Europe’s birthrate is among the lowest in the world. At 1.59 per year, the European Union’s current births are too low to sustain its survival. And while native birthrates have declined, Europe’s overall population continues to grow due to mass immigration.
For the younger generation in Europe, employment is either non-existent or so poorly paid that it doesn’t allow them the means to support themselves, let alone a prospective family. But Europe’s declining birthrate is by no means just a result of work precariousness—there’s a much deeper cause.
A 27-year-old conservative thought-leader in Italy and Europe, Francesco Giubilei, publisher of Future Nation magazine, says this crisis stems mainly from cultural and social factors. Today’s youth is taught by its parents, of the anti-traditionalist ’68er generation, that there is little intrinsic value in building a family. The consequence has been a generation that’s planning its lives without any aspirations to have children. Additionally, European youth are moving from rural areas to large cities in search of study and job opportunities. This has contributed to them leading atomized lives detached from community. Today’s youth feels that it doesn’t belong anywhere, and so why should they leave anything behind for a future generation?
“There is a total lack of perspective in my generation’s way of approaching life. They don’t see a future for themselves beyond the present moment,” Giubilei said.
“Furthermore, there’s the added factor of our provincial, rural areas disappearing into our cities. Our youth moves to study or to build work opportunities in a city, but the family isn’t factored into this equation. Many of them end up living individualistic lives with no proper direction beyond their careers.”
For politicians, the crisis of meaning among European youth isn’t an issue worth addressing. They see declining birthrates as a natural result of post-industrialized economies, where people living comfortable lives do not feel the need to have children. And importing a new generation of young people from abroad seems like a convenient solution to an aging European population that isn’t able to sustain itself.
As the German migration researcher Wolfgang Kaschuba, who works for the Berlin Institute for Empirical Integration and Migration Research, recently warned:
“If Germans want to maintain their economic well-being, we need about half a million immigrants every year. We need to guarantee that our society stays young, because it’s aging dramatically.”
Among European politicians, only the populists have been challenging this issue. In doing so, they’ve gained popularity among disaffected, working- and middle-class people.
These new leaders have no qualms about using the words “replacement migration” to describe how ruling elites prefer to address declining birthrates. Unlike in the United States, where such contentions are still controversial, European conservatives have brought them into the mainstream.
The leader of the Dutch conservative Forum for Democracy, Thierry Baudet, told The American Conservative:
“It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a state of belief of European leaders.”
He noted that “it’s important that we don’t replace the European population with foreigners.”
Similarly, a European member of Parliament for the anti-immigrant League party in Italy, Francesca Donato, told The American Conservative:
“We are not in favor of the replacement of the Italian population with foreigners. We want to preserve our national identity, culture, and history.”
She clarified that while “multiculturalism is welcome, it shouldn’t translate into complete replacement.”
The leader of the Spanish Vox party, Santiago Abascal, argued that immigration is a political euphemism for the trafficking of cheap labor into Europe so that multinational companies and financial interests can increase their profits:
“The establishment argues that our system must be maintained in the face of an aging population, but mass immigration renders work increasingly precarious.”
According to Abascal, the 2015 refugee crisis was used as a pretext to further the economic ambitions of Brussels bureaucrats at the expense of Europe’s working population, especially its youth.
Baudet also argues that establishment politicians push for immigration because they favor a globalized worldview under which national identities will disappear:
“They genuinely believe we should move beyond religious and national identities to become global citizens.”
Baudet, however, thinks such policies would be disastrous, not only because they risk plunging Europe into “tremendous conflict,” but also because they risk creating a “brain drain” from Africa and the Middle East.
The solution to this problem, many of these conservative leaders say, is to provide motivation and assistance to Europe’s young people so they have their own children. Abascal uses Hungary as a model, where, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, families that have three or more children are given government grants to buy houses and no longer have to pay income tax. The state finances free nurseries, allowing women to re-enter the workforce without having to worry about childcare costs. In addition, Hungary has inscribed Christianity in its constitution to create a strong religious identity, providing its youth with a sense of direction and meaning.
The problem of low birthrates ultimately lies internally, within Europe’s culture and social life. A young generation that doesn’t aspire to have families and that’s increasingly alienated from any sense of community has driven much of the crisis. Whether Europe can be salvaged and revived is yet to be seen.
Bitcoin Tags $10.5k In “4th Largest Gain In History”
Starting around 9 am on Friday, a monster bid came into the crypto space, more specifically into Bitcoin, and launched the coin more than 40% in 16 hours to 10,490 by 1:50 am Saturday.
As of 6:30 am Saturday, the entire space is a sea of green…
Less than 24 hours ago, Bitcoin was trading under 7,600, consolidating in the range of 8,500 to 7,500 for 29 days, after a late Sept. plunge of more than 21%.
One Twitter user said: “$BTC has moved +42% today – 4th largest gain in history and largest since May/10/2011 (if comparing against daily returns). – 15th largest two-day gain in history, Nov/18/2013. Thank you China. President Xi is the true Crypto Dad.”
Some crypto traders have said the latest consolidation pattern is part of an over symmetrical triangle that could lead to higher prices in the future. Resistance is seen on a diagonal declining supply line, as made evident in the 1H19 +230% ramp, which found resistance around 11,000.
Bitcoin on a weekly timeframe holds a 50-day exponential moving average.
Beyond technical circles, the mood suggests a catalyst is needed to overcome this. This week, investor Mike Novogratz told mainstream media that new custody solutions for institutional investors could be the clinching factor.
“It’s going to need new energy to really make the big move,” he said in an interview with CNBC.
And how is Wall Street positioned? According to a new report from US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Friday, the market is net short Bitcoin futures for the week ending Tuesday. Non-commercial investors held a net short position of 770 Bitcoin futures contracts.
Finally, we note that this sudden surge comes as the hash-rate reaches record highs, suggesting miners remain bullish…
And Twitter/Square’s Jack Dorsey could not have been clearer: “We love you Bitcoin.”
