Category Archives: Freedom

The Freedom Foundation sued Seattle Wednesday over its controversial new income tax on the rich, which critics call an assault on the law that sets a dangerous precedent.

The tax, passed by the Seattle City Council last month, targets high-income earners as part of what local lawmakers describe as a new formula for fairness.

The tax measure requires residents to pay a 2.25 percent tax if they are a single filer and make more than $250,000 annually or file jointly and make more than $500,000.

Its passage prompted a court challenge fromthe Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank that considers the tax a slippery slope that could open the door to more taxes in the future.

The outrage over the tax even prompted the Washington Republican Party to call for civil disobedience and urged its members to refuse to comply, file or pay.

STATE GOP URGES 'CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE' OVER NEW SEATTLE TAX, SAYS RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT PAY

Wednesdays suit, filed in King County Superior Court on behalf of several of the citys residents, lays out the case against the tax.

This is clearly bad policy and illegal, but its also an assault on the rule of law, David Dewhirst, a lawyer for the Freedom Foundation, told Fox News in a statement. If they can get away with it this time, where does it stop?

'If they can get away with it this time, where does it stop?'

The suit argues that Seattles plan to tax the rich is unconstitutional, because the state of Washington imposes strict limits on taxes; prohibits taxes on net income; and requires cities to get permission to tax residents.

This tax ordinances legal and constitutional infirmities are patently obvious, Dewhirst said. Thats what makes this whole thing so chilling.

Dewhirst accused city council members of knowingly adopting a law that can only survive if the courts abandon decades of precedent precedent grounded in Washingtons fundamental commitment to legal equality.

Outgoing Democratic Mayor Ed Murray says the goal of the tax is to replace our regressive tax system with a new formula for fairness while ensuring Seattle stands up President Trumps austere budget that cuts transportation, affordable housing, healthcare and social services.

The city estimates the new tax would raise $140 million a year and cost between $10 million and $13 million to set up, plus an additional $6 million a year to enforce. The money would go toward affordable housing projects as well as other services for lower-paid workers.

Councilmember Kshama Sawant told Fox News in July that the need for the tax is crystal clear.

She said the city isnt backing down and says Seattle is ready to duke it out in court in whats likely to be a very costly legal battle.

We will no longer tolerate a system that buries poor and working class people in taxes, while giving big business and the super-rich yet another free ride; a system that underfunds affordable housing to the point where thousands are homeless, a system that criminally underfunds education, Sawant said.

Washington is one of seven states in the country that does not have a personal income tax.

Analysts at the Washington Policy Center also note the Washington Supreme Court ruled in 1951 to invalidate the state income tax. Further, a law passed in 1984 prohibits any city or county from levying a tax on net income.

The states voters have rejected the idea of an income tax nine separate times. Washington voters did approve an income tax in 1932, but the state Supreme Court ruled the measure was unconstitutional.

See the original post here:

EXCLUSIVE: Freedom Foundation sues Seattle over controversial ... - Fox News

The busy Atlanta highway could be renamed.

Doug Richards, WXIA 9:12 PM. EDT August 09, 2017

Freedom Parkway in Atlanta

ATLANTA -- It appears Freedom Parkway will get a new name. It would be named John Lewis Freedom Parkway, if the city adopts the findings of a task force formed to honor the 30-year congressman and civil rights figure.

John Lewis is an enduring Atlanta political figure, and a civil rights legend. Yet in a city that has not hesitated to re-name city streets to honor its many civil rights figures the one figure lacking such an honor has been John Lewis.

"Its a street that currently doesnt have any residents on it," said Andre Dickens, speaking of Freedom Parkway, which juts east of downtown. "It can be named still 'Freedom Parkway, but potentially 'JohnLewis Freedom Parkway.'"

Andre Dickens chaired a task force that has recommended adding Lewiss name to Freedom Parkway which a generation ago, was perhaps the most controversial road project in Atlanta history.

