Category: reason

Don’t Ban Critical Race Theory in Education. Embrace School Choice Instead.


desantis_1161x653

Conservatives in Florida, Idaho, and the nation’s capitol are attempting to block public schools from teaching Critical Race Theory, an ideology that holds that racism is historically fundamental to how America’s political, legal, and cultural institutions are structured.

It’s an authoritarian proposal that would cut off classroom debate about hot-button political issues. Rather than rejecting the idea of forcing students to learn controversial concepts as though they’re facts, it just picks a different side of the controversy and pushes that one instead.

The proposals also tend to be terribly written. Here’s what Florida’s State Board of Education passed unanimously Thursday:

Instruction on the required topics must be factual and objective, and may not suppress or distort significant historical events, such as the Holocaust, slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the civil rights movement and the contributions of women, African American and Hispanic people to our country, as already provided in Section 1003.42(2), F.S. Examples of theories that distort historical events and are inconsistent with State Board approved standards include the denial or minimization of the Holocaust, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory, meaning the theory that racism is not merely the product of prejudice, but that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons. Instruction may not utilize material from the 1619 Project and may not define American history as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Instruction must include the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.

The amendment also forbids educators from sharing their personal views at all during class discussions.

Now, a lot of honestly misguided ideas have come out of Critical Race Theory—its exponents, for example, have pushed the idea that the First Amendment should not protect hate speech. But the notion that embedded racism has played a major role in America’s institutional history should not in itself be controversial. Florida’s new rule defines Critical Race Theory as claiming “racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems in order to uphold the supremacy of white persons.” Would this cover the idea that America’s past is full of obvious examples of institutionally embedded racism? A teacher might argue that the language doesn’t cover that, but it’s close enough that it could have a chilling effect. The results would be untenably absurd: Students would learn that slavery was a result of simple prejudice against black people, not an entrenched political and economic system.

This amendment is, in itself, a lesson about Critical Race Theory. Those with the most political power in Florida are deciding what can and cannot be taught about race relations. While Florida has a significant black and Latino population, it is still predominantly white. The dominant power structure in Florida is telling educators how they’re allowed to characterize racism within America’s power structures.

The parents who are upset at the teaching of Critical Race Theory at school—or, sometimes, upset about “anti-racist” instruciton that doesn’t have much to do with Critical Race Theory but gets lumped together with it anyway—are often reacting to genuinely bad practices. When every aspect of culture gets whittled down to a race-driven conflict, that either turns people defensive or causes them to tune out entirely. But rather than trying to address such concerns in a reasonable manner, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state’s Department of Education are throwing kerosene on the fire for political gain.

Similarly: It’s inappropriate to ban the teaching of The New York Times‘ controversial and flawed 1619 Project in public schools. You can’t talk about the flaws otherwise! It’s also equally inappropriate to mandate the teaching of the 1619 Project as though it’s an accurate representation of history; in fact, historians have questioned some of its claims.

Better to let families decide for themselves. Florida has a pretty good record of supporting school choice: The state currently has 687 charter schools serving more than 340,000 students. And school choice is the ideal way to address these concerns—certainly better than either a mandate or a ban. Letting families choose which schools their children attend means letting them decide what curricula those children will encounter, without either side of this culture war getting a veto over that choice.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3xlOWBn
via IFTTT

Let’s Scrap the Jones Act


STILL3

The Jones Act requires that any vessel sailing between American ports (including those in territories, such as Puerto Rico and Guam) must be American-built, American-owned, and manned by an American crew flying the American flag. Passed as part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 under the pretense of national defense—the claim was that the U.S. shouldn’t be in a position of having to rely on foreign ships during wartime—the Jones Act is just a protectionist racket that drives up costs.

Despite “the absence of any measurable benefits, the Jones Act has persisted for nearly 100 years,” said the Cato Institute in a 2017 report. Why? “The small number of beneficiaries, which primarily include domestic shipyards and some labor unions, are more powerfully motivated to preserve the status quo than are the far more numerous adversely affected interests in seeking its repeal.”

Here’s an idea: Let’s scrap it!