No is an underrated word. When properly deployed, it has the potential to bring many extended and pointless conversations to an end. Conversations, for instance, over the merits of restrictions or policies that you would never obey in a thousand lifetimes.
But that means it must be a definitive no, not an ambiguous French non.
“Answering ‘non’ gives you the option to say ‘oui’ later,” explains the comedian Olivier Giraud about his countrymen’s often squishy refusals.
An ambiguous non isn’t a line in the sand; it’s a bargaining position for a better offer or a more generous bribe. That’s not the sort of no we’re discussing here. We’re talking about a hard no that offers a clear border defining the limits of what you’re willing to tolerate, beyond which you’ll resist by every means at your disposal.
When you’re invoking this sort of no, you shouldn’t get bogged down in debates over terminology, or effectiveness, or constitutional interpretations.
“The definition of what you want to ban is incoherent. You need to refine….”
“What does the research show about…?”
“Your take on the amendment ignores the long history of….”
When the stakes are high and you’re dealing with a non-negotiable matter of principle, what do you care about the opinions of social scientists, legal scholars, or expert nitpickers? You’ve already decided that compliance with this latest bit of presumptuous stupidity is out of the question. You’re not going to obey it, even if it makes it through the legislative or administrative process and even if it survives judicial review. Moreover, you plan to throw sand into the gears of the machinery of enforcement. Say so!
That no can be a matter of individual resolve, committing yourself to a course of refusal and noncompliance, or it can be a collective statement, which has the potential to magnify its clout. It might be a bit of both when great minds—or at least shared values—come together.
Canadian gun owners were largely on the same page when they refused to cooperate with their government’s effort starting in 1998 to register every long gun in the country. Officials spent years nagging recalcitrant citizens to fill out the required paperwork, even as the cost of the new bureaucracy—following the tradition of government expenditures worldwide—soared past original estimates of C$2 million to exceed C$1 billion by 2005, according to the government itself. In 2012, the registry was abolished amid questions as to why regulators were spending so much just to be ignored.
Joining with their Orthodox Jewish counterparts in 2018, New York Catholic leaders ordered their schools “not to participate in any review carried out by local public school officials” in response to a state scheme to give public school boards approval power over the curricula of the private schools with which they compete. As independent institutions boycotted the review process, they also battled regulators in court. This pushed the earliest possible implementation of the plan back to 2023. At which time—if they hold firm—their unified no will continue to frustrate meddling state officials.
From the New York example, we see that a line in the sand need not be an exclusive tactic. It’s possible to refuse to compromise or conform while also fighting on other fronts. This not only increases the likelihood of victory in the battle of wills but demonstrates to your opponents that scoring political and legal points will do nothing more than deliver them back to your original obstinate refusal to give them what they want.
Of course, there are many times when discussion and compromise should take precedence over saying no. Not every disagreement is a matter of fundamental principle. Some debates should hold out the possibility of meeting partway and splitting the difference. As a result, there are times when terminology, research, and interpretation do matter and should be subject to rigorous examination.
But in a world in which terms like common sense too often serve as covers for coercion and in which compromise is frequently a stand-in for slow-motion surrender, the power of no is underappreciated and underused. It’s a statement that not only are you unwilling to give your opponents a nibble of what they want so they can come back for more later—you’re prepared to extract a price from them if they continue their efforts.
So think it through and decide when and where your principles really matter. Then lay aside the phony arguments: Just say “no.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/345SRDP
via IFTTT
No is an underrated word. When properly deployed, it has the potential to bring many extended and pointless conversations to an end. Conversations, for instance, over the merits of restrictions or policies that you would never obey in a thousand lifetimes.
But that means it must be a definitive no, not an ambiguous French non.
“Answering ‘non’ gives you the option to say ‘oui’ later,” explains the comedian Olivier Giraud about his countrymen’s often squishy refusals.
An ambiguous non isn’t a line in the sand; it’s a bargaining position for a better offer or a more generous bribe. That’s not the sort of no we’re discussing here. We’re talking about a hard no that offers a clear border defining the limits of what you’re willing to tolerate, beyond which you’ll resist by every means at your disposal.
When you’re invoking this sort of no, you shouldn’t get bogged down in debates over terminology, or effectiveness, or constitutional interpretations.
“The definition of what you want to ban is incoherent. You need to refine….”
“What does the research show about…?”
“Your take on the amendment ignores the long history of….”
When the stakes are high and you’re dealing with a non-negotiable matter of principle, what do you care about the opinions of social scientists, legal scholars, or expert nitpickers? You’ve already decided that compliance with this latest bit of presumptuous stupidity is out of the question. You’re not going to obey it, even if it makes it through the legislative or administrative process and even if it survives judicial review. Moreover, you plan to throw sand into the gears of the machinery of enforcement. Say so!
That no can be a matter of individual resolve, committing yourself to a course of refusal and noncompliance, or it can be a collective statement, which has the potential to magnify its clout. It might be a bit of both when great minds—or at least shared values—come together.
Canadian gun owners were largely on the same page when they refused to cooperate with their government’s effort starting in 1998 to register every long gun in the country. Officials spent years nagging recalcitrant citizens to fill out the required paperwork, even as the cost of the new bureaucracy—following the tradition of government expenditures worldwide—soared past original estimates of C$2 million to exceed C$1 billion by 2005, according to the government itself. In 2012, the registry was abolished amid questions as to why regulators were spending so much just to be ignored.
Joining with their Orthodox Jewish counterparts in 2018, New York Catholic leaders ordered their schools “not to participate in any review carried out by local public school officials” in response to a state scheme to give public school boards approval power over the curricula of the private schools with which they compete. As independent institutions boycotted the review process, they also battled regulators in court. This pushed the earliest possible implementation of the plan back to 2023. At which time—if they hold firm—their unified no will continue to frustrate meddling state officials.
From the New York example, we see that a line in the sand need not be an exclusive tactic. It’s possible to refuse to compromise or conform while also fighting on other fronts. This not only increases the likelihood of victory in the battle of wills but demonstrates to your opponents that scoring political and legal points will do nothing more than deliver them back to your original obstinate refusal to give them what they want.