When Lewis was a city councilman, he joined with thousands of angry residents who bitterly fought what was then called the Presidential Parkway project originally slated to bulldoze scores of historic homes east of downtown Atlanta.

"That was going to be a highway going out to Stone Mountain. He fought, along with great residents in that area, to not divide up their neighborhoods with the highway," Dickens said.

Lewis and other opponents eventually forged a compromise that produced the shorter, slower highway now called Freedom Parkway. Adding Lewiss name to that highway could get finalized before Mayor Kasim Reed leaves office in January.

"I think its a terrific opportunity to shine a light on one of the best individuals that our country has ever produced," Reed said Wednesday.

PHOTOS:John Lewis in Selma, Alabama for the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday

2017 WXIA-TV

WXIA

John Lewis backs Stacey Abrams in Georgia governor's race

Read the original here:

Freedom Parkway could be renamed in honor of John Lewis - WXIA-TV

Mr. Kara maintained that Israels actions were compatible with democracy, given this alleged incitement. But neither he nor anyone else from the government offered any specific evidence of incitement on Al Jazeera. The internationally recognized Johannesburg Principles set a high threshold for incitement: Direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence must be shown. These principles were adopted by international law experts in 1995 and endorsed by Abid Hussain, who was at the time the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression.

Mhamed Krichen, a senior news anchor at Al Jazeera and a board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists, rejected the charge. Israel always accused us of incitement, Mr. Krichen told me. I remember Shimon Peres, Israels former president and prime minister, did it in a live interview on my show a few years ago, but only now its politically convenient for Israel to act on it. (Paradoxically, by shutting down Al Jazeera, the Israeli government would be silencing one of the few Arab media outlets that regularly invite Israeli officials on air.)

By politically convenient, Mr. Krichen was alluding to Israels increasingly close relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as to Mr. Netanyahus loss in the standoff over the Aqsa Mosque. Al Jazeera, Mr. Krichen said, showed live coverage of the protests and posted images of an Israeli officer kicking a man while he was praying.

The steps against Al Jazeera come amid an escalating Israeli crackdown on journalists more broadly. Israeli authorities recently raided the West Bank offices of the pro-Hamas channel Al Quds TV, the pro-Hezbollah channel Al Manar and the Russian government-funded broadcaster RT under suspicion of incitement. At the time of the Committee to Protect Journalists most recent annual census of imprisoned journalists, in December, Israel was holding seven in jail, four of them on incitement accusations.

Israel bills itself as a democracy while in the same breath defending its decision on Al Jazeera by noting the example set by Saudi Arabias absolute monarchy and Egypts military dictatorship. It is true that the government in Jerusalem will need to jump through more hoops than did the Arab states to shut Al Jazeera down. But if Mr. Netanyahus government succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent within Israel.

Read more here:

'The Mideast's Only Democracy' Goes to War on Press Freedom - New York Times

On Monday, in Flat Rock, North Carolina, a forested town thirty miles south of Asheville, a half dozen police cars lined the curb outside Blue Ridge Community Colleges Bo Thomas Auditorium. Congressman Mark Meadows, who represents the states Eleventh District, was holding his first in-person town hall of the year. A onetime aspiring meteorologist who operated a sandwich shop with his wife before going into real estate, Meadows won his seat in 2012, after the Eleventh was redrawn with most of liberal Asheville cut out. In 2015, he helped found the Freedom Caucus, which he now heads, and which has helped make him a central figure and chief influencer in Washington. The caucus opposed the White Houses early efforts on health-care reform, leading Trump to promise that he would come after Meadows big time . Still, Meadows reportedly texts daily with Steve Bannon, lunches weekly with Paul Ryan, and has become so beloved by Breitbart News that the conservative site has called for him to become House Speaker.

