Month: May 2019

Last summer, a 7-year-old boy in upstate New York made headlines after health officials shut down the lemonade stand he was running from his family’s porch. In response, a state senator introduced legislation exempting lemonade stands run by children from onerous state regulations. And on Tuesday, the bill was approved by the New York Senate’s Health Committee and referred to the Finance Committee.

Reason‘s Scott Shackford had the details of the story at the time. Young Brendan Mulvaney set up shop at his home, which just happened to be in close proximity to a state fair. He probably wouldn’t have gotten in trouble if not for some fair vendors, who were selling lemonade for $7 a cup. One cup of Mulvaney’s lemonade, on the other hand, cost a far more reasonable 75 cents. (Mulvaney also sold snow cones and cold water.)

No doubt scared that Mulvaney’s capitalistic tendencies would cut into their profits, the vendors complained to the Health Department, who showed up and shut down Mulvaney’s operation. Under New York’s health regulations, you see, temporary food establishments need to secure a $30 permit from health officials before they can start operations.

The situation attracted outrage after Mulvaney’s dad, Sean, posted about it on Facebook. “There’s more important things in life than shutting down a kid’s lemonade stand,” Sean told WRGB around that time. Eventually, the Health Department said it would allow Brendan to start back up again without obtaining a permit as long as he limited his wares to lemonade.

In response to the outrage, state Sen. Jim Tedisco (R–49) introduced legislation exempting child-operated lemonade stands from state health regulations. “A lemonade stand operated by a person under the age of 16 years shall not be considered to be a temporary food establishment,” reads the most recent version of the bill, which was filed in January.

“There’s nothing that says America more than apple pie and kids running lemonade stands. ‘Brendan’s Lemon-Aid Law for Children’ will keep child-run lemonade stands open for business in New York State without this regulation hanging over them,” said Tedisco in a statement. “It’s a sad commentary on the current state of New York State’s government that this legislation is needed to protect the entrepreneurial dreams of children selling lemonade. Kids like Brendan Mulvaney are trying to give people sweet lemonade and learn some important business skills but the overzealous state bureaucrats just keep giving taxpayers lemons.”

The legislation currently has four additional Republican co-sponsors. It also has the support of at least one Democrat in the Assembly: Assemblywoman Kimberly Jean-Pierre (11), according to Tedisco’s press release.

Lawmakers on the Senate Health Committee unanimously approved the legislation Tuesday, the Albany Times Union reported. “My 8-year-old is in the middle of selling Girl Scout cookies,” said Sen. Brad Hoylman (D–27), who’s on the committee. “Should I be concerned about a crackdown from the Department of Health for distributing Girl Scout cookies?”

Unsurprisingly, the Health Department does not support the legislation, with agency spokesperson Jill Montag suggesting to the Times Union that it’s unnecessary. “The Department of Health will continue to use its discretion to not enforce regulations on children’s lemonade stands that are limited to lemonade or a similar beverage,” she said. Of course, as Tedisco’s press release noted, if health officials are going to ignore this regulation for children’s lemonade stands anyway, then the legislature may as well just get rid of it.

Tedisco’s bill is similar to a law passed in Texas in March, which Reason‘s Billy Binion wrote about. Texas state law currently prohibits the sale of homemade drinks (at least unregulated ones), though the law in question would eliminate permit requirement for minors who want to sell lemonade. Earlier that month, a similar bill passed the Colorado legislature and was eventually signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat.

These sorts of laws undoubtedly represent positive developments. Children should be allowed to sell lemonade if they want, but unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of local officials cracking down on their entrepreneurial spirits.

But as Shackford noted last year, these cases also highlight the effect onerous occupational licensing regulations can have on adult-run businesses, though those sorts of stories attract significantly less outrage. In New York, for instance, becoming a barber requires a whopping 884 days of training, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm.

