Mediaboss Marketing

In partnership with the Stanford Internet Observatory, Lawfare is publishing a series assessing the threat of foreign influence operations targeting the United States. Contributors debate whether the threat of such operations is overblown, voicing a range of views on the issue. For more information on the series, click here.

To describe the past four years as a roller coaster seems inadequate. A bungee jump into a ravine would be more appropriate. Four years ago, even as evidence of foreign meddling in the U.S. presidential election piled up, skeptical journalists remained unconvinced. But since then, many members of the press have overcorrected. Now, the challenge is trying to persuade journalists that its not the Russians that are the biggest problem.

Its hard to remember when that journalistic skepticism of foreign interference morphed into a zealous belief that Russians were under every bed. But over time too many headlines included words straight off an election meddling bingo cardbot networks, sock puppet accounts, hacking, the Russians. This headline from NPR encapsulates the pattern: How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During the 2016 Election. And once these stories arrived, they continued ad nauseam. There are lots of possible explanations for the explosion in coverage. Maybe it was the traffic. As journalists became aware of the events of 2016, so did the public. Every story raised awareness and got a whole lot of clicks. Rinse and repeat.

Around the same time, a disinformation industrial complex was established. New tools were built (Botometer, Bot Sentinel), new nonprofits founded, conference after conference organized, documentary after documentary (After Truth, Operation Infektion, Agents of Chaos) produced, funding opportunity after funding opportunity explored. While the focus on disinformation in general was welcomed, the continued focus on Russia, at the expense of domestic threats, was and continues to be significant and dangerous.

Thats because a number of different domestic actors warrant serious attention.

First are sources who come from institutions whose members used to be presumptively reliable. This most notably includes elected officials and other government actors. Of course, the majority of the people remain vital for providing information and context, but a small but growing number are now learning to lie and deny. Behavior that would have been unthinkable even five years ago has become normalized because of the absence of any social or reputational penalty for lying. Its hard to describe their actions as anything other than disinformationdeliberately propagating false information with the intention of causing harm to others, whether thats political opponents, members of the public or different communities that they are meant to represent.

Second are those who arent elected members of Congress but who do want to create trouble for the sake of it. They are deliberately trying to manipulate the media ecosystem, often by fooling the media into covering a false story, even trying to convince the media that its the Russians. They aim to decay trust in news organizations; their aim is to be able to say, We told you that we cant trust the lamestream media. They also try to manipulate the platforms. They hijack Twitter trending topics and edit Wikipedia entries so that they show up on the front page of Google and overwhelm recommendation engines. Again, this might be another technique to fool the media into covering something bogus or devoting major attention to something wildly obscure. That oxygen and amplification provided by the mainstream media is frequently the desired ambition of these domestic actors.

Third are those who have been radicalizedoften with the help of people in either of the first two categoriesinto believing increasingly outlandish claims, all designed to undermine trust in democractic institutions such as universities, public health authorities, the media, the government and the electoral system. Fringe positions and beliefs have exploded in communities online over the past six months. These communities emphasize radical skepticisma refusal to accept official advice or expertise. They also mix previously disparate and separate campaigns. In Facebook Groups devoted to complaining about Excessive Quarantine there are also QAnon believers, anti-vaxxers and Second Amendment enthusiasts coming together. They all view themselves as fighting for the ideals of liberty and freedom, all the while being told to fear and mistrust anyone who doesnt agree with them. Its hard to know whether people sharing this content know that its misleading, and its tough to decide whether to classify it as disinformation or misinformation. Many of these people really do believe everything they post online, and they evangelize during conversations they have with friends and family around dinner tables. Others care less about the substance and more about feeling connected to a community, about feeling heard. Either way, these individuals become vectors for misinformationfar more destabilizing than a gaggle of Russian troll bot accounts.

The divisions within American society, and many others, are now so deeply ingrained that theres no need for foreign influence in order to amplify and inflame. From the cellphone-captured footage of Americans screaming in supermarkets about masks, to family members having to disown loved ones because of outlandish beliefs, to a neutered Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whose downfall was fueled by and consequently fueled misinformation, to university lecturers terrified of being filmed by students looking for evidence of liberal bias, to a weakened news media falling almost on a daily basis in the trust ratings, the evidence of our divided society is all around us.

The fissure between left and right, between the religious and atheists, between the coastal elites and those who live in the flyover states emerged decades ago, and the canyon continues to widen today at an ever-faster rate. Foreign actors can do whatever they want to speed things along, but theres little they can do that America isnt already doing to itself. Ultimately, historians of Russian disinformation campaigns taught us that this was always the objective, but the warning was not heeded. We need to recognize that a myopic focus on Russian meddling is preventing a much deeper analysis of what is happening right here at home.

