Trumps Legal Justification for the Abduction of Portland Protesters Is Absurd – Slate

President Donald Trump talks to reporters on Monday in the White House about expanding his secret police force.Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images

Over the weekend, a group of Portland, Oregon, moms confronted federal officers who had fired tear gas at them and other peaceful protesters on Saturday outside of a federal courthouse. The escalation of the Portland protests came as unidentified federal officers in paramilitary uniforms were caught on tape abducting protesters and as President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he might send more federal law enforcement to cities run by liberal Democrats to replicate the Portland tactics against protesters, including efforts to grab them, a lot of people in jail. On Monday, it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security would be sending 150 federal agents to Chicago this week with an unspecified mandate. The apparent legal justification for the abduction of protesters is weak, and it should be vigorously challenged in the courts before Trump can export these tactics to other cities for use against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Last week, people wearing combat fatigues were seen pulling apparently peaceful protesters off the streets of Portland, Oregon, and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. Their uniforms carried no identifying insignia, but they were clearly military uniforms.Based on the video evidence so far, the people being arrested were not engaged in crime. So we are faced with two questions.First, are these people military personnel, or are they police officers dressed up like soldiers? Second, do these people have the authority to sweep people off the street like this?

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the answer to the first question is that the force patrolling the streets of Portland consists of the FederalProtective Service, whose job it is to protect federal property. Personnel from other federal agenciesprincipally the Border Patrolhave also reportedly been deputized to assist in that mission.So these uniformed personnel are a militarized police force, which is always a dangerous thing. The answer to the second question is that, under the Fourth Amendment, this force does not have the authority to detain people like this. But government lawyers will rely on expansive theories of police power that cripple Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizures.This would not be the first time the federal government has tried this, though it appears to be one of the first targeting people exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

The Federal Protective Service has the authority to make arrests if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony.If that doesnt sound right to you, it shouldnt. People cant be arrested unless the arresting officer has probable causenot merely reasonable groundsto believe a crime has been committed or is underway. Thats required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which presumptively prohibits seizures without probable cause.

The problem is that this presumption has been overwhelmed by constitutional semantics.When the Supreme Court decided that the stop-and-frisk tactic was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, it created a category of detention short of an arrest and authorized it where a police officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime, instead of probable cause.Over time, the court has set aside the probable cause requirement for every seizure that doesnt count as the direct enforcement of criminal law. When Border Patrol agents arrest someone for sneaking across the border, for example, they dont need probable cause.They dont even need a reasonable suspicion. They only need to detain the person in a reasonable mannerbecause patrolling the border is not criminal law enforcement.So both of the federal agencies involved here have been told they dont need probable cause to make arrests. And the legal theory behind these dangerous rules is the same: that these federal agents are engaged in protecting national security instead of criminal law enforcement.

But where the arrests in Portland are concerned, there are two reasons to believe that this wont stand up.First, there is the word felony in the law authorizing the Federal Protective Service to arrest without probable cause. An arrest for a felony is the direct enforcement of criminal law by definition. Nothing in the semantic campaign to drag as many seizures as possible into the national security category can change that definition. And an arrest for a felony requires probable cause.

Second, when government agents claim they have made a seizure for some purpose other than criminal law enforcementsuch as national securitythe Supreme Court has allowed the target of that seizure to argue that this purported purpose is an unlawful pretext. In the arrests captured on video so far, no imminent threat to federal property can be seen. More importantly, while Trump occasionally mentions protecting property, he has insisted again and again that city officials have failed to get control over antifa, anarchists, and agitators, and that he will do the job if they cant.If we take the president at his word, then the defense of property is a pretext, and the law allowing arrests on a reasonable basis for that purpose doesnt apply.

The uniforms these government agents are wearing are a deliberate attempt to evade accountability. But ultimately, it doesnt matter which federal agency is committing these unlawful seizures.Constitutional search and seizure questions turn on what government officials do, not which agency they work for.The important thing is that federal agents are lawless actors here. Their uniforms are nothing more or less than part of the national security pretext for their actions.