Written and performed by Andrew Heaton
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg and Meredith Bragg
Music: Happy Happy Game Show by Kevin MacLeod

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3wsN8Xo
via IFTTT

Cops Now Need a Warrant for 23andMe and AncestryDNA Searches in Maryland and Montana


ibpremium115360

Maryland and Montana have become the first states to pass laws restricting the ways law enforcement can access DNA databases from private genetic genealogy companies such as AncestryDNA and 23andMe.

Maryland’s law, passed on May 30, requires police to have court authorization before beginning an investigation using information from such companies. To get this authorization, they must have probable cause—and the crime being probed must be a murder, a rape, a felony sexual offense, a kidnapping, a case of human trafficking, or a “criminal act involving circumstances presenting a substantial and ongoing threat to public safety or national security.”

Montana’s similar but less robust law, passed on May 7, says the government “may not obtain DNA search results from a consumer DNA database” unless it has “a search warrant issued by a court on a finding of probable cause” or if the consumer whose information is sought waived their right to privacy.

As many as 26 million people have used genetic genealogy services. Police have secretly used DNA information from these companies without a warrant or subpoena.

Law enforcement agencies caught the Golden State Killer and more than a dozen other suspects by sending in DNA evidence from crime scenes under a fake profile, as though the investigator was an ordinary user. This process gives them a list of a suspect’s genetic relations, possibly allowing police to triangulate their identity.

AncestryDNA and 23andMe both prohibit such investigations using an ordinary user profile. But other companies, such as FamilyTreeDNA and GEDMatch, have indicated that they allow police to use their databases, even without court approval. GEDMatch was the service used in the Golden State Killer case; after the murderer was captured, the company addressed the news with a banner at the top of its website. “Although we were not approached by law enforcement or anyone else about this case or about the DNA,” it said, “it has always been GEDmatch’s policy to inform users that the database could be used for other uses, as set forth in the Site Policy….While the database was created for genealogical research, it is important that GEDmatch participants understand the possible uses of their DNA, including identification of relatives that have committed crimes or were victims of crimes.”

Of all of the direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies, GEDMatch is the most amenable to law enforcement. And although it has one of the smaller databases, a 2018 study in Science found that if you are a white American—the most highly represented group in these databases—there’s a 60 percent chance that your identity could be discovered using a search of your DNA on the site. All it takes is a third cousin who has uploaded his or her DNA to let law enforcement home in on who you are. And those chances have likely increased, as the database has grown since 2018.

The “language of the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause for every search and particularity for every warrant, precludes dragnet warrantless searches like these,” argues Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A technique’s usefulness for law enforcement does not outweigh people’s privacy interests in their genetic data.” 

As genetic genealogy websites become increasingly popular, DNA privacy becomes increasingly important. Let’s hope other states follow Montana and Maryland’s lead to keep the government’s genetic snoops within their constitutional bounds.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gn64RB
via IFTTT

Let’s Scrap the Jones Act


STILL3

The Jones Act requires that any vessel sailing between American ports (including those in territories, such as Puerto Rico and Guam) must be American-built, American-owned, and manned by an American crew flying the American flag. Passed as part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 under the pretense of national defense—the claim was that the U.S. shouldn’t be in a position of having to rely on foreign ships during wartime—the Jones Act is just a protectionist racket that drives up costs.

Despite “the absence of any measurable benefits, the Jones Act has persisted for nearly 100 years,” said the Cato Institute in a 2017 report. Why? “The small number of beneficiaries, which primarily include domestic shipyards and some labor unions, are more powerfully motivated to preserve the status quo than are the far more numerous adversely affected interests in seeking its repeal.”

Here’s an idea: Let’s scrap it!

Written and performed by Andrew Heaton
Produced and edited by Austin Bragg and Meredith Bragg
Music: Happy Happy Game Show by Kevin MacLeod

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3wsN8Xo
via IFTTT

Cops Now Need a Warrant for 23andMe and AncestryDNA Searches in Maryland and Montana


ibpremium115360

Maryland and Montana have become the first states to pass laws restricting the ways law enforcement can access DNA databases from private genetic genealogy companies such as AncestryDNA and 23andMe.