Of course, there are many times when discussion and compromise should take precedence over saying no. Not every disagreement is a matter of fundamental principle. Some debates should hold out the possibility of meeting partway and splitting the difference. As a result, there are times when terminology, research, and interpretation do matter and should be subject to rigorous examination.
But in a world in which terms like common sense too often serve as covers for coercion and in which compromise is frequently a stand-in for slow-motion surrender, the power of no is underappreciated and underused. It’s a statement that not only are you unwilling to give your opponents a nibble of what they want so they can come back for more later—you’re prepared to extract a price from them if they continue their efforts.
So think it through and decide when and where your principles really matter. Then lay aside the phony arguments: Just say “no.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/345SRDP
via IFTTT
WikiLeaks founder and journalist Julian Assange appeared in court to fight his extradition to the United States, sluggishly reciting his name and date of birth in a zombie-like state — displaying signs of either sleep deprivation, torture or poisoning — but quickly recovered to state the rigged case against him to the judge when he was asked if he understood what he was facing.
Assange responded, appearing to fight back tears at his case management hearing, “I can’t think properly, I don’t understand how this is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I can’t access my writings. It’s very difficult where I am to do anything but these people have unlimited resources.” The WikiLeaks Founder added, “They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people. They have unfair advantages dealing with documents. They know the interior of my life with my psychologist. They steal my children’s DNA. This is not equitable what is happening here?”
Assange was also denied a 90-day extension to prepare his defense as governments rig yet another case against the WikiLeaks journalist, proving the death of real justice and right to a fair trial in the UK is corroborated with the death of journalism and ethics. In other words, the cards are stacked against Assange; the state has committed numerous illegal moves, yet the man’s defense can’t do anything because the state isn’t playing by the rules by showing a total bias, court action after court action.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court district judge Vanessa Baraitser further highlighted that rigging by adhering to the behest of government prosecutor James Lewis QC who was firmly against the judge giving Assange any extra time to prepare his case, as The Guardianreported.
Clearly, the full weight of the British and US state apparatus is bearing down on the WikiLeaks founder in this extradition case. That was made explicitly clear in a statement by Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture, in May. He urged the UK not to extradite Assange to the US, saying:
In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.
Assange’s legal team also accused the U.S. of attempting to “kidnap and harm” the WikiLeaks founder and used that as reasoning for delaying the trial, Sky Newsreported.
Mark Summers, one of Assange’s lawyers, described the extradition bid as “a political attempt” by Donald Trump’s administration to “signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information.”
“It is legally unprecedented,” he told the court.
Summers further claimed the U.S. had “intruded” on conversations between Assange and his lawyers while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, and the intrusions included “hooded men breaking into offices.”
This is something similar to what we saw with the raiding of the Head Legal Office in Madrid of former judge and WikiLeaks’ chief counsel, Baltasar Garzón in December 2017. Garzón’s office was raided by masked men dressed in all black and the security cameras were taped. Despite the break-in, nothing was taken and the operation was referred to as being “professionally done” by police.
In January of this year, police began questioning associates of WikiLeaks worldwide offering immunity to testify against Assange.
Assange’s Health Condition
Earlier this year, a crazy claim took the internet by storm made by a retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski who wrote that they are “treating Assange with the Zombie drug BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate) to kill his brain cells” according to an insider source. Whereas at the time that statement sounded insane, the display in court by Assange may warrant looking at that claim again with a fresh view. This information may be shocking to some, but journalist Danny Casolaro who stood against The Octopus (DEEP STATE) was killed by a toxic poison that was injected into his spine, then his wrists were sliced 12x on each hand. We also know from former CIA employee Mary Embree that the infamous heart attack gun exists and the agency was researching other silent assassination slow kill methods, so that possibility isn’t as crazy as it all may sound.
A source who claims to have seen the WikiLeaks founder described Assange as “out of it and in an zombie like state.” Russian news station RT corroborated this claim, showing Assange in a police transportation van appearing to show a weakened state of health in just his physical appearance.
Craig Murray, a friend of Assange and former politician, also stated in a recent article that the WikiLeaks journalist could be subjected to torture or chemical injections, corroborating Kwiatkowski’s claims about torturous intimidation allegations. Murray wrote, “it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought.”
Murray writes:
Until yesterday I had always been quietly skeptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.
I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern.
The WikiLeaks former editor has been in the Belmarsh prison hospital shortly after being incarcerated, which followed with a quick deterioration of his health. Assange still remains in the medical ward, according to his father John Shipton in a recent interview with Going Underground‘s Afshin Rattansi.
Although, this may be due to the bombardment of surveillance technologies that were being used illegally on Assange while in the Ecuadorian embassy for asylum, where he has been for the past 6 years, despite two different UN rulings calling the detainment “arbitrary detention.”
What are the effects of refugee publisher @JulianAssange being exposed to eighteen signal jammers (3 clusters, six antennas per cluster) in a confined space 24/7 for seven months? This paper offers a glimpse https://t.co/f8uubSNCyY
In fact, last year, Christine Assange used Unity4J to urge officials to allow her son access to medical attention, and for the UK and Ecuador to end Assange’s then illegal 8-year detainment (2 years of virtual house arrest, 6 years confined inside the Ecuadorian embassy.)
For the past 6 years while Assange was in the embassy, the UK government refused his request for access to basic health needs: fresh air, exercise, sunshine for vitamin D and access to proper medical and dental care according to Christine Assange and Julian Assange’s lawyer, Greg Barns.
As a result, his health has seriously deteriorated; and his examining doctors warn these detention conditions are life-threatening.
“The slow and cruel assassination is taking place before our very eyes in the embassy in London,” Christine expressed at the time and that statement still holds true.
Assange’s doctor, Sean Love, previously stated in an opinion piece that depriving his patient of medical care is “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” Adding, “It is time for Australia to intervene.”