But how do his constituents feel? In Flat Rock, the auditorium was filled to its four-hundred-and-fifty-person capacity an hour before the town hall was scheduled to begin. Outside, in a spitting rain, a dozen protesters in a roped-off area held signs: SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: JUST DO IT; WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW, RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY; REFINE AND REPAIR, NOT REPEAL AND DELAY. Also, IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT A LARGE GATHERING OF BABOONS IS CALLED CONGRESS! An elderly man in a shirt that read Trump won, resistance is futile walked up to the group. A middle-aged protester asked the man why America couldnt have single-payer health care when thirty other countries have it. The Trump supporter replied, Im sorry, I dont believe in government health care. Everything the government touches turns to crap.

After going through an airport-style security check, I sat down in one of the last rows of the auditorium, next to a retired history teacher named Evelyn Brush, who described herself as a lone voice in the Republican wilderness where she lives. Its a very unenlightened state, she said, shaking her head but smiling. Brush offered me a hard candy. They cant relate to other peoples sufferingI think thats what it is, she added. Brush is a member of the Henderson County Democratic Party, and she recognized many of the faces in the auditorium as ours. She also belongs to a multi-faith discussion groupBrush is Christianthat meets weekly at a synagogue in Hendersonville and had put together a list of demands for Meadows, which she showed me. Among the demands: Leave transgender people in the military, Fund public education, Dont restrict vetted immigrants, Vote for the country, not Trump, and Remember the poor.

Brush attended one of Meadowss town halls last year, and, though she disagrees with him on most issues, she was impressed. He acted like a gentleman, she said. He even answered her questionshe asked him to explain, for those who were unclear, the difference between an immigrant and a refugeea fairly unusual outcome for dissenting town-hall attendees . Brush said that Meadows had tried to present some facts to people that were totally without facts and only had passionate opinions. He straightened them out in a very professional manner. She added, These were the people who voted for him, mostly, and he risked alienating them.

Sitting in front of Brush, and next to a former head of the Henderson County Republican Party, was Ed Joran, who is retired from the trash business, he said. He wore a Meadows shirt and a pin reading Deplorables for Trump. He said that he agreed with everything that Meadows has said and done in Congress. Hes tough but personable. I think he could be a candidate for President in maybe 2020, definitely 2024, Joran told me. He added, I think hes at 78 r.p.m. He might be able to do more. But look what he did in his second term in Congresshe got rid of Boehner! And this Republican majority cant even pass a health bill!

Just then, the Henderson County sheriff, Charles McDonald, took the stage to introduce Meadows. After reaffirming the importance of the First Amendment, he urged the crowd to allow for a smooth evening and gently spelled out the consequences of doing otherwise: immediate and unceremonious removal. These words elicited groans, and a few dozen people raised signs that had been given out at the door that said Agree on one side and Disagree on the other.

The Disagree side got more use here and throughout the evening. In the course of nearly two hours, Meadows, suited and relaxed, answered twenty-seven pre-submitted questions, most of which were pointed and challenging. Roughly half concerned health care, including the very first: What health- insurance plan do you have now? Meadows explained that, like other members of Congress, he has Obamacare. It costs him and his wife roughly a thousand dollars each month in premiums, with a deductible of seventy-five hundred dollars, he said, seemingly in pursuit of sympathy. His answers were measured and often thoughtful. Still, the liberal-leaning crowdalmost entirely white, riled-up, and of retirement age or thereaboutsfrequently expressed their displeasure with what he had to say.

When Meadows described a health-care proposal that he said Lindsey Graham was working onblock-granting Medicaid and Obamacare subsidiesthe crowd loudly booed. Someone shouted, 1.3 million people will lose coverage! Joran turned to me. People here are behaving just like their kids at Berkeley, he said with disgust.

Meadows said that he prefers free-market solutions to health care. (When a constituent doubted his claim, later on, that every five-per-cent reduction in regulations creates one million jobs, Meadows was uncharacteristically curt: Google the study, he said.) Some have suggested, and lets have a real discussion about, Medicare for all, he said. After some cheers, he continued, The price tag is just unbelievably high. So, to pay for it, he said, It has to be a tax

On the rich! someone yelled.