Go here to read the rest:
The Media Has Overcorrected on Foreign Influence - Lawfare

COOS BAY, Ore. -- The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance,Measure 6-181,has made it on the ballot this year in Coos County.

The measure aims to create a sanctuary zone for the Second Amendment. That means Coos County officials would not be able to enforce state and federal gun control regulations if passed.

ELECTION COVERAGE

Stay with KEZI 9 News leading up to Election Day 2020 and on Nov. 3 for the latest information about races and measures and what it means for you. Click here to learn more.

If the measure passes, conceal carry laws and bans preventing the mentally ill from owning a gun would be removed.

However, the measure technically doesnt apply to background checks because they are done through private gun retailers, not county officials.

We think people should be allowed to go to court to defend themselves before they have their guns taken away, said Coos County resident Rob Taylor.

Taylor told KEZI 9 News that he helped draft and campaign for the measure.He said the measure was designed to counter Oregons Red Flag Law, which allows the courts to take guns away from people who may want to hurt themselves or others.

People may be afraid of someone who lives with them, said Taylor. But that doesnt justify the fact that people have the right to have their day in court.

However, the proposed measure would apply to count officials and not city governments or police departments, which could still choose to enforce gun control restrictions. Also, gun control restrictions would also continue to be in place for convicted felons, even if the measure passes.

In Coos County, there have been mixed opinions about the measure.

Coos Bay resident Tristan Avelis told KEZI 9 News that he will be voting no.He said it is extremely irresponsible and hes concerned it could make the sheriffs job a lot harder.

What these people are saying is that they want to prohibit the enforcement when they want to break rules at a state, federal or municipal level, said Avelis.

However, Joshua Walters, the owners of Orco Gunworks in Coos Bay said he will be voting yes.

He said everyone has the right to owning a gun, and the proposed measure is the first step in securing that right.

If someone was killed with a gun, its the guns fault, he said. Guns are bad. Lets get rid of guns. No, it doesnt work that way. If I wanted to hurt a bunch of people, I would steal a garbage truck and run it through a school.

KEZI 9 News reached out to the sheriffs office for comment, but they did not get back to us.

Originally posted here:
Second Amendment sanctuary on the ballot in Coos County - KEZI TV

Posted Tue, October 20th, 2020 8:50 pm by Katie Barlow

This article is part of asymposiumon the jurisprudence of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Ten years before Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller crystallizing the Constitutions guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, he was welcoming a young clerk to chambers by the name of Amy Coney Barrett. There were no Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court that term. In fact, before Heller, the court had not taken up a Second Amendment case since 1939 and before then, only twice in history, both in the 19th century.

The court has decided three Second Amendment cases since Heller in 2008, and if Barrett takes the bench, its possible the court would be inclined to again revisit and potentially further expand gun rights. Some scholars say the former Scalia clerk may be willing to go to the right of her former boss on guns.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the four most conservative justices on the current bench Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would like to take up more Second Amendment cases. Thomas, in particular, has written that the court gives short shrift to the Second Amendment when compared with other rights. And Kavanaugh wrote last term in a concurrence to a 6-3 decision finding that a challenge to a New York City gun-safety law no longer presented a live case that the court should take up another Second Amendment case soon.

Four votes is enough to take up a case, and the court has had plenty of opportunities to do so. At the end of last term, the justices spent weeks considering 10 different cert petitions in gun-rights cases but ultimately declined to hear any of them. Some court watchers believe that some members of the courts conservative wing became hesitant to accept new gun cases because they were unsure of how Chief Justice John Roberts would vote on the merits. Barrett would change that calculus as a justice likely to take an expansive view of Second Amendment protections.

Thats reading the tea leaves, though, when theres really only a pinch in the cup. Barrett has written only one opinion on the Second Amendment during her three years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. It was a dissent.

The case was Kanter v. Barr. Notably, the questionnaire that Barrett submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee requested that she list her most significant cases. Kanter got top billing.

Rickey Kanter was convicted of a single count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts. He challenged federal and state dispossession laws that prohibited him from owning a gun because he had been convicted of a felony. Kanter argued that those laws violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. A three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit disagreed with Kanter 2-1 with two Reagan appointees in the majority.