Maryland’s law, passed on May 30, requires police to have court authorization before beginning an investigation using information from such companies. To get this authorization, they must have probable cause—and the crime being probed must be a murder, a rape, a felony sexual offense, a kidnapping, a case of human trafficking, or a “criminal act involving circumstances presenting a substantial and ongoing threat to public safety or national security.”

Montana’s similar but less robust law, passed on May 7, says the government “may not obtain DNA search results from a consumer DNA database” unless it has “a search warrant issued by a court on a finding of probable cause” or if the consumer whose information is sought waived their right to privacy.

As many as 26 million people have used genetic genealogy services. Police have secretly used DNA information from these companies without a warrant or subpoena.

Law enforcement agencies caught the Golden State Killer and more than a dozen other suspects by sending in DNA evidence from crime scenes under a fake profile, as though the investigator was an ordinary user. This process gives them a list of a suspect’s genetic relations, possibly allowing police to triangulate their identity.

AncestryDNA and 23andMe both prohibit such investigations using an ordinary user profile. But other companies, such as FamilyTreeDNA and GEDMatch, have indicated that they allow police to use their databases, even without court approval. GEDMatch was the service used in the Golden State Killer case; after the murderer was captured, the company addressed the news with a banner at the top of its website. “Although we were not approached by law enforcement or anyone else about this case or about the DNA,” it said, “it has always been GEDmatch’s policy to inform users that the database could be used for other uses, as set forth in the Site Policy….While the database was created for genealogical research, it is important that GEDmatch participants understand the possible uses of their DNA, including identification of relatives that have committed crimes or were victims of crimes.”

Of all of the direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies, GEDMatch is the most amenable to law enforcement. And although it has one of the smaller databases, a 2018 study in Science found that if you are a white American—the most highly represented group in these databases—there’s a 60 percent chance that your identity could be discovered using a search of your DNA on the site. All it takes is a third cousin who has uploaded his or her DNA to let law enforcement home in on who you are. And those chances have likely increased, as the database has grown since 2018.

The “language of the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause for every search and particularity for every warrant, precludes dragnet warrantless searches like these,” argues Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A technique’s usefulness for law enforcement does not outweigh people’s privacy interests in their genetic data.” 

As genetic genealogy websites become increasingly popular, DNA privacy becomes increasingly important. Let’s hope other states follow Montana and Maryland’s lead to keep the government’s genetic snoops within their constitutional bounds.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gn64RB
via IFTTT

Cops Tased and Beat Teens While Enforcing a Local Vaping Ban


thumbnail

Over the last several years, people across the political aisle have conceded that parts of the drug war only serve to exacerbate certain problems. At the same time, politicians of both stripes have engaged in a bipartisan effort to restrict a new bogeyman: vaping.

So they shouldn’t be surprised that such restrictions are colliding with overpolicing—one of the most glaring issues with the war on drugs.

On Saturday in Ocean City, Maryland, officers notified “a large group” that their vaping was in violation of a local ordinance that prohibits vaping and smoking except in designated areas. After walking away, cops noticed one of the same teens, Brian Everett Anderson, reengaging with his vape. “Officers approached the group again to further address the violation,” reads a press release from the local government. “During the course of the interaction, the male refused to provide his proof of identification and became disorderly.”

A viral video making the rounds Sunday appeared to cast some doubt on the idea that the situation merited such force. The clip shows a teen with his hands up, surrounded by Ocean City officers and public safety aides. He is then tased, falls to the ground, and is later hogtied and carried away.

Three other teens—Kamere Anthony Day, Jahtique Joseph John Lewis, and Khalil Dwayne Warren—were also arrested, the government notes, alleging that they, too, engaged in disorderly conduct and tried to disrupt the scene. Additional videos show a group of officers piling on top of one teen while a cop knees him repeatedly in the side.

“Our officers are permitted to use force, per their training, to overcome exhibited resistance,” reads the statement from the government. “All uses of force go through a detailed review process. The uses of force from these arrests will go through a multi-level examination by the Assistant Patrol Commander, the Division Commander and then by the Office of Professional Standards.”