You can take the top one per cent and tax them fully, and it still wont pay for Medicare, Meadows coolly continued. If you disagree, heres what I would ask you: send me the information.

Another shout: I have!

We had 29,992 e-mails or letters in the first seven months of this year, Meadows said, claiming that each one had been read. So I can tell you, if youve got a way to pay for Medicare for all, that will tackle one of the problems. Send me the facts and figures.

Another voice rang out: Canada!

Meadows said that Congress would continue to try to reform health care but, he conceded, If we dont have a bill in September, I think its probably not going to happen.

Later, someone asked if Meadows would support a law requiring Presidential candidates to release their tax returns. No, he replied. Thats not required by the Constitution. But, he added, Im all for disclosure and oversight. The question clearly referred to President Trumps refusal to release his own returns, but Trump was not mentioned by name. His name only came up once or twice the entire evening.

On one occasion, Meadows was actually able to unite the room in applause. Im one of the few members of Congress that believes in term limits, he said, in response to a constituents question, and Ive actually co-sponsored legislation to suggest that we need to have them. After the cheering subsided, he said, Look, I got you guys to agree on something!

As it happens, I spent a day with Meadows once, about twenty years ago, in Highlands, North Carolina, in the southern Appalachians. The congressmans company, Meadows Mountain Realty, catered to Atlanta couples, like my parents, who were looking for second homes; he eventually sold us on a piece of land outside town with valley views and plenty of terrain for me and my brother to explore. It didnt have an obvious water source, so Meadows recommended a guy who sent a man to search for well sites with a forked stick. It seemed odd, but the man did find water. And, while Meadows didnt do the dowsing himself, Ive always associated him with divining rods.

On Monday, the final question concerned Trumps promised border wall. How much would it cost? Meadows tried to glide past the details, before saying that it would be two billion this year, probably, and twelve to twenty billion to eventually complete the construction. He defended the importance of securing our border, but he did undercut one of the Presidents most memorable promises: Mexico, I dont think, is paying for it, he said.

Brush appreciated this answer. Hes honest, she whispered.

Excerpt from:

The Head of the Freedom Caucus Faces His Constituents - The New Yorker

Iranian women practice parkour skills at a park in Tehran. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

I love to take off my headscarf, says Laleh, 47, a hairdresser from Tehran. Shes sitting with a group of friends around one of the many picnic tables in the Mothers Paradise, a park in the Iranian capital. Shes wearing a fringed mint-green T-shirt through which you can see her bare stomach. We can wear airy clothes here, and thats a freedom I really enjoy.

Behind her, a group of women wearing T-shirts and skinny jeans are dancing to loud pop music. One of them climbs on top of a table and sways her hips to the rhythm of the music. A group of schoolgirls wearing white headscarves stop to watch.

We hate the headscarf, says one of Lalehs friends, a retired nurse. We are so happy to be able to go to a place where we can walk around uncovered, do sports and sunbathe.

We can wear airy clothes here and thats a freedom I really enjoy

In the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran, women must abide by a strict dress code: a headscarf, long trousers and a coat that covers the hips. Those who flout the rules risk the wrath of the morality police.

But here at Mothers Paradise park, the women who have hung their headscarves and coats on the branches of trees nearby arent breaking any rules: this is one of Tehrans women-only parks, a popular new development across the country.

The Mothers Paradise was the first to open in the capital, in 2008. Three subsequently materialised in other neighbourhoods and then spread to other cities. In the popular tourist city of Isfahan, for example, there are now five.

While women-only parks also exist in other Islamic countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to offer women recreational spots safe from sexual harassment, in Iran they have at least ostensibly also been set up for health reasons.

Reza Arjmand, a sociologist at the University of Lund, Sweden, who recently published a book about the parks, says Vitamin D deficiency is a problem in Iranian cities, where women are forced to cover themselves in public and often live in apartments with small windows that dont admit much sunlight. A study in 2001 for the ministry of health revealed an alarming growth in the number of women developing osteoporosis, which Arjmand says inspired the authorities to start building the parks.

