Molla / Recode)

Heres the case for why coronavirus quarantines could be good for memes. Finally, some good news! (Brian Feldman / Intelligencer)

Maryland, Nebraska, and New York have all proposed taxes that would force tech companies to hand over a portion of the revenue generated from digital advertising. The proposals mirror taxes countries like France have also considered. Ashley Gold at The Information has the story:

The proposals vary in approach and scope, but they all center around the idea that big internet companies, having built their fortunes in part through the use of consumers personal information, should be contributing more to government coffers. The bills, which face mixed prospects for adoption, have drawn the ire of tech companies and other business groups, who say it could be challenging to determine precisely how much of their ad revenue comes from each state. In addition, tax experts said, the proposals could run afoul of federal law.

But lawmakers and other advocates believe the proposals might find favor with voters concerned about the power wielded by Silicon Valley and large corporations in general.

Also: The UK government confirmed that it will levy a 2 percent tax on the revenues of search engines, social media services and online marketplaces which derive value from U.K. users starting on April 1st. The United States government has been strongly opposed to the plan. (Shakeel Hashim / Protocol)

After 2016, Americans are alert to Russian election interference and outside attempts to spread discord. But conspiracy theories and vitriol are now coming from influencers in the United States verified users, many from within the media, and passionate hyper-partisan fan groups that band together to drive the conversation. (Rene DiResta / The Atlantic)

Joe Biden has more than tripled the amount of money his campaign is spending on Facebook ads following a strong showing on Super Tuesday. His spend on Facebook ads in March has exceeded that of Bernie Sanders and President Trump. (Salvador Rodriguez / CNBC)

As big tech companies struggle to moderate content with a mix of algorithms, fact-checkers, and policies, Wikipedia is quietly managing to stave off misinformation with an army of anonymous volunteers. (Alex Pasternack / Fast Company)

Clearview AI let multiple people associated with the Trump campaign use its facial recognition app. Venture capital firms including SoftBank, Sequoia Capital, Kleiner Perkins, and Founders Fund also ran searches. Clearview previously tried to claim that the app was only for law enforcement. (Ryan Mac, Caroline Haskins and Logan McDonald / BuzzFeed)

Microsoft organized 35 nations to take down one of the worlds largest botnets malware that secretly seizes control of millions of computers around the globe. The move was unusual because it was carried out by a company, not a government. (David E. Sanger / The New York Times)

Content related to far-right candidates in Poland makes up a greater percentage of general Facebook content than of content on mainstream outlets Facebook pages, according to researchers at Stanford. Evidence suggests this might be because far-right pages are especially good at boosting engagement on Facebook by posting content simultaneously across their networks. (Daniel Bush, Anna Gielewska, Maciej Kurzynski / Cyber Policy Center)

TikTok is launching a Transparency Center in Los Angeles to give outside experts more insight into how the company makes content moderation decisions. Its one of many moves the company has made in recent months to quell the concerns of US regulators and lawmakers. This ones interesting. Reuters explains:

The center would later provide insights into the apps source code, the closely guarded internal instructions of the software, and offer more details on privacy and security.

Several U.S. agencies that deal with national security and intelligence issues have banned employees from using the app, whose popularity among teenagers has been growing rapidly.

According to a 2017 Chinese law, companies operating in the country are required to cooperate with the government on national intelligence.

Egon Durban of Silver Lake is the latest Twitter board member to have never tweeted before joining the board.

Rihanna just announced shes opening a Fenty Beauty House for TikTok creators as part of a promotion for her makeup line. Creators will be able to raid the fully stocked Make-up Pantry to create their own beauty-focused content. What a fun time to be trapped together in a house with a bunch of people you barely know! Dont share make-up brushes yall! (Bianca Betancourt / Harpers Bazaar)

Alphabet was supposed to help Google invent its next blockbuster technologies. But nearly a half-decade has passed since it launched, and the breakthrough new businesses havent materialized. (Nick Bastone and Jessica E. Lessin / The Information)

Google has pressured TV manufacturers not to use Amazons Fire TV system. The strategy has slowed Amazons efforts to expand its Fire TV platform. (Janko Roettgers / Protocol)

Googles sibling company Sidewalk Labs is walking back plans to create a futuristic city in Toronto. The plans, which combined environmentally advanced construction with sensors to track residents movements, raised privacy concerns. In May, the government will announce if the project will proceed. (Ian Austen / The New York Times)

Send us tips, comments, questions, and EARN IT Act worse-case scenarios: casey@theverge.com and zoe@theverge.com.