Other doctors who have previously examined Assange, Sondra Crosby, an associate professor at Boston University’s school of medicine and public health, and Brock Chisholm, a clinical psychologist in London have stated much the same.
All three once called on safe passage for Assange to a hospital. In an article for the Guardian, they wrote:
While the results of the evaluation are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality, it is our professional opinion that his continued confinement is dangerous physically and mentally to him and a clear infringement of his human right to healthcare.
Assange has had a persistent chronic lung condition for several years, and his ‘frozen shoulder’ issues were talked about as having possible implications of a heart condition. So Assange has a list of health problems, from being prevented sunlight and exercise while he was holed up in the embassy. Although, it’s not known why he was taken to Belmarsh’s prison medical ward. He should immediately be taken to a hospital where full care can be administered instead of limited care inside a prison ward.
It has now been 9 long years that governments have been torturing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; it is without a doubt their responsibility for the man’s health deteriorating whether he is currently being poisoned or previously poisoned by radiation from the surveillance technology.
As former Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts said in 2011, there is a clear and concerted effort to shut Assange up.
Assange’s doctors saw him last year in December shortly before his arrest in April; however, his condition was not made public out of respect for confidentiality. Instead, Assange is gifted hospital care in a prison known for torturing its inmates, which include past terrorists. After the WikiLeaks publisher was put under Belmarsh prison “care,” WikiLeaks said that it was “gravely concerned” over the state of Assange’s health.
WikiLeaks has grave concerns about the state of health of our publisher, Julian Assange, who has been moved to the health ward of Belmarsh prison. – See full statement: pic.twitter.com/HnZVks4kWj
Assange is being held in Belmarsh prison after the Met Police arrested him in April over a defunct bail warrant in the UK. The U.S. is seeking his extradition from the UK for prosecution over WikiLeaks’ journalistic work with Cablegate, Iraq and Afghanistan war logs leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning as an Army analyst.
Assange has been arrested in relation to a US extradition request for “conspiracy with Chelsea Manning” for publishing Iraq War Logs, Cablegate, Afghan War Logs, precisely the persecution for which he was granted asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention in 2012. @unhumanrightspic.twitter.com/i0TezO3SdK
The warrant issued in question in Sweden arose 12 days after Julian entered the Ecuador Embassy seeking asylum from U.S. threats against his life and liberty. So the warrant should never have been issued in the first place, as asylum/international law overrides domestic (UK) law.
Instead, the allegations should have been dropped after Sweden dropped its preliminary investigation and Julian wasn’t charged, as the warrant was attached to the European Arrest Warrant on that case. Both women, Sophia Wilen and Anna Ardin, in that case have confessed that the police made up the charges, while Ardin has very curious connections to the CIA and the Swedish embassy, Activist Postreported.
Judge Emma Arbuthnot (the wife of former UK Defence Minister Lord James Arbuthnot) also rejected arguments presented by Assange’s legal team over why he breached bail conditions by seeking political refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. A conflict of interest which caused many to speak out about on social media.
After Julian Assange was sentenced in a Kangaroo Court in London for “skipping bail” for 50 weeks of a defunct bail warrant and fraudulent rape case, as well as having his first hearing on his extradition trial, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expressed, “it is not just a man who stands in jeopardy, but the future of the free press.”
Edward @Snowden on the US extradition of #Assange: “No one today disputes that the revelations of @xychelsea were news of the highest order… immediately carried on the front pages of every newspaper. It is not just a man who stands in jeopardy, but the future of the free press” pic.twitter.com/ocePgdS9Wh
However, according to reports, the Swedish rape case was reopened at the request of an alleged victim’s lawyer. There is a third woman, according to Euronews and The Intercept, who stated that the woman has thus far been “unidentified.” At this point, given the two other cases being manipulated and fraudulent, it would not be surprising if this were another set up against Assange like the infamous Todd And Claire garage-run operation calling Assange a pedophile in the 2016 election. The woman’s lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz none the less says that her client welcomed re-opening the Swedish investigation.
One of Assange’s own lawyers expressed in May that after his client was put into the medical ward “it was not possible to conduct a normal conversation with him to build his defense,” Per Samuelson told reporters after visiting Belmarsh.
It is also worth mentioning that a motion to delay a hearing in Sweden on the provably fraudulent rape allegations (which this reporter has exposed) was also denied around the same time period. This denial of extending the Swedish hearing is compounded with originally denying lawyers access to court transcripts of statements to copy, pushing his defense to have to read documents and then remember what was said to write it up by memory. Which, obviously would create a flimsy defense by design.
Assange has never been formally charged in the investigation with rape, despite mainstream media reports libeling and defaming him by pushing a biased narrative that Assange is a “rapist.” Biased because the establishment ignores evidence that exonerates him, as WikiLeaks has pointed out in past tweets.
In 2012, the UK Supreme Court acknowledged that Assange was not charged in Sweden. The prosecutor further acknowledged in correspondence with UK authorities that the matter is a ‘preliminary investigation’, and that no decision had been made to charge. Sweden attempted to drop the investigation in 2013, but was told not to by the UK CPS, which also discouraged Sweden from interrogating Assange in the UK despite it being routine for Sweden and standard practice throughout the EU. The CPS destroyed key emails relating to Assange’s Swedish extradition, an investigation by Stefania Maurizi showed according to Justice4Assange, a website created for accurate information in the defense of Julian Assange ran by Hanna Jonasson.
Ironically enough, past research indicates that the Swedish Court of Appeals originally refused to force the prosecutor to hand over SMS messages as WikiLeaks documents on Twitter.
Verdict: Swedish Court of Appeal refuses force prosecutor hand over SMS messages showing woman said Swedish police “made up” case.
Surveillance By CIA Contractors and Threats Of Assassination
If that’s not enough, Assange has been spied on and the suspects at the time had tried to extort 3,000,000 million euro from the journalism organization for the destruction of the videos and pictures, which included videos of private situations such as doctors visits and lawyers meetings while he was in the embassy, Reutersreported.