Traditionally it wasnt considered decent for Persian women to walk around in parks, Arjmand says. And after the Islamic revolution of 1979 the government deemed parks for women unnecessary. But when it turned out that the next generation runs medical risks because their mothers are unhealthy, the authorities became interested.

According to Arjmand, the parks also offer the authorities a great chance to take segregation of women and men to another level and for this reason many Iranian women are fiercely critical of them.

These parks are an insult and I will never go there. I refuse to be secluded in a reservation, says Roya, a feminist writer who asked for her name to be changed. If you put women in separate parks, men and women will never learn how to interact in a normal way. This can lead to dangerous situations.

These parks are an insult. I refuse to be secluded in a reservation

Criticism has also come from conservative Iranians. The pro-government sociologist Ali Entezahi has stated that parks where headscarves can be removed will only cause confusion among women, because they might start doubting the necessity of covering themselves up in public at all times.

At the Mothers Paradise, women eat lunch in pavilions, some train on outdoor fitness equipment, others buy soft drinks at a kiosks or are busy with their children. There are girls in miniskirts and shorts, but some women prefer to keep their coats and scarves on. A large metal fence shuts out the outside world. Female guards in blue uniforms with white gloves and a whistle keep a keen eye on everything. It is strictly forbidden to take photographs.

And on closer inspection, the parks are not as woman-friendly as their name suggests. Though there are a few playgrounds for children, there are no changing facilities for babies, and boys above the age of five are not allowed to enter. According to Arjmand, it was initially announced that women would be involved in the development of the spaces, but in the end they were designed solely by men. We have many great female architects and urban planners in Iran, but they havent even been asked for their opinion.

Finding suitable locations for the parks has also been problematic, because of the risk that men could see in from a window or a balcony from a neighbouring building. As a result, many of the green spaces are situated in suburban areas, which make them difficult to reach for many women. Some are also required to close early, to prevent a confrontation between unveiled women and male gardeners who come to water the plants meaning working women are unable to use them.

It is a strange paradox: Iran is building parks for women but doesnt seem to have considered the qualities that would make them uniquely attractive to them.

Nevertheless, Arjmand does see a positive side to the development. No matter how you look at it: a group of women will benefit from these parks. For women from religious families this is often the only possibility to spend time outside without a headscarf.

Its true that these parks isolate women, but it also offers a group of them a freedom they formerly did not possess.

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter and Facebook to join the discussion, and explore our archive

See more here:

'We hate the headscarf': can women find freedom in Tehran's female-only parks? - The Guardian

NEW DELHI: Beijing's bete noire, the Dalai Lama, said without naming China, that places "where there is no freedom, I don't like", reported ANI.

The Tibetans' spiritual leader who's exiled in India has so far not commented on the Doklam standoff, but did so on Wednesday, when he said he considers it "not very serious", reported PTI.

"It's (Doklam standoff) not very serious, India and China have to live side by side," said the Buddhist leader, who's based in Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh.

He further said that two big nations "have to live side by side" and must get along.

"Eventually, 'Hindi-Chini- Bhai Bhai' is the only way; the two big nations, you have to live side by side," he said.

The Dalai Lama dwelled on the concept of freedom as well, saying his adopted home, India, has it.

"There is freedom in this country, I can do more and have more opportunity to share. Where there is no freedom, I don't like," he said, without naming China, which is not a democracy.

Here is the original post:

'India has freedom, I don't like where there is no freedom,' says Dalai Lama - Times of India

Overcoming an early two-run deficit, the Florence Freedom, presented by Titan Mechanical Solutions, hung on to win the opening game of a key series over the Evansville Otters, 7-5, on Tuesday night at Bosse Field.

Taking a 2-0 first-inning lead on four consecutive hits, including RBI-singles by Andre Mercurio and Collins Cuthrell, the Freedom (46-28) let the lead slip away the next two innings. John Schultz hit a solo home run in the second off Steve Hagen (6-4), and in the third, the Otters (40-32) tied the score on a Josh Allen RBI-single and jumped on top, 4-2, as Dane Phillips immediately followed with a two-run double to right-center.