The rest is here:
A sneaky attempt to end encryption is worming its way through Congress - The Verge

Although the topics did not appear on Tuesdays agenda, the Second Amendment and gun control legislation dominated the first hour and a half of the county board meeting. Thirty-five people some more than once spoke during open forum. Most implored county commissioners to pass a resolution declaring Crow Wing Countys dedication to protecting residents Second Amendment rights, including potential legal action and the appropriation of public funds.

This isnt about guns. This is about due process. I cant rely on the federal system to protect me. I cant rely on the state system to protect me. So Im looking to my county to stand up and defend due process, said Emily resident Michael Starry. ... This is your opportunity to stand with your fellow citizens and tell us that youve got our backs the same way we have yours. Due process matters, the Constitution matters and our right to be free from tyranny, from oppression from any kind of madness that can take place that matters.

Supporters of a bill to make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment sanctuary county spoke to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Starry is one of five administrators of a Facebook group called Patriots for Crow Wing 2nd Amendment Dedicated (Sanctuary) County, which sought to organize residents to attend Tuesdays meeting en force. The grassroots effort is among dozens coalescing across the state and hundreds nationwide, organized in response to gun control legislation many view as too restrictive or outright unconstitutional.

In Minnesota, the target is two bills passed by the state House of Representatives one expanding background checks to online sales and gun shows, and red flag legislation that would allow police officers to seize a persons firearms if a judge determined they were a threat to themselves or others.

Thus far, six Minnesota counties have passed sanctuary resolutions, including nearby Wadena County, indicating county leaders would fight back against these kinds of laws. Starry said he and thousands of others want Crow Wing County to join that list, and the activists got one step closer Tuesday. Midway through the parade of residents approaching the microphone, Board Chairman Paul Koering said the county board would host a public hearing at 6 p.m. March 19 in the Crow Wing County Land Services Building meeting rooms. He added he would also champion the desired resolution, putting it up for a vote at the March 24 county board meeting.

--------------------------------

What: Public hearing on proposed resolution that would make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment-dedicated county.

When: 6 p.m. March 19.

Where: Crow Wing County Land Services Building, meeting rooms 1 and 2, 322 Laurel St., Brainerd.

--------------------------------

Although a show of hands indicated a large majority of those in the room sympathized with a sanctuary resolution, at least four people who spoke said they opposed such action. Barb McColgan of Brainerd questioned the need for such a resolution and expressed concern over the county potentially dedicating public funds collected from all county residents to advance the views of one particular group.

Barb McColgan spoke Tuesday, March 10, about her concerns of just selecting one amendment of the constitution and not placing the emphasis on the whole document at the Crow Wing County Board meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

I guess my question is, this is in our Constitution, we are going to have to follow the state laws and federal laws. And so I dont see a purpose for this. It seems to me like were looking at what one special interest group wants, McColgan said. Couldnt we just as well have a resolution to support the First Amendment, freedom of speech or freedom of religion? And, you know, we can go on and on, and why dont we just resolve to support the entire Constitution, instead of breaking it apart? I feel that this resolution is divisive. Its an issue that isnt going to change anything if its passed.

Emotions ran high at times as residents explained the importance of the county boards support of the Second Amendment to them.

Brainerd High School student Boston Hackbart said the issue was a big one to him, most of his classmates and fellow service members in the Army National Guard. While sharing those thoughts, Hackbart appeared to be overcome by emotion. After several seconds of silence while Hackbart collected himself, Starry joined him at the podium.

This young man has never been politically active and something generated that in him, Starry said. ... This movement to try to protect liberty, to try to protect due process, it matters enough that he got up here trying to do this, which in my opinion is fricking amazing.

Pam Johnson, a resident of northeastern Crow Wing County, told commissioners when she was in danger from her abusive husband years earlier, a red flag law would not have protected her. She said he bought a gun not from a store, but from the street corner.

You can say somebodys mentally unstable. You can say, hey, you know, a guy beats his wife. Hes got a restraining order, he said this and that, he cant have a gun. Go down to your corner and buy one. Its that easy, Johnson said.

Several others pointed to the potentially dangerous implications or ineffectiveness of red flag legislation. Arguments included the idea people could lose their guns because of false claims by a vindictive ex-spouse, for example, or fears over how mental health problems may be defined and by whom.

Megan Pence along with her son Caleb and daughter Isabel talks to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the board meeting. Several people gathered at the meeting to talk about their concerns of the recent Red Flag laws that are being proposed about firearm ownership in the state. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Megan Pence, accompanied by two of her five children, said shes concerned she could be a target of red flag legislation, despite her desire to protect her family.

I have three kids with disabilities. Some of those disabilities put me in very vulnerable situations, Pence said. I also have a long background of depression and anxiety. And red flag laws start to make me nervous if were going to start saying who can and cant carry a firearm, who can and cant protect their kids. Then I might be one of the first that cant carry a firearm.