Of course, we should be outraged when state officials shut down children’s lemonade stands. But we should be upset that onerous licensing regulations can have detrimental effects on adults’ careers as well.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2UU4b0S
via IFTTT

Last Thursday, federal district judge Robert Pitman released a lengthy opinion invalidating on First Amendment grounds a Texas law that requires state contractors to certify that they don’t boycott Israel-related products. The opinion is a mess. I’m not going to point out all of the problems it has, but instead will note the two most serious.

First, the opinion misstates the holding of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware as “recognizing that the First Amendment protects political boycotts.” As Eugene V. has explained on this blog, the case actually holds that there is a First Amendment right to advocate economic boycotts, not engage in them. If there were a First Amendment right to boycott for political reasons, then anyone politically opposed to integration, gay rights, and so on would have a First Amendment right to “boycott” minority groups protected by civil rights laws. That’s in fact the implication of Judge Pitman’s opinion, and it’s hard to believe he means it. It’s even harder to believe the Supreme Court would endorse his opinion given this implication.

Second, Judge Pitman botches his discussion of a key precedent, Rumsfeld v.  FAIR. In that case, the Court held that the law school plaintiffs had no First Amendment right to boycott military recruiters in the face of a federal statute barring recipients of federal funds from discriminating against those recruiters.

Pitman’s attempt to distinguish FAIR comes down to the fact that the Court never used the word “boycott” in the opinion:

Claiborne deals with political boycotts; FAIR, in contrast, is not about boycotts at all. The Supreme Court did not treat the FAIR plaintiffs’ conduct as a boycott: the word “boycott” appears nowhere in the opinion, the decision to withhold patronage is no implicated, and Claiborne, the key decision recognizing that the First Amendment protects political boycotts, is not discussed.

The reason Claiborne is not discussed is FAIR is because, again, Claiborne deals only with the right to advocate a boycott (speech), not to engage in one (economic action) and it’s therefore irrelevant. It’s true that the word “boycott” does not appear in FAIR, but it’s also true that (a) what the law school plaintiffs were doing was clearly within the definition of the word boycott; and (b) the law school plaintiffs, in their Supreme Court brief, themselves described what they were doing as a boycott. Here’s the relevant excerpt from the brief.

Moreover, the Association of American Law Schools, acting as an amicus and representing the interests of American law school membership, also described the actions of the law schools as a “boycott.”

So the notion that FAIR “is not about boycotts at all” is both contrary to the ordinary meaning of the word “boycott” and contrary to the way the case was presented to the Supreme Court by the law schools challenging the federal law at issue

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2IUOl4k
via IFTTT

The Washington, D.C., chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for searching a resident’s property without a warrant while in the middle of a legal battle over her son’s death.

As Reason previously reported, a resident named Jeffrey Price was killed on his illegal dirt bike in a police-involved crash. MPD told Price’s family that he was speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road. Witnesses and video from the scene appeared to indicate that an officer named Michael Pearson had actually attempted to use his police SUV to cut Price off on the road. Not only are Pearson’s alleged actions the suspected cause of Price’s death, but they are also in violation of MPD policy.

Last summer, two officers, identified as Whitehead and Gupton, descended upon a home belonging to Price’s mother and conducted a questionable search. The home was in the Deanwood neighborhood on the north side of Ward 7, which is predominately black. This was videotaped by Price’s uncle, Jay Brown. The officers told the family that they were searching for a gun that was dumped in the area. They did not produce a warrant when asked. The family has since argued that MPD’s search, which occurred in the middle of their legal battle, was a tactic to intimidate Price’s family. Brown accused the officers of “conducting themselves like a lawless gang with no supervision” at the time of the incident.

The ACLU issued a press release on Monday stating they sued one of the officers, Joseph Gupton, and the city for violating the Fourth Amendment.

“Safeguarding the home from unjustified police intrusions goes to the core of the Fourth Amendment’s purpose,” they wrote in the release. “Officer Gupton’s warrantless entry violated that guarantee, causing Ms. Price to feel increased anxiety and less safe in her home in light of the fact that officers from the same police department responsible for her son’s death apparently feel free to enter her property at any time.”