It is important to understand the full implications of the governments legal theory as it is playing out in Portland. It is the equivalent of declaring martial law for purposes of national security, based on the lie that military force is needed to keep the peace. Imposing martial law for national security is a tool of dictators, and Donald Trump has been a dictator in waiting for years. We can only hope that the wait isnt over.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Read more here:

Trumps Legal Justification for the Abduction of Portland Protesters Is Absurd - Slate

Legacy Acquisition Corp. Terminates its Amended and Restated Share Exchange Agreement with Blue Valor Limited and Seeks a New Target – Business Wire

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Legacy Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: LGC) (Legacy), a publicly-traded Special Purpose Acquisition Company, today announced that as of July 20, 2020, Legacy terminated the Amended and Restated Share Exchange Agreement, dated December 2, 2019, between Blue Valor Limited, a company incorporated in Hong Kong (Blue Valor), and Legacy, as amended by that First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Share Exchange Agreement, dated March 13, 2020 (the Share Exchange Agreement), and is proceeding to evaluate alternative business combinations.

The termination is in response to the increasing impact on the global advertising sector, and global markets broadly, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, which has negatively affected the market valuations.

Pursuant to their respective terms, each of (i) the Sponsor Support Agreement, dated March 13, 2020, by and among Legacy Acquisition I LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the Sponsor), Legacy and Blue Valor, (ii) the Waiver Agreement, dated March 13, 2020, by and between the Sponsor and Legacy, and (iii) the Warrant Holder Support Agreements, dated March 13, 2020, by and between Legacy and the holders of approximately 19,765,000 (or approximately 65.9%) of Legacys public warrants, are terminated concurrently with the termination of the Share Exchange Agreement. Additionally, the Warrant Amendments described in the Consent Solicitation Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on May 15, 2020, and subsequently approved by the public warrant holders will not take effect and there will be no redemption rights or liquidating distribution with respect to Legacys warrants. The warrants will expire worthless if Legacy does not complete an alternative business combination.

The Legacy SPAC remains active, and is looking for targets across a broad spectrum of industries and welcomes interested parties to contact: Gary McCullough (garymccullough@legacyacquisition.com), Darryl McCall (darrylmccall@legacyacquisition.com), or Ed Rigaud (edrigaud@legacyacquisition.com).

Forward-Looking Statements:

This Press Release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Legacys and the Blue Impact business actual results may differ from their expectations, estimates and projections and consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Words such as expect, estimate, project, budget, forecast, anticipate, intend, propose, plan, contemplate, may, will, shall, would, could, should, believes, predicts, potential, continue, positioned, goal, conditional and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, the anticipated evaluation of alternative business combinations, as well as the impact of termination of the Share Exchange Agreement on the Warrant Amendments.

Legacy cautions readers not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. Legacy does not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Read more here:

Legacy Acquisition Corp. Terminates its Amended and Restated Share Exchange Agreement with Blue Valor Limited and Seeks a New Target - Business Wire

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend – Times Union

TROY John Koletas has been testing this city's First Amendment resolve for a very long time.

Three decades ago, the controversial pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Lansingburgh was best known as a street preacher who tried to save the souls of passersby in downtown Troy. In a not-quiet voice, he'd demand that they repent for their sins.

The shouting wasn't always appreciated, unsurprisingly, and Koletas was repeatedly charged with disorderly conduct. Eventually, Koletas filed a lawsuit arguing that he had a First Amendment right to preach on the street and that his repeated arrests amounted to unconstitutional harassment. Two national TV shows Fox's "A Current Affair" and NBC's "Inside Edition" even came to Troy to report on the controversy.

Koletas ultimately lost in court, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that police did nothing wrong by arresting him.