Since then, police have made at least one arrest of the ring leader named Jose Martin Santos, previously convicted for fraud, arrested in Alicante for trying to bribe WikiLeaks for millions in exchange for private videos of Assange.
That plot was later further tied to the CIA who hired UC Global S. L. and its founder David Morales to spy on Assange according to court documents that were presented to Spain’s High Court, El Paisreported.
UPDATE: As this article went to press Spanish Judge José de la Mata requested to interview the WikiLeaks founder by videoconference as a witness, however, the British judicial system stepped in denying the request, which could affect Assange’s extradition trial, El Pais reported.
Just another example of the rigging that is going on against Julian Assange preventing him from forming a defense to defend against his extradition, this is all without a doubt unprecedented.
Its also worth noting that, as Elizabeth Lea Vos reports for Consortium News in her piece “Julian Assange’s Nightmarish Future,” the last time Assange was in a British prison he had metal put into his food which chipped his tooth.
“The last time Assange was held in a British prison, in 2010, he says that he was given food containing metal objects that severely damaged a tooth. This was at London’s HM Prison Wandsworth.The incident caused serious injury and he did not receive proper medical treatment during the six and a half years of his confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy. A medical report published by WikiLeaks in 2015 describes Assange’s version of the event,” Vos wrote.
Before Assange was arrested he’s documented stating in a leaked transcript: “I am an assassination risk. It’s not a joke. It is a serious business.” He added, “There have been attempts by people to get into this embassy through the windows at night.”
In 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted that it took UK police two hours to respond to a call after an unidentified man attempted to scale the wall of the Ecuadorian Embassy in the U.K. at 2:47 am. The would-be intruder escaped security and managed to flee to safety while embassy security waited two hours for U.K. police to take the two-minute walk from the police station to the embassy.
UK police took 2h to respond to Assange Embassy intruder despite 24h covert op & police station 2 mins walk away. pic.twitter.com/omaGWDwwuW
Assange was ordered to remain in prison even though his 50-week prison sentence ended on September 22, over concerns that he will evade the U.S. extradition request due to his “history of absconding,” according to the BBC.
“In my view, I have substantial ground for believing if I release you, you will abscond again,” said Westminster Magistrates’ Court District Judge Vanessa Baraitser.
Assange faces 175 years in the United States if convicted of exposing war crimes and various corruption within the United States, 17 charges of which are under the Espionage Act, as part of the WikiLeaks grand jury indictment. That indictment was accidentally made public after a copy-paste slip-up error by the Eastern District of Virginia courts mixed up cases, as Activist Postreported.
In total, Assange faces 18 charges including a charge under the CFAA for “computer hacking” by helping his source Chelsea Manning protect herself against being discovered, as Activist Post previously reported.
It is pretty blatantly obvious that the state seeks to “assassinate” Julian Assange, be it his character through using the media, or harming the WikiLeaks founder directly.
Activists worldwide aim to use the Anonymous celebration of Guy Fawkes day on November 5th to highlight the WikiLeaks founder’s current plight and fight for freedom of the press against U.S. extradition now set for trial in February 25th of next year. Meanwhile, rappers Lowkey and MIA plan to perform a concert in front of the UK Home Office. Former home secretary Sajid Javid signed an order in June allowing Assange to face extradition to the U.S. over the allegations relating to his journalism. Assange’s pre-hearing is on December 19th where he will begin his last case management preparation for trial only two months later.
It sure does appear that Assange is being put through the Stratfor, Palantir and HB Gary plan for WikiLeaks.
Stratfor email on Assange’s arrest (from 2010):
“Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.”https://t.co/fE5Ff1QzB1
If extradited, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer has continuously said Assange could be exposed to “a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Melzer has also stated that Assange has deliberately been exposed, “for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture.”
As journalist Catlin Johnstone, pointed out, Melzer had two interviews by Sky News and BBC World censored on his opinion on Assange as a UN Rapporteur on Torture.
What many don’t realize is that it is all journalists who are at risk, not just those who worked with WikiLeaks but every journalist around the world. The state of journalism now sits in the hands of a rigged court that won’t even provide an award-winning journalist ample time to form a defense against the abhorrent crime of doing journalism and publishing the truth.
To truly understand the mark Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks team has made on the world, watch this heart-wrenching video of Nobel Peace Prize Winner Mairead Maguire speaking on the imprisonment of her longtime friend Julian Assange during her acceptance speech for the GUE/NGL journalism award in his honor.
Supporters are asked to donate to the numerous defenses for WikiLeaks by visiting this link or purchasing merchandise from the WikiLeaks Shop, which goes towards Assange and other WikiLeaks volunteers’ defenses and future releases.
For up-to-date accurate information on Julian Assange’s plight, see @Wikileaks, @AssangeMrs, @DefendAssange and @Unity4J and Assange’s lawyers Twitter accounts far too many to list, most notably the editor of Justice4Assange — @AssangeLegal. The Unity4J Twitter account will be up to date with information, live streams, and the Pinterest account will detail places where protests will be held in support of Julian Assange above and beyond his birthday.
Also, see the Candles4Assange account for further information on protests, the global movement to “stop the war on journalism.”
As Assange has said in his own words in a letter, “Everyone else must take my place! I have been isolated from all ability to prepare to defend myself: no laptop, no internet, ever, no computer, no library, so far, but even if I get access, it will just be for a half an hour, with everyone else, once a week,” Assange wrote. “The other side? A superpower that has been preparing for 9 years, with hundreds of people and untold millions spent on the case.”
This “Holy Grail” Bottle Of Scotch Whisky Just Sold For £1.5 Million
The “alternative asset” market seems to still be in a boom, judging by the bid for one rare bottle of Scotch whisky.
A bottle of Macallan 1926 60-year-old single malt from cask number 263 sold for a world record £1.5M at auction in London, according to the BBC. Sotheby’s, who held the auction, didn’t release the name of the buyer.
This sum dwarfs the previous record for a single bottle of scotch, which stood at £1.2M and was set by another bottle of Macallan from the same cask that was sold last November. Sotheby’s described the Macallan 1926 from cask number 263 as the “holy grail” of whisky.