The ACLU previously asked MPD representatives to forgo attendance at a community public safety meeting where residents were expected to voice concerns about the department. The meeting was originally scheduled in response to the search.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V6iF2x
via IFTTT

When Napoleon Bonaparte led the Army of the Orient into Egypt in 1798, he expected the Egyptians to welcome him as a liberator. They had, after all, endured centuries of chaotic rule by the Mamluks, an undisciplined army of slave descendants who had seized political power during the Crusades. Napoleon, meanwhile, promised order, religious tolerance, and admission to France’s enlightened empire.

But it was not to be. As The Age of Napoleon podcast explains in compelling detail, Bonaparte, much like modern imperialists, tried to impose his order at saber point. The residents of Cairo balked, and by 1801 the French had retreated from Egypt.

Bonaparte’s rise to power is one of the great sagas of modern history, and The Age of Napoleon chronicles it with Tolkienesque detail. Each episode focuses on a seminal period or battle in the Corsican’s life, providing plenty of context for those unfamiliar with 18th century European geopolitics.

The Age of Napoleon is scripted, precise, and relatively modest in its episode-to-episode ambitions. The leisurely pace crescendos every so often with a truly thrilling event; in particular, the rebuff of a royalist uprising that nearly toppled France’s revolutionary government is edge-of-your-seat stuff. Yet despite the show’s biographical focus, it never lets Napoleon off the hook for using liberationist rhetoric to justify his imperial ends.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2GHRlxq
via IFTTT

In a sense, it’s no surprise that Green Book—a feel-good dramedy about a mob–adjacent family man (Viggo Mortensen) who takes a job as chauffeur and bodyguard for a black concert pianist (Mahershala Ali) on tour in the 1960s South—won this year’s best-picture Oscar. After all, Driving Miss Daisy charmed audiences and the Academy of Motion Pictures with a similar plot involving a driver and a passenger from different backgrounds getting to know and like each other.

But that movie, released in 1989, came at a moment when Americans were apparently eager to celebrate long decades of racial progress. In 2019, the kumbaya ethos seems decidedly less prevalent. For many in U.S. politics today, clashes between worldviews—along the lines of race, class, gender, or partisan affiliation—have taken on new existential importance.

Thus, some critics reacted to Green Book with neither pleasure at a tale of improbable friendship nor eye rolling at its predictable story formula but with charges that, as Vanity Fair put it, “a film written and directed solely by white people has no business even referencing something as central to the African-American experience as The Negro Motorist Green Book, the guide to restaurants and hotels that served blacks during the Jim Crow era.” The movie’s irony is that it has made unmistakably clear how divided we still are.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V9wk8W
via IFTTT

Defense Distributed launched in 2012 with the goal of making a usable plastic handgun with a 3D printer. Founder Cody Wilson fired the first of those weapons, which he dubbed The Liberator, in front of reporters in May 2013. The company and its mediagenic leader soon became the living symbol of—depending on your perspective—either the possibilities for human liberation or the threat of violent chaos inherent in the rise of affordable home 3D printing and the unstoppable spread of computer files.

For Paloma Heindorff, who took over as head of the company last year after stints as director of development and vice president of operations, these innovations are an important part of keeping the powerful in check. “We’ve got to be developing technologies in the independent sector to be able to counterbalance the enormous control that the government has and the enormous access to information that corporations have,” she says.

From the fragile plastic of the original 3D-printed pistol, Defense Distributed soon expanded into metal weapons. Its current leading product is the Ghost Gunner, a home-use computer numerical control (CNC) mill that allows anyone to turn an “80 percent lower”—a gun part that the federal government does not legally require to be stamped with a serial number—into an essentially untraceable working firearm.