But what officials in Ocean City appear to miss is that such a scene would not have been possible at all had it not been for the dumb rule they put in place. Legislators need to confront the fact that any law on the books has to be enforced with armed agents of the state.

They are not alone. Former President Donald Trump’s administration moved to ban certain electronic cigarette flavors in an effort to curb teen usage; Democrats have not been immune to similar pieces of legislation. The effort is unusually bipartisan, which, if history is any indication, is not a reflection of good policy making, particularly when it comes to moral panics.

The bans are not rooted in science: Vaping has been shown to help smokers quit and provides a safer alternative to cigarettes. But even if that weren’t the case, it shouldn’t matter in the context of smart rule-making. Time and time again, communities have come up against the collateral damage of the drug war: black markets that incentivize violence, and overpolicing that sees people thrown in cages for making questionable personal choices. No one is asking politicians to morally sanction the use of various substances—we are asking that they live in reality.

This is not the first high-profile example of a law weaponized in a gruesome way. Eric Garner, one of the most well-known victims of police brutality, died after New York City Police Department Officer Daniel Pantaleo choked him for the crime of selling loose cigarettes.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden is proposing that menthol cigarettes be banned, because they are used disproportionately by black people. In other words, Ocean City’s policing gone wrong won’t be the last.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35iuQfh
via IFTTT

Cops Tased and Beat Teens While Enforcing a Local Vaping Ban


thumbnail

Over the last several years, people across the political aisle have conceded that parts of the drug war only serve to exacerbate certain problems. At the same time, politicians of both stripes have engaged in a bipartisan effort to restrict a new bogeyman: vaping.

So they shouldn’t be surprised that such restrictions are colliding with overpolicing—one of the most glaring issues with the war on drugs.

On Saturday in Ocean City, Maryland, officers notified “a large group” that their vaping was in violation of a local ordinance that prohibits vaping and smoking except in designated areas. After walking away, cops noticed one of the same teens, Brian Everett Anderson, reengaging with his vape. “Officers approached the group again to further address the violation,” reads a press release from the local government. “During the course of the interaction, the male refused to provide his proof of identification and became disorderly.”

A viral video making the rounds Sunday appeared to cast some doubt on the idea that the situation merited such force. The clip shows a teen with his hands up, surrounded by Ocean City officers and public safety aides. He is then tased, falls to the ground, and is later hogtied and carried away.

Three other teens—Kamere Anthony Day, Jahtique Joseph John Lewis, and Khalil Dwayne Warren—were also arrested, the government notes, alleging that they, too, engaged in disorderly conduct and tried to disrupt the scene. Additional videos show a group of officers piling on top of one teen while a cop knees him repeatedly in the side.

“Our officers are permitted to use force, per their training, to overcome exhibited resistance,” reads the statement from the government. “All uses of force go through a detailed review process. The uses of force from these arrests will go through a multi-level examination by the Assistant Patrol Commander, the Division Commander and then by the Office of Professional Standards.”

But what officials in Ocean City appear to miss is that such a scene would not have been possible at all had it not been for the dumb rule they put in place. Legislators need to confront the fact that any law on the books has to be enforced with armed agents of the state.

They are not alone. Former President Donald Trump’s administration moved to ban certain electronic cigarette flavors in an effort to curb teen usage; Democrats have not been immune to similar pieces of legislation. The effort is unusually bipartisan, which, if history is any indication, is not a reflection of good policy making, particularly when it comes to moral panics.

The bans are not rooted in science: Vaping has been shown to help smokers quit and provides a safer alternative to cigarettes. But even if that weren’t the case, it shouldn’t matter in the context of smart rule-making. Time and time again, communities have come up against the collateral damage of the drug war: black markets that incentivize violence, and overpolicing that sees people thrown in cages for making questionable personal choices. No one is asking politicians to morally sanction the use of various substances—we are asking that they live in reality.