But in the top of the fourth, Florence pestered Evansville starter Hunter Ackerman (7-5) for four runs. After Daniel Fraga and Taylor Oldham drew one-out walks, Andrew Godbold singled to left field, scoring Fraga. Mercurio then beat out an infield single, and a late and errant throw on the play by shortstop Chris Riopedre allowed Oldham to score the tying run. Cuthrell followed with go-ahead RBI-single to right field, plating Godbold and moving Mercurio to third.

The next batter, Jordan Brower hit a groundball to first base, where Luke Lowery stepped on first to erase Brower before throwing wildly past second in an attempt to retire Cuthrell, enabling Mercurio to score for a 6-4 Freedom lead.

Keivan Berges added to Florences advantage by opening the seventh with a towering home run to left field, the first of his professional career, before the Otters cut the Freedom lead back to two runs on a Jeff Gardner RBI-double off Mike Anthony in the bottom half.

Jamal Wilson and Patrick McGrath bridged the gap to closer Pete Perez, who ran into trouble in the ninth, allowing a one-out single and a two-out hit-by-pitch. A wild pitch advanced the runners to second and third, but Perez induced a flyout to deep left field from Schultz to end the game, stranding the tying run.

Cuthrell led the Freedom with three hits and two RBI in the game, while Brower extended his hitting streak to a season-high 11 games by beating out an infield single in the ninth inning. The win extended the Freedoms lead over second-place Evansville to five games.

The series continues Wednesday with first pitch scheduled for 6:35 p.m. at Bosse Field. Cody Gray (7-3) will start for the Freedom against a yet-to-be-determined starter for the Otters.

The Florence Freedom are members of the independent Frontier League and play all home games at UC Health Stadium located at 7950 Freedom Way in Florence, KY.The Freedom can be found online at FlorenceFreedom.com, or by phone at 859-594-4487.

Florence Freedom

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom overcome early deficit to beat Otters in road opener in key Frontier League series - User-generated content (press release) (registration)

The state of Texas recently ranked third in the country in the Economic Freedom of North America 2016 list, done by the Fraser Institute.

The aforementioned study ranked the 50 states based on economic freedom.

For the record, Texas came in behind New Hampshire and Florida. The Lone Star State was tied for third with South Dakota with eight points.

Here a few interesting observations from the study:

n As far as North America goes, Canada had three of the top four finishers in the Summary of Ratings for Economic Freedom at the All-Government Level, 2014, which included entities in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Speaking of Mexico, it did not make the list until No. 61 Jalisco and Baja California, which tied in this spot.

n As for Texas, the state did well in the three categories of government spending (second overall nationally), taxes (sixth) and labor market freedom (fourth). Texas was first in income tax rate and second in consumption spending, percentage of personal income and income and payroll tax revenue, percentage of personal income.

It is not a coincidence that Mexico would lag behind Canada and the U.S. as far as economic freedom. This is a primary reason why there are an estimated 11.3 million illegal immigrants in America, with half coming from Mexico in 2016, according to the Pew Research Center.

Interestingly, the Fraser Institute also did a study of economic freedom in the Arab world. Nations and countries such as Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Algeria and Syrian Arab Republic were near the bottom as far as economic freedom.

See the connection?

Here is how the Fraser Institute defined economic freedom: The freest economies operate with minimal government interference, relying upon personal choice and markets to answer basic economic questions such as what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, how much is produced, and for whom production is intended. As government imposes restrictions on these choices, there is less economic freedom.

Far too many times, government sticks its nose into the economy for only one reason to make money. While there are regulations and restrictions in America designed to protect the public, there are also regulations and restrictions designed to fatten government coffers. And in countries without the restrictions on government which thankfully exist in America, the goal of government inclusion in the economy is to benefit those in power pure and simple.

Read between the lines of the aforementioned report. The more freedom people have, the more prosperous the country.