In her dissent, Barrett sided with Kanter. She suggested that, when assessing the constitutionality of gun restrictions, courts should look to history and tradition to see whether there is a historical precedent for the restriction at issue. Under that test, only restrictions with historical analogues would be upheld as permissible under the Second Amendment. Barretts history-first approach differs from the test adopted by most lower courts in the wake of Heller. Most courts have assessed gun laws not by looking at history but by analyzing the governments asserted justification for the law and comparing that justification with the laws effects a two-pronged test that the Kanter majority described as akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Barretts dissent echoed a similar dissent that Kavanaugh wrote as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, before President Donald Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court. In that dissent, Kavanaugh argued that history and tradition, rather than the standard intermediate scrutiny test, should guide courts when assessing the constitutionality of gun laws. If Barrett is confirmed, the courts two most junior justices could find themselves as long-term allies in steering how lower courts approach Second Amendment rights. They likely would be joined by Thomas, a strong originalist who recently lamented that many lower courts have resisted the history-based approach.

Scholars view the history and tradition test as generally leading to more expansive gun rights. And indeed, in Kanters case, Barrett performed a lengthy review of 18th and 19th century gun laws before concluding that a categorical ban on gun ownership for all people who have been convicted of a felony is unconstitutional. History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns, she wrote. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.

During Barretts nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Democrats repeatedly pressed her on her Kanter dissent and her views on the Second Amendment more broadly. She did little to elaborate on her views beyond repeating the reasoning laid out in her dissent.

One thing she did divulge in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is that her family is among the roughly 40% of American households that own a gun. She pledged to decide any Second Amendment case without regard to her personal views on gun ownership, and she said she would come to the court with no agenda on the issue.

Among the 10 gun-rights cases that the court declined to hear this summer was a case about whether states can ban assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines. That denial may have been a different story with a Justice Barrett on the bench. As it happens, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in August struck down a California ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines as unconstitutional. According to Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law, that case could be like candy for a newly solidified conservative majority if Barrett gets confirmed.

Posted in Featured, Symposium on Judge Barrett's jurisprudence

Recommended Citation: Katie Barlow, Symposium: Barretts history-first approach to the Second Amendment, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 20, 2020, 8:50 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/symposium-barretts-history-first-approach-to-the-second-amendment/

View post:
Symposium: Barretts history-first approach to the Second Amendment - SCOTUSblog

In the summer of 2020, riots and looting broke out across the United States. In cities from Seattle to New York, police were ordered to stand down and let the riots and looting take their course. The lesson from these events is that you cannot rely on the police to protect your life and property from criminal aggression. And that makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms more important than ever.

The right to defend oneself with firearms against criminal aggression dates back to the days before the U.S. became independent of Great Britain. While that right was often successfully defended in the political process, it took until 2008, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, for the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees against the federal government an individual right to possess firearms and to use them for self-defense within the home. Still, that right has been hanging by a thread because four justices dissented.

The Heller dissenters argued that whatever the original intent of the Second Amendment, the right is obsolete in modern society. They claimed that, while armed self-defense may have been needed when the U.S. lacked the infrastructure needed to provide security for the citizenry, the existence of modern professionalized law enforcement eliminates the need for armed self-protection.

Two years later, multiple large American cities unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to allow local and state governments to disarm citizens in McDonald v. City of Chicago. They argued that in more urban areas that have the benefit of a concentrated and highly trained police force ... the need for individuals to arm themselves for self-defense is less compelling.

The riots of this summer undermine this claim. The country hadnt seen such destructive violence in decades. For example, in Minneapolis, the killing of George Floyd sparked mayhem and lawlessness that resulted in two more deaths and at least $500 million in damage, the most destructive riots since 1992 in Los Angeles.

The chaos that followed Floyds killing touched off an unprecedented surge in Minneapolis crime the following month, including more than 1,500 shots-fired 911 calls twice as many as the same period the year before. Homicides in Minneapolis went up 114%.

Second Amendment critics tell people to rely on the police for self-protection. Where were the police during this crisis? The mayor ordered them to stand down, leaving Minneapolis residents and business owners to their own devices. The same thing occurred during riots and looting in Chicago, Columbus, Louisville, and Portland.

The events of the summer of 2020 showed that urban areas are both especially vulnerable to large-scale violence and especially likely to be abandoned to that violence by irresponsible politicians who see political advantage in refusing to confront lawlessness camouflaged by concurrent political protest. Some cities are trying to make that irresponsibility permanent by defunding their police departments, leaving no viable law enforcement presence.

Ironically, some of the same voices from the recent past that told people to rely on the police for protection are now among the loudest advocates of the notion that the police are beyond redemption and should be defunded. We have already begun to see the effects of the defund movement and the anti-police sentiment, as demoralized police quit, call in sick, or are increasingly lax about their duties. As in Minneapolis, many cities have seen a spike in crime.