The company has always deliberately tweaked the powers that be, and the powers have often tweaked it back. Days after Defense Distributed published the software files needed to make its plastic gun, the federal government insisted that distributing such data was illegal, tantamount to exporting arms without a license. The firm obeyed a demand from the State Department’s Office of Defense Trade Control Compliance to take the files off its website. It then sued, insisting its code was First Amendment–protected speech.

The company should be free, it argued, to distribute its files just as all Americans are free to distribute a book, magazine, or pamphlet that discusses how to make a gun. Besides, whatever public safety benefit the government thought it was furthering was already moot: As is inevitable in the internet age, the files had already spread ’round the world and were widely available to anyone who cared—just no longer directly from Defense Distributed.

After many twists and turns, the federal government settled the case in July 2018. Defense Distributed regained the legal ability to publish its gun-making files—but not for long. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia quickly sued to prevent the settlement from going into effect, claiming among other things that the government’s concession violated an arcane aspect of the Administrative Procedure Act. A preliminary injunction in that case forced the company to again take down its data files, something Josh Blackman, a lawyer for Defense Distributed, insisted was “a prior restraint of constitutionally protected speech that is already in the public domain.”

That ongoing lawsuit is only part of Defense Distributed’s legal troubles. Last year, New Jersey passed a law barring the distribution of digital gun-making files to anyone who is not a licensed gun manufacturer. The state’s attorney general made it explicit that the intent of the legislation was to “to stop the next Cody Wilson, to fight the ghost gun industry.” Defense Distributed is now suing to overturn the prohibition.

Amid the legal fights, the company lost its charismatic founder. In September, Wilson was arrested in Taiwan and deported to the U.S. to face charges of sexual assault of an underage escort. (The law under which he was charged treats sexual contact with a minor as assault even if it was consensual; the website Wilson allegedly used certified that its escorts were of age.) He is awaiting formal arraignment.

“I watched [Cody Wilson’s] videos and I was like, ‘Holy shit. He just completely took my legs out from under me on that argument.’ I really enjoyed that experience of having to be confronted with a new reality.”

After Wilson’s arrest, control of Defense Distributed shifted to Heindorff, who had kept a low media profile during her three years at the company to that point. The 30-year-old London native sat down with Reason‘s Zach Weissmueller in January—her very first media interview after taking the reins—to discuss her intellectual development, how firearm manufacturing specs are like a pizza recipe, and what’s next for Defense Distributed.

Reason: You’re a bit of a mystery. You’re British, but you somehow ended up in Austin, Texas, running this controversial weapons-information company. How exactly did that happen?

Heindorff: I grew up in central London and moved to New York about five years ago. For the first 10 years of my professional life I ran a lot of events, I managed a lot of bars, and then I became an office manager for a media company [called Flavorpill]. I’d always explored alternative politics and philosophy; my mother was an actress and my father is an artist, so I was raised in a very creative household. I didn’t even realize until I was 18 that people did jobs that they didn’t love.

Once I was ranting in the back of a cab going over the Brooklyn Bridge about how irritated I was with people trying to just increase legislation and think that that’s a way to protect themselves—just relinquishing personal responsibility, diverting blame. My friend James said, “Hey, you should really check out Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed.” I did, and about three days later my flatmate told me that I should probably leave the house, because I’d been in this wormhole of discovering the work of Defense Distributed.

Then I just popped Cody an email. I told him I was going to move to Austin and he was going to give me a job. He said, “You should come and check us out first.” I think everyone was a bit confused by me to begin with. I’ve got family in Austin, and they were very excited to hear I was moving here and then became very confused when they found out why. But it’s super interesting to me.

What grabbed you about Defense Distributed?

I had an inherited opinion about guns and gun control, but I wasn’t particularly passionate about it. I wasn’t in the streets raving about how much I thought guns were awful. But I’ve learned a lot. I read one thing where someone was like, “She didn’t even shoot a gun until 2015!” They also got upset that I didn’t own a gun. I was like, “It would have been incredibly irresponsible of me to have not shot a gun and bought one.” I think that’s a very strange thing to expect me to have done. I learned how to shoot the gun and then I bought myself a gun.