The cask was distilled in 1926 and bottled in 1986. It yielded only 40 bottles. Sotheby’s said at auction that the bottle featured was part of the “ultimate whisky collection”, which consisted of 467 bottles across 394 lots. The collection sold for £7,635,619, which was double its pre-auction estimate.
The auction marked Sotheby’s first offering of spirits from a single owner.
Jonny Fowle, Sotheby’s spirits specialist, concluded: “This fantastic result is testament to the quality of the collection. It was remarkable to see so many iconic bottles break records – homage to the importance of distilleries such as Bowmore, Brora, Springbank and, of course, The Macallan.”
The truth is that in addition to Turkey, the US, the UK, France, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have armed, financed and trained about 250 thousand jihadis from all around the world since 2010 for the purposes of attacking Syria, precipitating a disaster in the region, with repercussions felt in Europe, and committing crimes against humanity.
The Syrian Arab Army, with the assistance of its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies, has managed to overcome the depredations of al-Qaeda and ISIS, confining them to the Idlib region, creating in the process some problems for the countries that armed and supported these monsters.
One of these problems lies with two of NATO’s most important countries, and the respective factions that they support in Syria.
Ankara considers the PKK-affiliated YPG to be a terrorist organization, using the jihadis of al-Nusra Front, Daesh, al-Qaeda and the FSA to attack areas under the control of Damascus in order to exterminate the Kurds.
Before the alt-media started to talk about the use of terrorists against Syria, the complaints emanating from Damascus about what was going on were dismissed as propaganda. Now the mainstream media is all of a sudden beside itself with concern for the wellbeing of the Kurds. When Syrian civilians were under similar assault, the likes of CNN and other international media created a smokescreen to prevent people from understanding what was happening in Syria. Such deliberate obfuscation has caused thousands of deaths that are no less heinous than those committed by Daesh.
Behind the obfuscating fog is the fact that the United States helped create Daesh in Iraq and used them in 2012 as a weapon against Damascus, in full coordination with Erdogan. Dozens of jihadist groups were armed and equipped to support US plans to destroy Syria.
Washington is a master at creating “problems” (al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) for its own geo-political purposes that require the ready-made solution. However, when things do not go to plan, there is a Plan B to fall back on in order to justify an illegal presence under the pretense of fighting terrorism.
Syria was subjected to just this gameplan. But with Damascus getting the better of Daesh, the Pentagon had to fall back on Plan B, which involved the occupation of northern Syria, under the pretext of protecting the Kurds from Daesh as well as advancing the noble quest of fighting terrorism. It is only thanks to the complacency of the mainstream media that such heights of contradiction have been achieved.
The SDF and the YPG illegally occupy Syria under the enabling umbrella of the illegal presence of the US, which hoped to use these proxies to partition Syria through the cause of Kurdish separatism.
Interestingly, the mainstream media never reveals that a good deal of Syria’s Kurds, who have been living for months in areas under the control of Damascus, actually support the Assad government.
Unsurprisingly, the SDF and YPG are supported politically by many Western countries seeking to partition Syria in favor of a Kurdish enclave. Israel, even as it destroys the lives of millions of Palestinians, shamelessly demands self-determination for the Kurds in Syria.
The SDF masters in Washington understand well that without a force on the land controlled by them, they could not prevent Assad from reuniting the country and taking over the a commercial, economic and energy connection project between Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran, with the Beijing Economic blessing that intends to invest / grant lines of credit of more than 600 billion dollars between Iran, Syria and Iraq.
The only legitimate authority in Syria that is able to guarantee the safety of civilians from the depredations of Daesh, the FSA, al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and all the other 256 iterations of jihadists (none of whom is “moderate”) is the Syrian Arab Army and its central government in Damascus.
Turkey, the SDF and the United States are three irregular, illegal and illegitimate occupants of Syrian soil who are fighting in the midst of thousands of civilians and are causing death and destruction that could easily be avoided.
The international political and media reaction to events happening in Syria confirms in my mind that there is an internal wrangle between the United States, Turkey and the SDF stemming from their defeat at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army and allies; a win for civilization.
With the global population aging at a rapid pace (research has determined that the percentage of the population over the retirement age will grow to 20% by 2070, up from 9% today), understanding the durability of the world’s pension funds is of growing importance.
Hence, the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, a study of 37 retirement income systems covering more than 63% of the world’s population, has been created to reflect the “great diversity between the systems around the world with scores ranging from 39.4 for Thailand to 81.0 for the Netherlands.”
Pension funds are not only a critical source of retirement income, they play a significant role in financial markets, mandating a growing need for accurate information about the comparisons between different countries, said Martin Pakula, Australia’s minster for jobs, innovation and trade, in a preface released with the study.
Here’s how the index works: The overall index value for each system represents the weighted average of three sub-indices. The weightings used are 40% for the adequacy sub-index, 35% for the sustainability sub-index and 25% for the integrity sub-index which have remained unchanged since the first Index was published back in 2009.
This year’s study confirmed that the Netherlands and Denmark again received A-ratings, confirming that they remain the best systems and most sustainable pension systems.
Below, is a run-down of all the country’s included in the study and their numerical ranking (in alphabetical order).
And this chart shows the letter grade received by each…
Part four of the study includes several recommendations for how low-scoring systems can improve (text courtesy of the study):
Increase the state pension age and/or retirement age to reflect increasing life expectancy, both now and into the future, thereby reducing the costs of publicly financed pension benefits3.
Promote higher labour force participation at older ages which will increase the savings available for retirement and limit the continuing increase in the length of retirement.
Encourage or require higher levels of private saving, both within and beyond the pension system, to reduce the future dependence on the public pension while also adjusting the expectations of many workers.
Increase the coverage of employees and/or the self-employed in the private pension system, recognising that many individuals will not save for the future without an element of compulsion or automatic enrolment.