But the county board has no purview over bills in the state Legislature what commissioners do have, however, is the ability to send a message on behalf of Crow Wing County residents, activists said.

Brainerd resident Darin Schadt said hes not the type to get political, but this issue moved him to get involved.

The people in the Cities are not listening to what people got to say up here. Were being left behind because the seven-county metro has all the votes, and it aint right, Schadt said. So thats why were all standing here coming to you people to send a message down to them, This aint right, were not putting up for it. And we don't want it. Its up to you guys to say no, our constituents up here do not want these things.

The rest is here:
Crowd seeks Crow Wing County support of 2nd Amendment - Brainerd Dispatch

From Twitter, cropped by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Writing in the Atlantic, Aaron Tang, Professor of law at the University of California, creates a profoundly misleading comparison of the Second Amendment with a fabricated entitlement to an education.

Tang attempts to make the case that Second Amendment supporters and proponents of a theory the Constitution guarantees a right to an equally funded state education are rough equivalents.

There are minimal similarities in the arguments: a basic right implies a level of supporting rights. You cannot have effective Second Amendment rights without access to ammunition and a place to train. You cannot have an effective right of the press without the ability to own and operate media. You cannot have religious freedom without preventing the government from closing down churches and stopping private choices of conscience.

Tang claims the argument that the right to vote implies the entitlement to a state-funded education is equivalent to the argument by Second Amendment supporters that the enumerated right to keep and bear arms implies the right to have access to firing ranges. From the article:

So what do the gun activists argue? Its worth reproducing this argument from their brief verbatim, with emphasis added to a single word: The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use after all, the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense wouldnt mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Second Amendment may say nothing about the right to practice at a shooting range of ones choosing, in other words, but that right ought to be recognized implicitly because it is important for an express constitutional right to have full meaning.

Now consider the argument advanced by advocates of a constitutional right to basic literacy. Like gun activists and their right to firearms training, educational-equity advocates recognize that the Constitution says nothing explicit about education. But surely a guarantee of basic literacy skills must be implicit in the document in order for its express rights to have meaning. As the Gary B. complaint puts it, without access to basic literacy skills, citizens cannot engage in knowledgeable and informed voting, cannot exercise their right to engage in political speech under the First Amendment, and cannot enjoy their constitutionally protected access to the judicial system including the retention of an attorney and the receipt of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

In order to reach this plausible-sounding bit of sophistry, Tang overlooks obvious, blatant differences.

The most obvious and fundamental difference, is no one is claiming the State must pay for Second Amendment training, the creation of ranges, or pay the costs of Second Amendment supporters who use those ranges. The Second Amendment arguments are all about stopping the state from preventing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment arguments are all about limiting the power of the government to interfere with Second Amendment rights.

An equivalent right to education already exists in the First Amendment, with the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to prevent you from becoming educated.

On the other hand, the proponents of education equality are demanding more power for the state. They are demanding the government provide state-run schools. They are demanding the government take from some taxpayers and give money to other taxpayers, to fund what they demand.

They demand an expansion of government power and authority, exactly the opposite of Second Amendment supporters.

You cannot teach students who are unwilling to learn. Access to basic literary skills already exists. If students want to learn, there are numerous, relatively inexpensive means for them to learn. Parental attitudes are far more important than funding. Some low funded schools produce excellent results and well-educated students. Some high funded schools produce horrible results and poorly educated students. Many students are taught at home, with excellent results.

Government-funded and run ranges are not required to exercise Second Amendment rights. They may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required.

Government-funded and run schools are not required for people to be literate and vote. People were literate and voted long before government-funded and run schools became the norm.

The arguments both use the word implied. The arguments have almost no similarity after that.

Federal government funding of schools has far more to do with creating a government-funded propaganda arm for the Democrat party, and funds for the Democrat party via teachers unions, than it has with creating literate citizens.

Government-funded schools may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required. Federally funded government schools are a recent development.

Professor Tang creates the illusion of equivalency of arguments with the assumption that a right to freedom from government interference is equivalent to an entitlement to government largess.

The Second Amendment is the protection of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled the right existed long before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The right to become educated was implicitly protected by the First Amendment. Voting was almost entirely left to the states, with the franchise gradually being expanded more and more and moreover the intervening centuries.

It is an enormous stretch to compare a right implied by a foundational, fundamental, enumerated right, such as the implied right to transport firearms to a range which welcomes you, outside the jurisdiction of your domicile; to an implied entitlement of a right to vote, to have the state pay for the education which you desire, by taking money from another jurisdiction to pay for the education in your jurisdiction.

He states Second Amendment supporters admit there is no explicit mention in the Constitution of the implied right to training.

