More liberty, less crime –
COLUMBIA, SC A University of South Carolina student who is an activist Libertarian sued the college Tuesday on freedom of speech grounds because it threatened to discipline him for posters used last fall during a free speech event.
Ross Abbott, 21, a USC senior studying business management, filed the federal suit because a university official told Abbott he faced discipline, up to expulsion, over complaints from three students about posters that campus Libertarian organizations displayed at a Nov. 23 “free speech zone” event intended to showcase First Amendment freedoms, according to Catherine Sevcenko, director of litigation for Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
The posters included images of a swastika displayed at another campus and one that alluded to a suspension last year of a USC student over a photo showing a racial slur written in a campus study room. Shortly after the female student’s suspension, FIRE wrote to USC president Harris Pastides and asserted the suspension was improper and that what she wrote is protected speech.
Campaign for Liberty has joined with 63 organizations in sending a letter to the California Attorney General’s office opposing a proposed regulation requiring non-profit organizations to disclose the names of their donors to the state.
This regulation is just the latest attempt by statists to use so-called “donor disclosure” laws to intimidate individuals from becoming involved in the fight for liberty.
Campaign for Liberty will continue to oppose any demand that we hand over our supporters’ confidential information to any government agent.
Here and below is the text of the letter to the California AG….
It’s not about 1 person. It’s not about 1 phone. It’s about the government being able to snoop on all people, on all phones, on all devices, on your TV, PC, even your HVAC and car. The government wants a skeleton key to unlock whatever it wants whenever it wants. This is dangerous in the extreme.
Voters might want Denmark, but they might get Venezuela.
Apple CEO Tim Cook declared on Wednesday that his company wouldn’t comply with a government search warrant to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardinokillers, a significant escalation in a long-running debate between technology companies and the government over access to people’s electronically-stored private information.
But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
“This move by the FBI could snowball around the world. Why in the world would our government want to give repressive regimes in Russia and China a blueprint for forcing American companies to create a backdoor?” Wyden told the Guardian.
“Companies should comply with warrants to the extent they are able to do so, but no company should be forced to deliberately weaken its products. In the long run, the real losers will be Americans’ online safety and security.”
“February 16, 2016 A Message to Our Customers The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around…
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden hailed Apple for refusing to comply with a federal court order to unlock the iPhone used by one of the killers in the San Bernardino mass shooting.
On Tuesday, the United States District Court of California issued an order requiring Apple to assist the FBI in accessing a locked iPhone (PDF)—and not just any iPhone, but the iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. The order is very clear: Build new firmware to enable the FBI to perform an unlimited, high speed brute force attack, and place that firmware on the device.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the landmark Heller case has served to bolster 2nd Amendment rights. But with his passing, liberals have new opportunities to exploit certain language in the ruling. For conservatives, that means there’s never been a better time to mobilize single-issue gun rights voters.
You can be a libertarian and a PRL since they’re theories that answer different questions. Libertarianism answers the question, “What institutional structures are good and just?” PRL answers the question, “How do we live on moral, peaceful terms with people who disagree with us about which institutions structures are good and just?”
Sometimes PRL and libertarianism conflict because libertarians often say they want to pursue establishing libertarianism without concern for non-libertarians who object. But in practice, libertarianism and PRL rarely conflict….