A lot of people want to reject violence as part of the human condition. Push it away. It doesn’t exist. I’ve always thought that’s an odd way to approach such a fundamental human action. I’m not saying that I think violence is awesome. I think it exists, and I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that it doesn’t.

It was interesting to be in New York and have these kinds of natural assumptions—guns are bad—and then to [realize], like Cody often says, that however I feel about that is irrelevant now [because people will be making guns whether I like it or not]. I’m not so emotionally motivated that I watched his videos and was like, “Oh my God, this is so bad. Get it away from me. Someone needs to legislate this because I don’t want to have to think about this potential future world.” That’s lazy, that’s apathetic, and that’s a relinquishing of one’s own responsibility.

So I watched these videos and I was like, “Holy shit. He just completely took my legs out from under me on that argument.” I really enjoyed that experience of having to be confronted with a new reality. Then I met with Cody and I was like, this is an impressive group of people doing some of the most impressive and elegant activism. It has a genuine effect and forces an interesting conversation.

It’s difficult for a business like ours to move around in the traditional commercial space. You experience it firsthand as someone who’s actually trying to do business operations and sales, and the obstacles encountered doing that job for this company are very interesting. I’ve become more and more passionate over the past years because I see example after example of what I believe to be gross mistreatment of a group of people who are perfectly within their rights to do what we were doing. So now I’m just really extreme.

Defense Distributed forced a conversation about the fact that producing a gun from the comfort of your home is now a technical reality, and it’s going to become increasingly hard, if not impossible, for governments to stop people from doing it.

We can move into a new space where we’re thinking differently about the way we relate to other people on a global scale. Bitcoin as well. It’s running in tandem, these developments or technologies that empower the individual in a way that we’ve never really seen before. It’s so interesting that this happens at the same time that we’re also seeing control of the individual like we’ve never seen before—control of access to information.

Like, here’s the internet. You can have everything you want, but actually, you’ll go to Facebook, you’ll go to YouTube, and you won’t actually get real information—they’re curating it for you. We’ve got to be developing technologies in the independent sector to be able to counterbalance the enormous control that the government has and the enormous access to information that corporations have.

So this has moved beyond just the conversation about guns, and maybe it always has been about more than that. You seem to be saying that this is about information itself, and you’re trying to safeguard people’s ability to access it.

What’s happening with New Jersey—it’s not regulating an action. It’s regulating the transfer of information, the offering of information, even. Then you’ve got corporate censorship, and that just makes us react more aggressively. There was something said in the hearing yesterday [regarding the New Jersey lawsuit] comparing us to Amazon, as if we’re just sending out guns. But [what we’re doing is actually] the equivalent of Amazon sending out a pizza recipe book. That isn’t doing pizza delivery. It doesn’t make sense to give a narrative where there is no step that indicates human involvement from the information access to the use of information to create a physical article. To completely ignore the human component in that is super odd.

It’s called Defense Distributed. We want to distribute the means of production into as many hands as possible. And this New Jersey law is really fighting against that. They want only these licensed firearm manufacturers in their state to [access the] code. They’re completely removing any human interaction from the acquisition of the code to the development of the firearm. It’s really the information that they’re trying to stifle.

You’re in a huge ongoing fight with the government on multiple fronts. But you’re also fighting against other forces. You mentioned corporations. Just getting information out seems to be becoming increasingly challenging, especially for a group like you that is on the edge of what’s socially acceptable.

We’ve experienced things that we even were shocked by. YouTube took down a lot of our videos, but even more than that, Facebook won’t allow anyone to share any links to our products and any links to our pages. We’re trying to protect speech that we should be entitled to make. I can’t even talk about those rights being infringed without that then being censored, which is insane. These corporations are saying that this knowledge is too dangerous for people to have. The plans for this gun were downloaded like a million times five years ago, but apparently the knowledge that this even exists is too dangerous to talk about.