This is not the first high-profile example of a law weaponized in a gruesome way. Eric Garner, one of the most well-known victims of police brutality, died after New York City Police Department Officer Daniel Pantaleo choked him for the crime of selling loose cigarettes.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden is proposing that menthol cigarettes be banned, because they are used disproportionately by black people. In other words, Ocean City’s policing gone wrong won’t be the last.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35iuQfh
via IFTTT

The PRO-SPEECH Act Is Anything but First Amendment-Friendly


zumaamericasthirtyone342490

It may be dubbed the “Promoting Rights and Online Speech Protections to Ensure Every Consumer is Heard” (PRO-SPEECH) Act, but a new bill from Massachusetts Republican Sen. Roger Wicker is anything but First Amendment-friendly. Wicker’s measure would ban huge swaths of online content moderation, forcing private internet forums to host speech that may currently violate their terms of service and be considered hateful, harassing, vulgar, or otherwise undesired.

The bill would also take aim at freedom of association and free markets, disallowing some tech services—such as app stores and cloud computing companies—from choosing what products they offer or what businesses they’ll contract with.

Introduced Thursday, the so-called PRO-SPEECH Act strikes at the heart of First Amendment protections, compelling companies under threat of sanction from the government to platform messages they otherwise wouldn’t.

Essentially, Wicker’s bill is “net neutrality” legislation—something that was vehemently opposed by Republicans of yore—but for online content platforms, search engines, and marketplaces rather than internet service providers. The bill would make it illegal for digital entities to block or impede access to “any lawful content, application, service, or device” that doesn’t interfere with platform functionality or “pose a data privacy or data security risk to the user.”

The bill would also explicitly ban taking action against a user based on “political affiliation.” Tech companies could no longer choose to ban, for instance, Nazi content or decline to host web forums devoted to white supremacist political groups. Web forums couldn’t choose to be exclusively for conservative users, or progressive users, or so on.

“Approximately zero people actually want” the Internet this bill would create, Daphne Keller of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center commented on Twitter.

Notably, the bill would exempt from some provisions any company that “publicly proclaims to be a publisher.”

It has been a common conservative delusion that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act already turns on some sort of vital legal distinction between “publishers” on one hand and “platforms” on the other, with platforms having a responsibility to remain neutral conduits for content and only publishers allowed to set any rules for what types of content they will carry. This is not actually the way that Section 230 works.

But “Senator Wicker is trying to make the ridiculous and nonsensical ‘publisher/platform’ distinction an actual thing, despite the fact that this is blatantly unconstitutional,” writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. “The end result is that this bill leans into the moderator’s dilemma and creates two types of internet sites: complete garbage dumps…where no moderation can take place, and Hollywood-backed squeaky clean productions. It wipes out the parts of the internet that most people actually like: the lightly moderated/curated user-generated aspects of social media that enable lots of people to have a voice and to connect with others, without being driven away by spammers, assholes, and abusers.”

In addition, the bill also redefines anti-competitive behavior—the backbone of antitrust law violations—to include any large company blocking, prohibiting, or discriminating against any platform that competes with any part of its own business. No matter how many of a company’s rules the quasi-competitor violated, it would have to be allowed.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would have broad discretion to enforce the law, making it ripe for politics-based abuse. Small internet businesses would be exempt…except for when the FTC decides they are not.

Violations would be considered unfair and deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Anyone could register a complaint with the FTC alleging a violation, creating a massive new undertaking for the commission as internet moderation police and a massive new layer of bureaucracy for tech companies, which would be required to respond to every complaint.

In essence, the law would quite literally make a federal case out of every aggrieved YouTuber who gets demonetized, business that thinks its search results aren’t high enough, troll who feels he deserves a right to say whatever he wants online, etc. If tech companies don’t issue a reparation to the complainant, the FTC would be forced to open an investigation within five months.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pVHXMX
via IFTTT

The PRO-SPEECH Act Is Anything but First Amendment-Friendly


zumaamericasthirtyone342490

It may be dubbed the “Promoting Rights and Online Speech Protections to Ensure Every Consumer is Heard” (PRO-SPEECH) Act, but a new bill from Massachusetts Republican Sen. Roger Wicker is anything but First Amendment-friendly. Wicker’s measure would ban huge swaths of online content moderation, forcing private internet forums to host speech that may currently violate their terms of service and be considered hateful, harassing, vulgar, or otherwise undesired.