Had I been a columnist for this newspaper back then, I generally would have been on Koletas' side. I would have argued, in other words, that he did in fact have a free speech right to preach outside, at least within reason.

No, a person shouldn't be allowed to holler on the street at, say, midnight. People do need to sleep, after all. Laws against unreasonable noise are justified.

But certainly, the city needed to accommodate the preacher's free speech rights without needless harassment. Koletas had the right to preach, even if few passersby wanted to hear it.

Fast forward three decades, and Koletas is again attracting attention. AR-15 rifle giveaways at Grace Baptist and Koletas' consistently hateful rhetoric toward Blacks, Jews, Muslims and Catholics have attracted Black Lives Matter protesters to the Fourth Street church in recent weeks.

As I noted in a column published Sunday that focused on Koletas' attacks on Catholicism, protesters aren't coming to Grace Baptist to attack Christianity or religion, as some in conservative media would have you believe. They're protesting what Koletas says, and justifiably so.

As has been well documented by bloggers and others, Koletas has referred to Blacks as "termites" and "savages." He has described himself as a racist who "believes the races should be kept separate as much as possible." Koletas says Catholicism, like the Muslim faith, is incompatible with democracy and the Bill of Rights.

In response to Sunday's column, a few supporters of Grace Baptist claimed I was attempting to silence or "cancel" Koletas' freedom of religion or speech. But I suggested no such thing.

I believe strongly that Koletas has the First Amendment right to pray and preach as he wants, assuming he stops short of advocating violence. Likewise, his followers have a First Amendment right to listen. And yes, protesters, columnists and Facebook commenters all have a First Amendment right to object to what Koletas says.

Free speech for everybody! What a concept.

Freedom of speech seems to be falling out of fashion, though. We increasingly hear that some words are too harmful to be spoken or that listeners have the right not to be offended. On college campuses, even relatively dull speakers such as economist Art Laffer can find themselves "deplatformed" for supposedly offensive views.

The shift, if widely accepted, will redefine free speech rights as we've long understood them. Actually, it would all but eliminate true freedom of speech. After all, if you can't say something that somebody might find offensive, you can hardly say anything provocative. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of expression.

The result would be a stifling monoculture of thought, devoid of intellectual diversity or compelling debate. And as any good gardener can tell you, there's nothing interesting about a monoculture.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, wrote George Orwell in an essay planned as the introduction to "Animal Farm" that also included this gem of a line: "People don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."

Had I been walking down a street in Troy in the early 1990s, I suppose I wouldn't have wanted to hear Koletas' call that I repent for my sins. I wouldn't want to sit through one of his sermons today. (Happily, I don't have to.)

But we allow Koletas to speak so that we all may speak. We counter his words with our own words.

Freedom of speech for everybody! It's a crucial concept.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Original post:

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Times Union

Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways – ArmyTimes.com

The U.S. Armys esports team has come under fire for separate allegations of advertising fake giveaways and banning commenters who mentioned U.S. war crimes.

Streaming platform Twitch said the allegedly fake giveaways were in violation of their terms of service, and the ACLU is concerned that banning commenters prohibited free speech.

It looks like what happened was a violation of the First Amendment, ACLU staff attorney Vera Eidelman told VICE.

The Army denied such accusations, with a spokesperson saying comments regarding war crimes were meant to troll and harass the team, and that the giveaways were, in fact, real.

The Armys esports team, which began in 2018, has never had overwhelming public support. The use of popular shooter and strategy games such as Call of Duty; Counter-Strike: Global Offensive; Fortnite; Magic: the Gathering; and more to recruit gamers was seen as morally questionable by some.

On June 30, the official Army esports Twitter responded to an announcement by chat platform Discord with the text emoticon UwU and heart emojis. The emoticon is meant to display a happy anime face, and while some sections of the internet use it frequently, others find the emoticon annoying and frown upon its use.