How disrespectful to not trust [people] with information—to say, “You the general populace cannot be trusted with this information.” That alone is gross to me. And if we’re not allowed to discuss these things, what’s next for us to not be allowed to discuss? We’re experiencing this all over the place, Facebook and YouTube and Shopify, and you can only see this certain kind of content, and there are no competitors [for many of these sites].

I think that’s really scary. Where do we go as a society? What’s the road, other than monotonous and increasingly narrow? The future should never be narrowed. If people can’t be trusted with information, we have a really big problem.

I want to talk about the elephant in the room: Cody Wilson, who is no longer with Defense Distributed. He was indicted for hiring someone through a sex work app. How has his departure affected the company?

Certainly it wasn’t a happy occasion for anyone. I was really proud of my staff during that period.

I think Cody’s departure has affected us less than people might think. I understand why people would think that it would be chaos, because he was an incredibly powerful figurehead. But there are quite a bit of us working back there. The company’s doing just fine. I think people miss him as a friend of ours, and I know for a fact that he’s already greatly missed as a public voice.

How did you become the replacement?

I built out a lot of the day-to-day operations in the company. So from that perspective, it just made sense. I had the most connection with our remote people and vendors. I was the second most visible after Cody, internally. Anyone involved with the company would know it made a lot of sense. It’s just to the outside world, who didn’t know me before, that it probably is a little bit confusing.

How would you compare and contrast your leadership style with his?

I smile a lot more, but I’m a lot meaner. I guess you’d probably have to ask a staff member, but we’re very different. Cody is way more comfortable in front of the camera than I am. I like business. I like managing people. Cody liked getting into the ideas and the ideology behind everything. I’m extremely passionate about ideas too, but it’s more of a group discussion with me. I’m bringing people in from our community to help brainstorm. So it’s more of a communal act at this point.

“How disrespectful to not trust [people] with information.…And if we’re not allowed to discuss these things, what’s next for us to not be allowed to discuss?”

In terms of management, I’m more of a hands-on manager when it comes to the day-to-day business running. There’ll be a noticeable difference in the way the company is operating for sure. Less intimidating, and hopefully I’ll get out more regular content to keep people informed. I’m less likely to do one-on-one interviews as much, but I do hope to push out blog posts and stuff like that. But the aim of the company and the goal, our mission, is not altered at all. We already had a roadmap for 2019, so nothing I’m planning on is not something spoken about previously.

There’s a new product that you’re helping to launch?

We’ve got our latest platform added to Ghost Gunner: a Glock 19–compatible frame able to be made [into a working gun] in 30 minutes. People have been waiting a long time for that. It’s the first time we’ve done a polymer frame rather than an aluminum one. So it’s moving into a new space. It’s also the first time we’ve involved the community in our [research and development] flow. I believe it’s going to lead to quicker product rollouts than we’ve seen in the past.

Making Glock-style weapons available to be essentially manufactured at home in half an hour seems likely to spark a whole new shitstorm. Does it make you nervous to be releasing a product like this when you’re under attack from multiple angles?

Most of our lawsuits are centered around DefCad [the now—dormant software-sharing part of the business, distinct from the Ghost Gunner machine]. Still, everything makes you nervous. You know, Shopify kicked us off without notice over the summer. A lot of random stuff happens to us, which makes me lose sleep. I don’t mind the problems that I see coming, but we’ll see.

When New Jersey passed its law targeting Defense Distributed, the governor referenced the National Rifle Association (NRA). What’s your relationship to that group, and what do you make of the focus that’s always on them?

There’s a lot of things to say about that, but I don’t want to throw everyone under the bus in my first interview opportunity. I will say I’m surprised that we haven’t gotten more funding and more support from organizations that announce themselves to be pro–Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Foundation, who’s been with us through all of our lawsuits, has been incredible in that regard, and we’re incredibly grateful to them. But yeah, NRA, where you at?