Reduce the leakage from the retirement savings system prior to retirement thereby ensuring that the funds saved, often with associated taxation support, are used for the provision of retirement income.
Review the level of public pension indexation as the method and frequency of increases are critical to ensure that the real value of the pension is maintained, balanced by its long-term sustainability.
Improve the governance of private pension plans and introduce greater transparency to improve the confidence of plan members.
While also charting an “interesting” relationship between household debt and the relative performance of a country’s pension system, implying that household debt is higher in nations with better-performing pension systems – the so-called “wealth effect.”
[A.] On September 16, 2019, A.M., a student at Cape Elizabeth High School, entered a girls’ bathroom and placed a sticky note on a mirror reading, “THERE’S A RAPIST IN OUR SCHOOL AND YOU KNOW WHO IT IS.” Within minutes, another student discovered the note and brought it to the attention of school administrators. However, later that day other female students engaged in copycat expression in another school bathroom.
Principal Jeffrey Shedd and Vice Principal Nate Carpenter instituted an investigation to determine authorship of the notes and who the notes might be referring to. In the course of their investigation they reviewed camera footage and determined that A.M. was the author of the initial note. The investigation was quite extensive. In all, Shedd, Carpenter and other members of the administration interviewed more than 40 students. Some of what they uncovered would be upsetting to certain students and their families and will not be recounted here. On September 20, 2019, Defendant Shedd sent an email to the school community at large, to which he attached a letter “about an incident in school this week.”
Needless to say, the wide-ranging investigation and letter stirred up the hornet’s nest of gossip and rumor. Eventually, a certain male student (identified by the parties as “Student 1”) experienced what could be described as ostracism by his peers. Upset by his experience, Student 1 remained out of school for several days. Student 1’s family informed the School that they considered the entire incident to be a matter of bullying and the school administrators ultimately decided that they agreed with that characterization.
On October 4, 2019, A.M. spoke with the press about her expressive activity and her concern with the School’s handling of sexual assault allegations. Also on October 4, 2019, Defendants Shedd and Carpenter wrote a letter to A.M.’s family stating that A.M. “admitted and accepted responsibility for her actions.” In the letter he advised that it was his conclusion that A.M. bullied Student 1. On that basis he imposed a three-day suspension and a warning “that any future actions of this sort … may result in further and more severe consequences up to and including suspension and possible expulsion.” While A.M. received a three-day suspension, the other girls received shorter suspensions. The other girls either had not spoken with or were not featured by the press, although Defendants deny that this was a factor.
On October 9, 2019, Defendant Shedd wrote another missive to the community in which he summed up the investigation. In it he described the students who authored the sticky notes as having good but misguided intentions. He complained of the national attention the School had received, and he cast shame on members of the media who may have given any “credence” to the assertions contained in the sticky notes. He observed that the students responsible would be given “second chances” and would be able, in their senior years, to request expungement of their suspensions provided they maintain good records in the meantime. [A.M. sued, seeking a preliminary injunction that would block the suspension. -EV] …
[B.] As a threshold matter, for Plaintiff to succeed on her claim, her speech must fall under the protection of First Amendment. Defendants argue that the sticky note was defamatory—falsely accusing another student (“Student 1”) of being a rapist—and as such is not protected by the First Amendment. For a statement such as A.M.’s to be defamatory it must be “concerning another” and there must be “fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher.”
The record is not clear on either of these two points, and Defendants cannot convincingly show that the speech is otherwise undeserving of First Amendment protection…. [There is a] significant factual dispute over whether A.M.’s note referred to Student 1. Compare Response at 16 (“The administration convincingly found, however, that the statement was in fact directed at Student 1”) with A.M. Decl at ¶ 33 (“at the time I posted the sticky note, I did not even know about the alleged videos [depicting Student 1]”). And even assuming A.M. meant to target Student 1 directly, there is also a live factual dispute over whether A.M. acted negligently in posting the note at all. Reply at 13 (“[A.M.] made a statement … that she believed in good faith to be true of numerous perpetrators in the school.”); see also Oct. 9 Shedd Letter (characterizing A.M. as “well motivated, with good intentions”). If these factual disputes resolve in favor of Defendants, they may well undermine Plaintiff’s claim; but at this preliminary stage the evidence suggesting her speech might have defamed Student 1 is not enough to undermine a finding that she is otherwise likely to succeed on the merits of her First Amendment claim.
[C.] The record is a mixed bag regarding whether A.M.’s speech was defamatory but speaks much more clearly that A.M.’s sticky note was a political statement…. Unlike the “bong hits” the plaintiff in Morse v. Frederick suggested for Jesus, A.M.’s note speaks out on a topic that is decidedly political. In analyzing whether a student’s speech is protectable, I look at an objectively reasonable interpretation of the speech, not the speaker’s motive. That inquiry may be informed by context, including the identity of the speaker.
By raising the specter of a rapist in the school and the administration’s knowledge of his or her presence, A.M.’s note expresses political advocacy on a question of significant public consequence. Plaintiff insists she was commenting on “the crisis of sexual assault in public schools and the importance of appropriate school procedures to address it,” which falls within the ambit of speech “commenting on [a] political or social issue.”
Her speech not only contributes to this “political debate” about how schools handle sexual assault, but, if true, highlights a real safety concern for the students of Cape Elizabeth High School. Given the political nature of A.M.’s speech, and the guidance from the Supreme Court that “freedom of speech … guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment,” I find A.M. likely engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment….
[C.] To overcome Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, Defendants must show their reason for suspending fits the recognized justifications in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist. (1969). Under Tinker‘s “general rule,” the government may restrict school speech that threatens to “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” or “inva[des] the rights of others.” Other circuits to interpret this rule have required schools to show “a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.” …
Defendants maintain that the assertion, “THERE’S A RAPIST IN OUR SCHOOL,” is so inherently disturbing that anyone who reads it would appreciate that school discipline would be disrupted. In support of this interpretation, Defendants assert someone might believe an active rapist was presently “walking the halls of the school building.” At this stage of the proceedings, suffice it to say it is unlikely that Defendants will persuade me to accept this interpretation as reasonable. Students who seek to sound the hue and cry regarding an imminent threat in the school building do not do so by sticky note.