The bill would also take aim at freedom of association and free markets, disallowing some tech services—such as app stores and cloud computing companies—from choosing what products they offer or what businesses they’ll contract with.

Introduced Thursday, the so-called PRO-SPEECH Act strikes at the heart of First Amendment protections, compelling companies under threat of sanction from the government to platform messages they otherwise wouldn’t.

Essentially, Wicker’s bill is “net neutrality” legislation—something that was vehemently opposed by Republicans of yore—but for online content platforms, search engines, and marketplaces rather than internet service providers. The bill would make it illegal for digital entities to block or impede access to “any lawful content, application, service, or device” that doesn’t interfere with platform functionality or “pose a data privacy or data security risk to the user.”

The bill would also explicitly ban taking action against a user based on “political affiliation.” Tech companies could no longer choose to ban, for instance, Nazi content or decline to host web forums devoted to white supremacist political groups. Web forums couldn’t choose to be exclusively for conservative users, or progressive users, or so on.

“Approximately zero people actually want” the Internet this bill would create, Daphne Keller of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center commented on Twitter.

Notably, the bill would exempt from some provisions any company that “publicly proclaims to be a publisher.”

It has been a common conservative delusion that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act already turns on some sort of vital legal distinction between “publishers” on one hand and “platforms” on the other, with platforms having a responsibility to remain neutral conduits for content and only publishers allowed to set any rules for what types of content they will carry. This is not actually the way that Section 230 works.

But “Senator Wicker is trying to make the ridiculous and nonsensical ‘publisher/platform’ distinction an actual thing, despite the fact that this is blatantly unconstitutional,” writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. “The end result is that this bill leans into the moderator’s dilemma and creates two types of internet sites: complete garbage dumps…where no moderation can take place, and Hollywood-backed squeaky clean productions. It wipes out the parts of the internet that most people actually like: the lightly moderated/curated user-generated aspects of social media that enable lots of people to have a voice and to connect with others, without being driven away by spammers, assholes, and abusers.”

In addition, the bill also redefines anti-competitive behavior—the backbone of antitrust law violations—to include any large company blocking, prohibiting, or discriminating against any platform that competes with any part of its own business. No matter how many of a company’s rules the quasi-competitor violated, it would have to be allowed.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would have broad discretion to enforce the law, making it ripe for politics-based abuse. Small internet businesses would be exempt…except for when the FTC decides they are not.

Violations would be considered unfair and deceptive practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Anyone could register a complaint with the FTC alleging a violation, creating a massive new undertaking for the commission as internet moderation police and a massive new layer of bureaucracy for tech companies, which would be required to respond to every complaint.

In essence, the law would quite literally make a federal case out of every aggrieved YouTuber who gets demonetized, business that thinks its search results aren’t high enough, troll who feels he deserves a right to say whatever he wants online, etc. If tech companies don’t issue a reparation to the complainant, the FTC would be forced to open an investigation within five months.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pVHXMX
via IFTTT

Apple Surrendered Former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s Account Information to Trump DOJ


reason-mcgahn

The Trump administration might be over, but its ability to generate controversy continues. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that in February 2018 the Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoenaed Apple for the account information of former Trump White House Counsel Don McGahn and his wife.

The company complied with the subpoena, according to anonymous sources who spoke with the Times. A nondisclosure order prevented it from notifying the McGahns about the request until May of this year.

This news comes on the heels of revelations last week that the DOJ under former President Donald Trump had subpoenaed Apple and Microsoft for the account information of journalists and Democratic lawmakers as part of a leak investigation.

Targets of these subpoenas included Reps. Eric Swalwell (D–Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) as well as reporters at CNN, the Times, and The Washington Post.

Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz said in a statement to the Post on Friday that the DOJ had asked the company to cough up subscriber information for 73 phone numbers and 36 email addresses. Sainz said that Apple had no knowledge of the nature of the investigation and that it only turned over subscriber information, and not pictures or the content of emails.

Microsoft also told the Post it had handed over subscriber information for an unnamed congressional staffer in response to a DOJ subpoena.