Followers lashed out against the tweet, calling Discord pro-war and referencing incidents like Abu Ghraib. But the backlash didnt stop with Twitter.

Since early July, gamers and internet trolls have been swarming to the Armys Twitch streams and chat server on Discord to see just how quickly they can get banned for mentioning war crimes or mocking the Tweet that started it all.

Don't miss the top Army stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Army Times Daily News Roundup.

As a result of this flood of ban-seekers, the open chat room on the Armys Discord server was intentionally disabled by moderators.

Following the guidelines and policies set by Twitch, the U.S. Army eSports Team banned users from its account due to concern over posted content and website links that were considered harassing and degrading in nature, U.S. Army Recruiting Command spokesperson Lisa Ferguson told Military Times.

The Army encourages those who are genuinely concerned about war crimes to use FOIA reading rooms, elected representatives, and public forums with military leaders to engage in dialogue about war crimes, Ferguson said.

An ACLU tweet on July 10 called out the Army for the bans, saying: Calling out the governments war crimes isnt harassment, its speaking truth to power. And banning users who ask important questions isnt flexing, its unconstitutional.

Just when it seemed controversy over the bans might start to die down, it was alleged that the team was advertising fake giveaways of an Xbox Elite Series 2 controller, valued at more than $200.

The allegation was first reported by The Nation on July 15.

When clicked, animated giveaway advertisements in the Armys Twitch stream chat boxes led users to a recruiting web form with no mention of any giveaway, The Nation reported.

Twitch has since put an end to such advertisements.

This promotion did not comply with our Terms, and we have required them to remove it, a Twitch spokesperson told Kotaku.

USAREC spokesperson Lisa Ferguson said that the giveaways were legitimate and that the Armys esports team has given away 10 controllers, gaming stations, and chairs in the past year.

While the landing page looks generic, each giveaway has its own URL and marketing activity code that directly connects the registrant to the specific giveaway, Ferguson said.

As a result of recent events, Ferguson added that the esports team is reviewing ways to add clarity and customization to giveaways and has paused streaming to evaluate internal policies and procedures.

Read the original here:

Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways - ArmyTimes.com

My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment – Wicked Local Provincetown

I was tagged in these pages last week as mystery man the person Town Moderator Mary-Jo Avellar reported to the police for handing out fliers criticizing her as I stood on Commercial Street outside her workplace. Im not really a mystery. Ive been a part-time resident and taxpayer here for 20 years.

After Ms. Avellar took my picture, her Finance Committee appointee Mark Hatch posted it on Facebook in an effort to divine my identity. It wasnt a coincidence that Hatch, who chairs that committee, anointed himself Avellars private investigator.

Under the town charter, Avellar is primarily responsible for reviewing recent allegations thatHatch authored social media posts that were misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and otherwise degrading toward immigrants and participants in Black Lives Matter protests. But like most of Provincetowns elected leaders, shes brushed off Hatchs pattern of intemperate online hate speech.

Instead of taking appropriate action, she foreshadowed the later comments of our witless President when she recently told the Banner, Even the Ku Klux Klan . . . are entitled to free speech. Yet no one has a constitutional right to serve on a town committee, much less chair it. Even House Republicans found enough guts to kick Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) off his committees for the bigotry he voiced.

In a true perversion of the First Amendment, several of Hatchs Facebook followers seem to think it was bad taste or even illegal to protest against a public official on a public street in front ofthat person'sworkplace. Heres what I think: Its bad taste not to mention, ignorant for the Town Moderator to invoke the Ku Klux Klan as an excuse for protecting the alleged hate speech of her own appointee. The Klan is a terrorist organization primarily known for beating and murdering African-Americans, as well as Jews, Catholics, immigrants, and their allies.

I took this step because Avellars outrageous excuse required an outraged response. Many people here today are immigrants, as were the ancestors of many Provincetown families. At least half the towns population is female. Our neighbors include Jews and people of color. We deserve better from the Town Moderator and the Finance Committee.