Original post:

Editorial: Freedom equals prosperity - Amarillo.com

Which executive of the Justice Department should we believe? Do we trust Attorney General Jeff Sessions when he testily announces that he is reviewing the rules that restrict when federal investigators can issue subpoenas to the news media? Or do we trust Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when he blithely says, two days later, that "... we're after the leakers, not the journalists."

For now, we'll withhold our trust. Given the fury of a White House frantic to silence reporting on topics that embarrass the Trump administration, Americans who rely on a free press should be angry that Justice's top two officials are playing bad cop-good cop with crucial First Amendment principles. President Donald Trump fulminates bitterly against every story that puts him in an unwanted light. He has denounced the "fake news media" as "the enemy of the people." Senior White House adviser Stephen Bannon has said, "The media should keep its mouth shut."

Fortunately, the First Amendment says otherwise, and under this administration, the news media have done what they did under previous ones: Journalists have tried to find out as much as they can about what government officials are doing and make sense of it for the public. If Trump hoped to intimidate reporters and their editors, he has failed.

But there are solid grounds for worry about the administration's intentions. In February, Trump said he had told Sessions to focus on leaks an example of the sort of direct involvement in prosecutorial matters that presidents generally avoid. Trump has raged against the embarrassing disclosures and disparaged Sessions as "very weak" in pursuing leakers.

On Friday, Sessions appeared to respond to Trump's pressure by announcing that under his leadership, Justice has tripled the number of leak investigations, compared with the pace of Barack Obama's Justice Department. "I strongly agree with the president and condemn in the strongest terms the staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect our country," Sessions said.

More disturbing was Sessions' announcement that he has initiated the review of his department's rules on subpoenaing reporters in such probes. Journalists, he declared, "cannot place lives at risk with impunity." He gave no examples, though, of actual news organizations endangering lives.

Maybe this is all for show Sessions trying to appease his ill-tempered boss by echoing his complaints. Sessions' deputy, Rosenstein, struck his calmer note Sunday when he said the department isn't going after reporters in its leak investigations. "We don't prosecute journalists for doing their jobs," he said. "The attorney general has been very clear that we're after the leakers, not the journalists."

Wrong. If the attorney general has been clear about anything, it's that he may try to muzzle journalists who tell American citizens what their government is up to. The federal government legitimately classifies a lot of material, much of it having to do with law enforcement, defense, foreign policy and other matters that require some secrecy. As Rosenstein said in announcing charges in one case, "People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation."

Some federal employees are willing to take that risk when they turn over information that exposes corruption, abuses or maladministration. The news media report on such leaks when journalists see some public interest in doing so. But while leakers may be breaking the law to reveal classified material, journalists are generally within their legal rights to report such revelations. "The government has never charged a reporter for publishing restricted information," The New York Times reports.

Those who detest leaks may hope to deter such reporting, though, by subpoenaing reporters to divulge the identity of confidential sources. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws granting journalists some protection against being required to testify in such instances, but the federal government doesn't. Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, alarmed journalists by getting phone records from Associated Press reporters and emails from a Fox News reporter. But after a blowback from Congress and the news media Holder tightened his department's own rules on such subpoenas, essentially making them a last resort.

Sessions has no reason to loosen those restrictions and drag journalists into court. The job of preventing leaks belongs to the federal government, which has plenty of existing tools to do so. If the Trump administration can't keep its own secrets, it shouldn't expect the news media to do that job.

See original here:

Press freedom and the war on leaks: Back off, Mr. Sessions - Chicago Tribune

At some time or another, idly or with intent, most of us have surely wondered about disappearing. What if I rode this bus until the end of the line and then just kept walking? What if I grabbed my passport and drove to the airport? What if I went out for cigarettes and never came home? The seductive romance that clings to the idea is in part down to the multiplicity of these what-ifs, but German director Jan Speckenbachs intriguing, sincere, if somewhat overreaching sophomore feature Freedom starts with the dice already rolled. Nora (Johanna Wokalek) wanders past Breugels Tower of Babel painting in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, while in Berlin, unaware of her whereabouts, her lawyer husband Philip (a sympathetic Hans-Jochen Wagner), teenage daughter Lena (Rubina Labusch) and younger son Jonas (Georg Arms) go about their lives carefully skirting the Nora-shaped hole in the family.