Democrats have expressed outrage at the subpoenas.”President Trump repeatedly and flagrantly demanded that the Department of Justice carry out his political will and tried to use the Department as a cudgel against his political opponents and members of the media. It is increasingly apparent that those demands did not fall on deaf ears,” Schiff said to Vox in a statement.

Schiff stoked controversy in 2019 when he included Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R–Calif.) phone records in an Intelligence Committee report on Trump’s impeachment.

DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has said that he will probe whether these requests for lawmakers’ and reporters’ records violated the department’s policies and if the underlying investigation was “based upon improper considerations.”

U.S Attorney General Merrick Garland will meet with the heads of media outlets today to discuss these subpoenas. The DOJ also announced Saturday that it will stop secretly collecting journalists’ records. Press freedom groups praised that policy change while also demanding more details on its specifics.

FREE MINDS

Rep. Joaquin Castro’s (D–Texas) latest crusade is to increase Hispanic representation on the silver screen, and he’s willing to play hardball with the entertainment industry to get the job done. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said state lawmakers should require film studios’ casts and crews to be more representative of state populations as a condition of receiving subsidies and tax credits.

Said Castro:

Let’s take New Mexico. My good friend, Michelle Lujan Grisham, who proceeded me as chair of the Hispanic Caucus, is the governor there. I expressed my concern on this issue to her. New Mexico is about 43% Latino. Well again, you’re talking about an industry getting tax breaks from a state where 43% percent of the taxpayers are Latino. Yet that group of people only has access to 3 or 4% of the work, in front of and behind the camera.

I just think at some point, as policymakers, you’ve got to ask yourself, how does it make sense to make all these people subsidize their own exclusion? We cannot subsidize our own exclusion.

I do think part of the answer is a diversity inclusion rider. In fact, I think the diversity inclusion riders are essential and necessary in any kind of tax credit or tax incentive program for the industry. Because the industry has not demonstrated that it’s going to be a good actor on its own. I think more lawmakers are waking up to this reality.

Another option would be to eliminate the special benefits state governments provide to the film industry. Of course, doing that would give lawmakers less leverage to boss private businesses around about their hiring practices.

FREE MARKETS

Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine) said Sunday that a gas tax hike would not be part of any bipartisan infrastructure deal. Instead, the senator re-upped the idea of imposing a new fee on electric vehicles.

“Right now, they are literally free riders because they’re not paying any gas tax,” she said, according to Politico. Slapping electric vehicle owners with a new fee has been a mainstay of Republican infrastructure proposals in the party’s negotiations with the Biden administration. Given how small the electric vehicle market is, a fee on these vehicles is unlikely to pay for much new infrastructure spending.

The White House has proposed paying for its own infrastructure plan with a corporate tax hike, an idea that has zero support among Republicans.

A bipartisan group of 10 senators, five Republicans and five Democrats, said in a statement last week that they had reached an agreement on a framework for an infrastructure package that’s both fully paid for and does not include tax increases. Politico notes that this framework doesn’t include a final price tag or what exactly those pay-fors might be.

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias suggested in a Bloomberg column over the weekend that lawmakers should pass a big infrastructure spending bill and then figure out later how to pay for it all. What could possibly go wrong?

QUICK HITS

• A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by current and former employees of Houston Methodist Hospital challenging its requirement that they all be vaccinated against COVID-19.

• Speaking of vaccines, San Francisco’s latest public health order requires workers at hospitals, skilled nursing homes, residential care facilities, shelters, and jails to have their shots, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. People who obtain medical or religious exemptions to this requirement will have to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing.

• President Joe Biden is trying to shore up support for NATO during his first overseas trip after his predecessor spent most of his time in office demonizing the alliance. The Quincy Institute’s Stephen Wertheim argues in a New York Times essay this morning that liberals should have no love for the organization either.

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ non-answer to a question about whether she’ll visit the U.S.-Mexico border deemed “cringeworthy.”

• An eight-party coalition has succeeded in ousting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after 12 years in office.

• Actor Ned Beatty has died.

• The trial of former Myanmar President Aung San Suu Kyi starts this week. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient was ousted in a military coup earlier this year.

• Shortages continue to plague America’s post-pandemic economic recovery.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cDujsq
via IFTTT