That committees Code of Conduct states, Remember that you represent the entire community at all times not just while sitting behind a dais. If Provincetown is supposed to be a loving, welcoming community, committee chairs shouldnt spew hate online, and a top elected official cant hide behind the KKK as a reason for refusing to investigate credible allegations that this Code of Conduct provision was violated.

The Town Moderator has already prejudged this matter, so it would be inappropriate for her to act on it. But under Chapter 3, Section 5 of the town charter, the Select Board may investigate and impose sanctions for the alleged misconduct of any member of a town board, commission, or committee. Theres been a formal complaint filed. Its time for the Select Board to step up and act.

Its also well past time the Town Moderator was reminded that her job, by definition, is to create order out of chaos not to keep sowing greater chaos, either among the Towns residents or leaders. If some confidantes would have the courage to tell her that, maybe shed take the message to heart.

Read the original here:

My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment - Wicked Local Provincetown

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend – Beaumont Enterprise

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Photo: Arnold LeFevre, Times Union Historic Images

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend

TROY John Koletas has been testing this city's First Amendment resolve for a very long time.

Three decades ago, the controversial pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Lansingburgh was best known as a street preacher who tried to save the souls of passersby in downtown Troy. In a not-quiet voice, he'd demand that they repent for their sins.

The shouting wasn't always appreciated, unsurprisingly, and Koletas was repeatedly charged with disorderly conduct. Eventually, Koletas filed a lawsuit arguing that he had a First Amendment right to preach on the street and that his repeated arrests amounted to unconstitutional harassment. Two national TV shows Fox's "A Current Affair" and NBC's "Inside Edition" even came to Troy to report on the controversy.

Koletas ultimately lost in court, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that police did nothing wrong by arresting him.

Had I been a columnist for this newspaper back then, I generally would have been on Koletas' side. I would have argued, in other words, that he did in fact have a free speech right to preach outside, at least within reason.

No, a person shouldn't be allowed to holler on the street at, say, midnight. People do need to sleep, after all. Laws against unreasonable noise are justified.

But certainly, the city needed to accommodate the preacher's free speech rights without needless harassment. Koletas had the right to preach, even if few passersby wanted to hear it.

Fast forward three decades, and Koletas is again attracting attention. AR-15 rifle giveaways at Grace Baptist and Koletas' consistently hateful rhetoric toward Blacks, Jews, Muslims and Catholics have attracted Black Lives Matter protesters to the Fourth Street church in recent weeks.

As I noted in a column published Sunday that focused on Koletas' attacks on Catholicism, protesters aren't coming to Grace Baptist to attack Christianity or religion, as some in conservative media would have you believe. They're protesting what Koletas says, and justifiably so.

As has been well documented by bloggers and others, Koletas has referred to Blacks as "termites" and "savages." He has described himself as a racist who "believes the races should be kept separate as much as possible." Koletas says Catholicism, like the Muslim faith, is incompatible with democracy and the Bill of Rights.

In response to Sunday's column, a few supporters of Grace Baptist claimed I was attempting to silence or "cancel" Koletas' freedom of religion or speech. But I suggested no such thing.

I believe strongly that Koletas has the First Amendment right to pray and preach as he wants, assuming he stops short of advocating violence. Likewise, his followers have a First Amendment right to listen. And yes, protesters, columnists and Facebook commenters all have a First Amendment right to object to what Koletas says.

Free speech for everybody! What a concept.

Freedom of speech seems to be falling out of fashion, though. We increasingly hear that some words are too harmful to be spoken or that listeners have the right not to be offended. On college campuses, even relatively dull speakers such as economist Art Laffer can find themselves "deplatformed" for supposedly offensive views.

The shift, if widely accepted, will redefine free speech rights as we've long understood them. Actually, it would all but eliminate true freedom of speech. After all, if you can't say something that somebody might find offensive, you can hardly say anything provocative. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of expression.

