The Supreme Court has a case before it, Carpenter v US (it heard oral argument Wednesday), concerning the 4th Amendment and the personal data of a defendant in the form of his cell phone location data. The data were obtained from the cell phone company by police without first getting a search warrant. There is precedent.
The high court reasoned then [in ’70s cases involving business records that banks and landline phone companies maintain about customer transactions and that the Supreme Court then reasoned police could seize without warrants] that individuals had voluntarily revealed their financial transactions or numbers they dialed to a third party—the bank or phone company—and so had forfeited any privacy interest in that information.
Germany’s President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose position is less than that of the Chancellor’s (the current incumbent is Angela Merkel of the Christian Democratic Union) but currently has a critical role, has let the cat out of the bag regarding the attitude of that nation’s political elite toward democracy and the people of the nation.
…is reaching into other nations to deprecate their free speech.
Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at Australia’s Charles Sturt University has written a book, Silent Invasion, that details the breadth of influence the People’s Republic of China has achieved within Australia. His publisher, Allen & Unwin, has decided to “delay” release of the book because the PRC is threatening “defamation action” against the publisher.
What defamation, exactly (and how does a private citizen defame a foreign government, anyway)? Hamilton says his book is
“very factual, very deeply researched,”…the “first comprehensive national study of Beijing’s program of exerting influence on another nation.”
The UC Berkeley student newspaper, The Daily Californian, accused Alan Dershowitz, in black and white, of having “blood on his hands” and of being “culpable for…Israeli atrocities”—of blood libel. The Harvard law professor emeritus wanted to respond, but
The Daily Californian “absolutely, categorically” refused to print his reply to the op-ed.
As Dershowitz put it in a Fox & Friends segment,
The Daily Cal, as many college newspapers today, are totally one-sided. You can say whatever you want about people like me if I’m pro-Israel. I don’t get to respond.
Free speech, indeed.
When President Donald Trump’s Twitter account was deleted for a few minutes last week, it looked like an isolated mistake by a customer service employee “on his last day at work,” as Twitter, Inc, representatives had it.
Maybe not. Now, more information is coming to light about that incident. Seconds thoughts are occurring about the likelihood of a single employee in such a position having the authority to delete an entire account. There’s more, too.
Another in the annals of.
The Louisiana court system, all the way up to the State’s Supreme Court, has upheld police denial of a (black) defendant’s demand for a lawyer during a police interrogation. At one point during the interrogation, the suspect said, quite clearly IMNSHO,
If y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.
The Supreme Court said the suspect’s statement was too ambiguous to constitute a demand for a lawyer. Justice Scott Chrichton, in concurring, actually wrote in all seriousness,
That’s the position of FBI Director Christopher Wray.
To put it mildly, this [mobile device encryption] is a huge, huge problem. It impacts investigations across the board.
Certainly, consumer-done encryption of our communications devices can temporarily hinder investigations of the criminals who also use this encryption. But as the FBI demonstrated regarding an encrypted cell phone involved in the San Bernardino terrorist attack, its initial claims notwithstanding, the encryption can be broken without the cooperation of the device’s owner.
After being unable to get a job with any team in the NFL this season, Colin Kaepernick has filed a formal grievance against the NFL, each of the 32 team owners, and President Donald Trump—who supposedly “influenced” league management and team owners into not hiring him—alleging that they colluded to not sign him at quarterback, or end-of-bench monitor, this season.
Coincidentally, his filing comes after a year in which he routinely attacked our flag and national anthem and insulted our veterans by taking a knee during the pre-game playing of our national anthem. Also coincidentally, his filing comes after a year in which he led his last employer, the San Francisco 49ers, to a 1-10 record before the team tired of losing and benched him.
The EU thinks not enough progress has been made on the Brexit talks for there to be any discussion of a post-departure relationship between Great Britain and the rump EU. You can understand that to mean the Brits haven’t surrendered enough of their nationhood over their effrontery to suit the Poohbahs of Brussels.
Leading lawmakers also slammed continued divisions within the British government over Brexit.
The WSJ piece centered on the Poohbahs’ demands, but the sentence just quoted gives the EU game away.
The “divisions” within the British government are just the noise of liberty and democracy.
Progressives, as The Wall Street Journal puts it,
believe that every human problem can be solved with a policy tweak. A ban here, a background check there, and, voila, no more mass shootings.
But what’s their limiting principle? What level of gun control would satisfy them? What fundamental concept would make them believe they’ve gone far enough with their tweaks, checks, bans on an American citizen’s access to the means of defending himself and his family? Besides their empty rhetoric of “I wouldn’t do that, I wouldn’t take all your guns away…,” I mean.