Then he states the argument of an implicit entitlement of public education is equivalent. It isn't. It does not start with an explicit right. It starts with a claim that an entitlement is required to exercise a right. Exercise of Second Amendment rights does not require an entitlement.

An equivalent for the Second Amendment would be claiming the government must provide everyone with firearms.

There has never been a right to a government-funded education in the United States Constitution. (Some state Constitutions have a right to education in the text, Arizona is one)

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided food.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided police protection.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided housing.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided firearms.

There can not be a legal right to those things, because Constitutional rights limit government. They protect you from what the government would do to you.

To say there are Constitutional rights to economic products is to say the government must control the economy and make sure everyone has equal outcomes. Otherwise, the right would not be equal under the law.

A right exists, even if you do not exercise it. Everyone has Second Amendment rights, not just gun owners. Everyone already has the right to seek and obtain an education, protected by the First Amendment, even if they do not exercise that right.

This fundamental misapplication of the word right' requires a fundamental transformation of the structure of government. In essence, it requires the economy to be run by the government, with who gets how much determined by bureaucracies or the courts, instead of from a combination of effort, determination, skill, talent, luck, and, yes, government.

Some redistribution has happened, of course. Redistribution has never been a right. It is a combination of charity and forced redistribution of wealth, to use the force of government to take what would not be given.

Constitutional rights limit what government can do to you. They do not define what governments must do for you. Limiting what the government can do to you does not take resources from someone else.

To equate the arguments for implied Second Amendment rights, which limit what the government is allowed to do, with implied requirements for the government to pay for an education is fundamentally dishonest.

After setting up the argument, by ignoring the direct, obvious differences between a foundational right restricting government, and a demand for more government to take from some, and give to others, Professor Tang makes this statement:

The identical logical structure that underpins these otherwise distinctive arguments presents a puzzle for the Supreme Court. How can it in good faith accept a theory of implied constitutional rights for gun owners only to reject the same argument for schoolchildren? Yet the consensus among close followers is that this is the most likely outcome: Gun-rights activists believe the Court is primed to deliver them a victory in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, while educational-equity advocates recognize that the Courts conservative majority is unlikely to rule in their favor.

They should rule differently. The logical structure is not identical. It is fundamentally different.

The information about the difference is well known in legal circles. It is hard to believe Professor Tang does not understand the theory of natural law and the need to limit governmental power, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Constitution. The federal government is granted significant, but limited powers by the Constitution. The power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is not one of those powers.

He rejects that structure. He works hard to replace it with the Progressive construct of a living Constitution; a Constitution meaning only what the current justices are pressured to have it mean at any given moment. Attorney General William P. Barr recently gave a superb speech clarifying the differences in the Progressive vision of expansive government versus the founders' vision of limited government.

The Second Amendment has been infringed in various ways over the history of the United States. Those infringements do not change the foundational right. The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms existed long before the Constitution. The Second Amendment is in place to protect the right, not to create it.

Until 1968, citizens could order anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannons and their ammunition in the mail. Most people, in most places, had easy access to modern firearms, ammunition and ranges.

The Supreme Court is coming out of a long period, during which the words of the Constitution were often ignored, exactly because of the Progressive vision of government Professor Tang is promoting.

An important part of the theory of Progressive governance is the necessity of lying to the population, in order to achieve the objectives the governing elite wishes to enact. This is called manufacturing consent.

The United States is in the process of rejecting that theory, and in restoring a Constitutional government of limited powers.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read the rest here:
Dishonest Comparisons Between the Second Amendment and Government Funded Education - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

TheDepartment of Public Safety of Newark, N.J., is warning residents they could be prosecuted for falselyreportingcoronavirus cases in the city.

The citys public safety director, Anthony Ambrose, cautioned Newark residents against posting false information aboutcases on social media, saying it can cause unnecessary public alarm.

Ambrose said in a statementthat the department will investigate and try to identify those making false claims on social media, adding that state laws carry penalties for causingfalse public alarm.

The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws, Ambrose said. Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods, he added.

Public Safety Director Ambrose warns against false reporting of coronavirus in Newark via social media https://t.co/U1fS0RALHu via @Nextdoor pic.twitter.com/m75Y2CuB8L

Some on social media criticized the announcement, saying it violates the First Amendment.

The coronavirushas infected more than 1,000 people in the U.S. and killed at least 29.

The global outbreak is affecting the worlds economy and causing many events to be canceled, including sports competitions and political rallies. Several events, like the next Democratic debate, will occur without a live audience.Schools and universities are also canceling classes or moving them online.

View post:
Newark warns of criminal prosecution for 'false reporting of coronavirus' | TheHill - The Hill