The result would be a stifling monoculture of thought, devoid of intellectual diversity or compelling debate. And as any good gardener can tell you, there's nothing interesting about a monoculture.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, wrote George Orwell in an essay planned as the introduction to "Animal Farm" that also included this gem of a line: "People don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."

Had I been walking down a street in Troy in the early 1990s, I suppose I wouldn't have wanted to hear Koletas' call that I repent for my sins. I wouldn't want to sit through one of his sermons today. (Happily, I don't have to.)

But we allow Koletas to speak so that we all may speak. We counter his words with our own words.

Freedom of speech for everybody! It's a crucial concept.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

View original post here:

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Beaumont Enterprise

Philly rebuffs Trump threat to send in feds over protests – Billy Penn

The president suggested he wanted to see whats happening in Portland spread to other U.S. cities.

Military personnel have tear-gassed protesters and used unmarked vehicles to detain people since arriving in Portland, Ore., at the Trump administrations direction last week an intervention local officials say is unnecessary and unwanted.

On Monday, the president threatened to deploy similar federal law enforcement teams to Philadelphia and a slew of other major U.S. cities.

Mayor Jim Kenneys administration confirmed it would oppose federal intervention, as did District Attorney Larry Krasner.

That the White House seeks to impose federal involvement in this way, after months of abrogating its responsibility to lead a federal response to COVID-19, is both ironic and offensive, Kenney said in a statement.

Philadelphia has not received any formal notice that federal agents are en route, the mayor said, adding that his administration would use all available means to resist such a wrong-headed effort and abuse of power.

The presidents comments come nearly two months into ongoing protests against systemic racism and police brutality, which have spread across the nation and globe as the Black Lives Matter movement picks up steam.

A couple of the early demonstrations in Philadelphia were followed by vandalism and destruction as tensions boiled over. They spurred what the city has admitted was an inappropriate response by police, including tear-gassing of residential streets and of trapped civilians expressing their First Amendment rights actions that further strained already tense community-police relations.

Since the first week of June, there have been near-daily rallies and marches in Philly, and nearly all proceeded without violence or property destruction.

Were not going to let New York and Chicago and Philadelphia and Detroit and all of these Oakland is a mess were not going to let this happen in our country, Trump said Monday from the Oval Office.

Up until recently, the federal government has provided backup for local law enforcement at the request of municipalities. The Pa. National Guard stationed troops in Philadelphia for over a week at the beginning of June. Kenney said he approved that at the request of local businesses who sought protection from property damage.

In his Monday statement, Kenney said sending in federal agents would only impede the work of local governments and exacerbate already heightened tensions in these cities.

Thats currently playing out in Portland, where the Trump administration decided to insert itself into the ongoing demonstrations against the will of local officials. Portland leaders have asked the president repeatedly to let them handle their situation, saying the military presence only serves as a powderkeg to sew chaos.

Federal authorities are sharply escalating the situation, said Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler. Their presence here is actually leading to more violence and more vandalism.

People are being literally scooped off the street into unmarked vans, rental cars, Wheeler added. Apparently, they are being denied probable cause, and theyre denied due process. They dont even know whos pulling them into the vans.

In a statement, District Attorney Larry Krasner indicated he would seek criminal charges against any federal agent who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people in Philadelphia.

The Trump administration approved dispatching Customs and Border Protection to Portland last week one of many rapid deployment teams being formed under the presidents executive order to protect monuments, statues and federal property.

The militarized unit in Portland was not specifically trained in riot control or handling mass demonstration, according to a Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the New York Times.

More here:

Philly rebuffs Trump threat to send in feds over protests - Billy Penn

Providence City Councilmans property vandalized, This was not a political statement adherent to the spirit of our first amendment – The Providence…

PROVIDENCE - John Igliozzi, a Providence City Councilman representing Ward 7, said in a statement that his property was tagged with graffiti and spikes were placed in the tires of his and his sons car over the weekend by vandals demanding that he work to defund and abolish the Providence Police Department.