Defendants also argue that the sticky note actually disrupted school, justifying the punishment they meted out on A.M…. To show students experienced “fear” at A.M.’s note, the School points first to the “worried and concerned” student who in fact found the sticky note in the bathroom. Then, when the Defendants investigated the rape allegation, they argue that “dissemination of the statement interrupted the work of administrators for multiple hours over many days, interrupted the school routines of the 47 students interviewed and spread fear in the student body,” resulting in further disruption. In essence, the Defendants argue they are justified in punishing A.M. because her note caused certain students to feel temporarily upset or unsafe, and certain administrators to spend their time investigating her allegation. This is less “disruption” than the school in Tinker had forecast, and not enough to justify prohibiting otherwise protectable First Amendment activity….
In Tinker, the black armbands “caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them … a warning by an older football player that other, nonprotesting students had better let them alone,” and the “wreck[ing]” of a math teacher’s lesson period, none of which amounted to enough “disruption” to silence otherwise protected speech. The cases Defendants cite to support their argument highlight that “disruption” usually refers to actual threats of harm or violence.
Here, by contrast, there is no evidence that A.M.’s note incited violent behavior … or even “wrecked” any part of the academic schedule. The Assistant Principal’s characterization of certain students as concerned about the note, and testimony that administrators spent time investigating the note, does not add up to “disruption” under Tinker which would undermine Plaintiff’s showing of likelihood of success at this preliminary stage….
[D.] Defendants also attempt to justify their punishment of A.M.’s speech because it invaded the rights of other students, specifically Student 1, the alleged target of the note. Defendants argue that “A.M.’s unfounded statement interfered with Student 1’s reputational rights … and his right not to be bullied in school.” … In describing [the invades-the-rights-of-others] justification, the Court in Tinker gave the example of a student who “accosted other students by pinning the buttons on them even though they did not ask for one.” I consider here whether A.M. invaded another student’s rights with a similar level of clarity and directness as the … student referenced in Tinker.
At this preliminary stage, the record on the issue is decidedly mixed. For example, Defendants state that Plaintiff “admi[tted] that she intended to instill fear in the school” by posting the note. A.M., on the other hand, contends that “it was Principal Shedd who alleged that I was trying to instill fear. I did not say that was my intent.” A.M. also claims to have audio recordings of her meetings with administrators that refute Defendants’ contention that she directed her note at Student 1. Without a clear factual connection between A.M.’s note and Student 1, I cannot find that her sticky note “invaded” Student 1’s rights under Tinker. Therefore, Defendants’ adjudication that A.M. bullied Student 1 does not undermine Plaintiff’s showing of likelihood of success on her First Amendment claim.
Defendants also stress that A.M. “egregiously minimizes the trauma she caused to Student 1.” I highlight that particular word to pause on a troublesome point of Defendants’ argument; though Defendants hastily point out that A.M. was adjudicated to have “bullied” Student 1 under Cape Elizabeth High School’s bullying policy, they do not closely link her protected speech to the actual harm he suffered…. A.M. posted a sticky note in the girl’s bathroom that stayed up for a matter of minutes, did not specifically name an individual, did not use photos, and arguably targeted the administration—the “you” in the note—rather than the “rapist.” Because the record does not speak with any clarity that A.M.’s note, in fact, caused reputational and educational harm to Student 1, I find that Defendants have failed to undermine Plaintiff’s showing of likelihood of success on her First Amendment claim by pointing to this second Tinker justification.
E.] [An allegation of unlawful conduct is, generally speaking, not a worthy object of punishment unless the allegation is frivolous…. Defendants argue, however, that it is how one goes about it that matters here. They say Plaintiff did not channel her grievance through the proper channels. But Plaintiff has a right to express her viewpoint, and if her viewpoint is non-frivolous and is delivered by a means that will not likely cause a breakdown in school discipline or invade the rights of another student, then it is not deserving of punishment.
That does not mean the public is compelled to celebrate Plaintiff’s expression. Indeed, the public remains free to reject Plaintiff’s viewpoint. Nevertheless, the public has an interest in knowing that neither Plaintiff nor any other student who expresses a comparable view in similar fashion will be denied access to school simply because her viewpoint offends the sensibilities of school administrators. Something more is necessary to justify punishment.
If school administrators receive carte blanche to tamp down and vet non-frivolous outcries on topics of social justice, expressed in areas generally associated with free student communication, where would that leave us? Contemporary examples abound of betrayal of free speech principles to avoid ideas or speakers with whom we disagree. Madison would recoil. Individual liberty is both the cause and the result of personal fortitude. “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” That ability, in turn, depends on the free flow of ideas, especially those that are discomfiting.
To my view, the concern over the ability of students to express outrage over something happening in the school community gives rise to the concern expressed by Justice Alito and seconded by Justice Kennedy in Morse, that there should be “no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue,” based merely on concern over the school’s ability to carry out is “educational mission.” Such a formulation of the test invites school administrators to “inculcate[e] … whatever political and social views” they hold to the detriment of student expression.
There is some evidence that this may be going on here. Defendants have demonstrated a relatively intense desire to control messaging about the health of their high school environment and to demonstrate to the public at large that they have the matter well in hand. They have even gone so far as to state that A.M.’s concerns lack factual support, although it is not apparent on this record that A.M.’s concerns are in fact frivolous. {During the motion hearing, Defendants made the startling argument that it does not matter for purposes of the First Amendment analysis whether A.M.’s statement that “there’s a rapist in our school” was true or false.}
In short, the right of the public to hear or read expression concerning the operation of the public schools and the existence of dangers within the school environment may, at times, depend on the right of members of the student body to express themselves in the school environment without fear of retribution. The public interest is, accordingly, in league with the Plaintiff insofar as she asks that the suspension be stayed pending further consideration of her free speech claim….
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31N1YaP
via IFTTT