Speckenbachs most inspired decision here is to split his film more or less equally between Nora and Philip, as she becomes an increasingly vague abstraction of her former self, through changing haircuts, different cities and various assumed identities, while he seems to become more sharply defined in response to the challenges of this new, unsought status quo. The films unusual chronology, which starts off with the deed already done, only to spin back for a final act that takes place in Berlin the night of Noras sudden departure, is also a clever choice one made braver still by the the refusal to offer up any concrete, last-straw-style argument or conflict.

Not quite so well thought-out, however, is the rather underdeveloped undercurrent of racial unease, most notable in the person of the comatose victim of a hate crime whose attacker Philip is reluctantly defending, and a black tennis pro with whom the family has a strained conversation during an impromptu dinner. The film is about the chameleonic nature of identity, and how much of it is socially proscribed, but the issues around racial identity and white liberal guilt are far too complex to be used as mere background texture.

But Freedom is better at complicating accepted gender norms and for the most part, its portrait of the great taboo that is maternal abandonment is refreshingly non-judgmental, helped by Wokaleks invested yet aloof turn as Nora. Its a performance, well-captured in Tilo Haukes crisp daytime and velvety nighttime photography, that allows Noras motivations to remain mysterious possibly even to herself yet also oddly believable. We can understand her, even if we cant explain her.

Nora picks up a casual lover, then hitchhikes onward to Bratislava, befriends sex worker Etela (Andrea Szabov) and her husband Tamas (Ondrej Koval) and gets a job as a maid in a luxury hotel. And while its a hoary clich that no matter where you run away to, youll always end up running into yourself, at its best moments, Freedom suggests that self-reinvention is entirely possible. You just have to know there will be consequences.

But then, freedom is a grandiose word and attaching it to this small, strange story as its title, even in irony, suggests that Speckenbach has ambitions for his film that are never quite fulfilled. Its an impression compounded by unnecessary flourishes, from the overliteral projections of Noras face that occasionally flood the walls of the familys Berlin apartment, to the Ibsen reference of her name (the heroine of A Dolls House is also Nora, and also leaves her family), to the rather pretentious opening text, which references Lethe, the mythic river of forgetfulness.

Most questionably, theres the frankly baffling end coda in which Nora, shocked into the last of her transformations by a domestic event at Etelas that reminds her forcefully of her family, appears in a kind of fantasy landscape, in which Breugels tower again rears up in the distance. The biblical allusion here is confounding, as the story of Babel is one of humanitys pride being punished by God: Does Speckenbach mean to imply, after all this careful characterization, that Nora deserves to be so harshly judged? Its an unfortunate conclusion when one of the films strengths to that point has been that it dares not just to show a woman more or less successfully leaving her family (who will be traumatized, but ultimately fine without her), but that quietly respects, if not condones, her decision to do so.

Reviewed at Locarno Film Festival (competing), Aug. 3, 2017. Running time: 102 MIN. (Original Title: "Freiheit")

(Germany-Slovakia) A Pluto Film Distribution Network, Film Kino Text presentation of a One Two Films production, in co-production with BFilm, Zak Film Productions, ZDF. (International sales: Pluto Film Distribution Network, Berlin.) Producers: Sol Bondy, Jamila Wenske.

Director: Jan Speckenbach. Screenplay: Speckenbach, Andreas Deinert. Camera (color, DCP): Tilo Hauke. Editor: Jan Speckenbach.

Johanna Wokalek, Hans-Jochen Wagner, Inga Birkenfeld, Andrea Szabov, Ondrej Koval. (German, English, Slovak dialogue)

Go here to see the original:

Locarno Film Review: 'Freedom' - Variety