"This was not a political statement adherent to the spirit of our first amendment," Igliozzi said in the statement. "This was an act of intimidation and censure by threat."

Igliozzi, who represents Hartford and Silver Lake and serves as chairman of the councils Committee on Finance has been helping to lead conversations around establishing an emergency social services response unit in the city and has also advocated for the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights to be repealed.

Discussions around redirecting parts of the police budget and exploring alternatives to traditional policing have ramped up since about 250 constituents testified before the council in support of defunding or abolishing the police during a nine-hour hearing in June.

"I know the vandals that committed these acts are not representative of the community who has come before the City Council and asked for reform from the police department," the statement says. "I will continue to listen and learn from these and other members of our community, and work to help initiate positive reforms that will continue to make the Providence Police Department the best department in the nation."

In a joint statement, other members of the Providence City Council condemned the vandalism at Igliozzis home.

"It's okay to disagree and to let that dissent be heard at an appropriate forum," says the statement issued by City Council members Sabina Matos, Michael Correia, Jo-Ann Ryan, Nicholas Narducci, Mary Kay Harris, Carmen Castillo, James Taylor, Katherine Kerwin, Pedro Espinal, and John Goncalves. "Vandalizing the home and tormenting the family of an elected official, or anyone else for that matter, is crossing the line and will not be tolerated. We stand with Chairman Igliozzi and will continue to work with all stakeholders to find solutions and condemn intimidation and coercion in all its forms. We know that these are not the values our city and neighbors uphold."

mlist@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7121

On Twitter: @madeleine_list

Follow this link:

Providence City Councilmans property vandalized, This was not a political statement adherent to the spirit of our first amendment - The Providence...

Portland Protesters Gassed After Setting Fire at Courthouse – gvwire.com

PORTLAND, Ore. Protesters outside Portlands U.S. courthouse set a fire in the buildings entryway early Monday in yet another night of conflict with federal agents who repeatedly tear gassed the demonstrators to drive them away, officials said.

Authorities over the weekend erected large fences around the building in an effort to keep away the protesters who have been on Portlands streets daily since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis nearly two months ago.

But video posted online showed protesterstaking down the fencingand a statement from Portlands city police department described the protesters tactics as they repeatedly headed toward the courthouse and were repelled by federal agents who emerged from inside.

Hundreds of protesters were at the scene Sunday night into early Monday morning and at one point dozens of people with shields, helmets, gas masks, umbrellas, bats, and hockey sticks approached the doors of the courthouse until federal officers came out and dispersed them, the Portland police statement said.

The protesters later lit a fire at about 1:30 a.m. Monday within the portico of the courthouse, said Portland police, who stressed that their officers were not involved in any crowd control measures, did not fire tear gas and were not present during any of the activity described.

Other people added wood and debris to the fire to make it larger and federal agents came out of the courthouse, dispersed the crowd and extinguished the fire,the statementsaid.

The violence happened as local and state leaders expressed anger with the presence of the federal agents, saying that the citys protests had started to ease just as the federal agents started taking action on the streets of Portland.

Speaking on CNNs State of the Union, Democratic Mayor Ted Wheeler said federal officers are not wanted here. We havent asked them here. In fact, we want them to leave.

Top leaders in the U.S. House said Sunday they were alarmed by the Trump administrations tactics against protesters in Portland and other cities, including Washington, D.C. Theyve called on federal inspectors general investigate.

Federal agents disperse Black Lives Matter protesters near the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse on Monday, July 20, 2020, in Portland, Ore. Officers used teargas and projectiles to move the crowd after some protesters tore down a fence fronting the courthouse. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

This is a matter of utmost urgency, wrote House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, D-Mississippi, and Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney, D-New York, in a letter to the inspectors general of Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security.