Given that urban political elites seem to be determined to leave their constituents at the mercy of violent mobs, Justice Clarence Thomas opinion in Peruta v. California seems especially topical. Speaking for himself and Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas advocated broadening the right to keep and bear arms beyond the home. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen, Thomas wrote.

More than two-thirds of likely voters are concerned that attacks on police will lead to a shortage of officers and reduce public safety where they live, which could explain why more than one-in-five of the 43% of people who live in a household with a gun have added an additional firearm since the unrest began.

In short, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not only not anachronistic its crucial. If the police are defunded or forced to stand down, the only way to protect oneself and ones property will be to exercise ones right to armed self-defense.

David E. Bernstein is a professor of law at George Mason Universitys Antonin Scalia Law School and the author of The Right to Armed Self-Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication.

More here:
The Second Amendment is as necessary today as it has ever been - Washington Examiner

Jon Gabriel, opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. MT Oct. 17, 2020

Opinion: Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly founded a center that gave Arizona gun laws an F and endorsed candidates that few gun supporters would back.

Democratic challenger Mark Kelly prepares to debate Republican Sen. Martha McSally at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University on Oct. 6, 2020.(Photo: Rob Schumacher/The Republic)

Sure, Mark Kelly loves the Second Amendment. Just ask him.

"I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, I am a gun owner, the Democrat said at last weeks U.S. Senate campaign debate. Our rights and traditions are so important.

I probably own more firearms than your average Arizonan," he told another interviewer.

But Kellys actions show disdain for gun rights. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which Kelly co-founded,endorsed California as the best model for gun laws while giving Arizona an F.

Californians fleeing their state might vote for the same failed policies in their new home of Arizona. If so, Mark Kelly is their guy. Arizonans who view the basket case to our West as a cautionary tale need to think twice.

Politicians love making promises almost as much as they love breaking them once they arrive in D.C. Its voters duty to trust but verify these oaths, although the trust part is optional.

The record clearly shows that Kelly has spent years pushing gun control legislation and promoting the Second Amendments worst enemies.

For Kelly, the issue of gun control is personal. His wife, Rep. Gabby Giffords, was shot by a mentally ill man in 2011, leaving her with a traumatic brain injury. The gunman killed six others, all with a weapon he legally bought following a background check.

Looking for the other side of the story?Subscribe today for access to even more opinions.

His activism is understandable, but he should be honest about it. Kelly is free to push all the gun control measures he wants; Arizona voters are free to disagree.

Following the Tucson shooting, Kelly and Giffords founded a gun control group called Americans for Responsible Solutions. In 2017, they renamed it Giffords, including a legal arm and political action committee.

The groups mission is fighting to end the gun lobbys stranglehold on our political system. Their long list of political endorsements includes some of the most passionate opponents of our Second Amendment rights.

The Giffords group endorsed Gov. Gavin Newsomin 2018, celebrating California for having the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation.

Im so honored to receive the support of Gabby and Mark two incredible advocates and selfless public servants, Newsom said. I have long admired their work across the country fighting to end gun violence, and Ive been proud to partner with them to strengthen our gun safety laws here in California.

Newsom is eager to push his gun safety laws on Arizona with another ally in the U.S. Senate.

Kelly and Giffords also endorsed Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzkerthat yearfor his attacks on the Second Amendment. Needless to say, Arizona has plenty of former Land of Lincoln residents as well. They fled for a reason.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) earned the coveted Giffords endorsement this year. While Mark Kelly might not mention the words Democrat or progressive in his ads, his organizationsure likes far-left candidates.

Thegroupeven endorsed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWash.), who praised protesters inSeattles violent CHAZ as planting the seeds of justice.The next day she called for decriminalizing homelessness and to re-imagine and rebuild law enforcement across the country in order to finally put an end to police brutality, militarization, and anti-Blackness.

Most Arizonans dont want autonomous zones planting the seeds of justice in Phoenix, Tucsonor Flagstaff, but perhaps Kelly disagrees. His groupsendorsement says otherwise.

Just like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Mark Kelly fills his ads with waving flags, pickup trucks, and paeans to tradition and the Constitution. But if the past is prelude, a Senator Kelly will push Sacramento and Seattle laws on the freedom-loving voters of Arizona.

I suspect Arizonans dont want to see their state turned into California. Mark Kelly hopes they do.

Jon Gabriel, a Mesaresident, is editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Republic and azcentral.com.Follow him on Twitter at@exjon.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/10/17/mark-kelly-actions-second-amendment-speak-louder-words/3658487001/

Originally posted here:
Mark Kelly says he supports the Second Amendment. But actions speak louder than words - The Arizona Republic