The Democratic lawmakers are seeking an investigation into the use of federal law enforcement agencies by the Attorney General and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to suppress First Amendment protected activities in Washington, D.C., Portland, and other communities across the United States.

The Democratic lawmakers are seeking an investigation into the use of federal law enforcement agencies by the Attorney General and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to suppress First Amendment protected activities in Washington, D.C., Portland, and other communities across the United States.

President Donald Trump has decried the demonstrations, and Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf labeled the protesters as lawless anarchists in a visit to the city last Thursday.

We are trying to help Portland, not hurt it, Trump tweeted Sunday. Their leadership has, for months, lost control of the anarchists and agitators. They are missing in action. We must protect Federal property, AND OUR PEOPLE. These were not merely protesters, these are the real deal!

Late Saturday, Portland police said protesters broke into the building of the Portland Police Association labor union that represents officers. Dumpster fires were also set and fencing was moved and transformed into barricades, police said.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum sued Homeland Security and the Marshals Service in federal court late Friday, alleging that unidentified federal agents grabbed people from Portlands streets without warning or explanation, without a warrant, and without providing any way to determine who is directing this action.

Rosenblum said she was seeking a temporary restraining order to immediately stop federal authorities from unlawfully detaining Oregonians.

It was not immediately unclear whether anyone was arrested or detained during the protest that started Sunday night.

See the original post here:

Portland Protesters Gassed After Setting Fire at Courthouse - gvwire.com

Outside the Outbreak: Iran executes man convicted of spying for US, nuclear weapons hot topic 75 years after test – Universe.byu.edu

House leaders alarmed federal officers policing protests

Top leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives said July 19 they were alarmed by the Trump administrations tactics against protesters in Portland, Oregon, and other cities, including Washington, D.C., and called on federal inspectors to investigate.

The Democratic lawmakers are seeking an investigation into the use of federal law enforcement agencies by the Attorney General and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security to suppress First Amendment protected activities.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said the presence of federal agents is exacerbating tensions. President Donald Trump has decried the demonstrations, and Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf blasted the protesters as lawless anarchists.

Post reports misconduct allegations against DC NFL team

The Washington PostreportedThursday that 15 female former employees of the citys NFL franchise said they were sexually harassed during their time with the team.

Three members of the front office are no longer with the organization, and owner Dan Snyder hired a District of Columbia law firm to review the clubs culture, policies and allegations of workplace misconduct.

The allegations come days after the team announced it would drop theRedskinsname and Indian head logo in response to recent pressure from sponsors and decades of criticism that the name and icon are offensive to Native Americans.

Nuclear weapons testing hot topic 75 years after test

On July 16, 1945, the U.S. military detonated the worlds first atomic bomb in New Mexico, ushering in the nuclear age. Now on the 75th anniversary of the test code-named Trinity, nuclear weapons continue to be a hot political topic,including in Utah,where people and livestock were exposed to radiation from nuclear tests.

The Trump administration has talked about resuming nuclear bomb testing as politicians consider renewing compensation for those still suffering from dangerous radiation exposure during the years of nuclear tests.

Retired Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch called updating legislation to help families who were victim to radiation a moral imperative, and nuclear weaponry has anissue in Utahs 4th Congressional District race between Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams and GOP challenger Burgess Owens.

Iran executes man convicted of spying on US-slain general

Iran executed a man convicted of providing information to the United States and Israel about a prominent Revolutionary Guard general Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in January, state TV reported on July 20.

Iran later retaliated for Soleimanis killing with a ballistic missile strike targeting US forces in Iraq. That same night, the Guard accidentally shot down a Ukrainian jetliner in Tehran, killing 176 people.

Iran has since issued a warrant for the arrest of President Donald Trump and 35 other individuals over the drone strike.

The rest is here:

Outside the Outbreak: Iran executes man convicted of spying for US, nuclear weapons hot topic 75 years after test - Universe.byu.edu