A lot of these gun-control laws come on the heels of mass shootings, and the argument they make is that you’re enabling more of those because you’re putting unregistered firearms in the hands of could-be-anybody. How do you react to those charges?

It’s an emotional argument. It’s not a fun subject to talk about, but just because it’s not fun to talk about it doesn’t mean we can just decide not to talk about it. Do I think that we massively increase the likelihood of school shootings? No, I don’t. That’s my response to that.

Coming into the gun world as a novice, something very interesting that one realizes is that a lot of the anti-gun or gun-control rhetoric is completely wrong. There’s this narrative of the gun’s gonna pick itself up and shoot itself, right? Like there’s no human involvement needed. And it’s funny. When you see a firearm, there’s a natural reaction to it, like, “It shoots. It’s dangerous.” But you need to understand that a gun is a machine.

Cody was committed to the idea of “crypto-anarchy.” Is that something that motivates you as well?

That’s definitely a motivation for me. There always seems to be a little bit of a narrative of destruction [around crypto-anarchy], right? It’s [seen as this] raw chaos of decentralized weapons. I really see it as something quite positive, an opportunity. [Wilson and I] were both going in the same direction, but I was skipping with sunshine and rainbows and he’s like, rawr, and obviously that’s a complete exaggeration of our personality types…but it’s the same motivation. It just comes out differently because I really do see it as a beautiful opportunity for people to feel empowered and be able to exercise their own abilities and grow as an individual.

You had this high point when the federal government settled with you, and then immediately the states stepped in to sue you. How has that affected your business?

DefCad is shut down now because of the law that New Jersey is imposing. DefCad is a file-sharing website. It’s always been stop-start—we’ll get it up for a short period of time, and then it gets taken down again. That’s still a project that’s very much alive. But it can’t go anywhere until we get some [legal] relief. It’s a huge drain on our resources. It’s a weird thing when you’re working in a business mindset to have to factor in another cost like that.

I’ve been given a lot of advice of how it’s time for us to get out of the lawsuits and concentrate on making money. And, you know, they get a middle finger. Because my entire staff would leave if we abandoned the philosophy of this company. So it’s just not an option, [even though the legal fights are] a huge expense. So when we do fundraising drives, every bit helps. I really hope that out of respect for the work that [Wilson has] done in the past years people don’t withdraw their support just because there’s not an entertaining Twitter account to follow, you know? I really hope they realize there’s a group of people here that are really trying to protect our rights, and that hasn’t changed.

New Jersey would argue they have a right to control the production of firearms in their state, and Defense Distributed is undermining their ability to do that. They would say they are totally justified in passing this law. Why is that not acceptable in your mind?

I just don’t think it’s acceptable to say that people can’t speak about things, that information is so dangerous that it can’t even be spoken about. I think it’s dangerous for one state to be able to say that our company, in a different state, is not allowed to use the internet for offerings of products.

It’s natural, these emotional reactions. But this is important to say: There’s a huge problem with people following emotional reactions rather than rational, logical arguments. I think it’s natural, I think it’s human, but I do think it needs to be addressed.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a video version, visit reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2GPhieM
via IFTTT

The short-lived teen soap opera Roswell, which debuted in 1999 and launched Katherine Heigl’s career, put a weird and fun twist on the boy-meets-girl high school love story. It was no X-Files, but it wasn’t bad. In the show, which hopped from the WB to UPN over its three seasons, the boy was secretly an extraterrestrial—one of three that had been hiding in plain sight as perpetual teenagers since their flying saucer crashed in 1947.

The rebooted series, which premiered in January on The CW Network and is now titled Roswell, New Mexico, heightens the drama by taking the characters out of high school and adding a timely twist. The girl, Liz (Jeanine Mason), is now the daughter of illegal immigrants, and the boy-who’s-really-an-alien, Max (Nathan Parsons), is a deputy sheriff. As in the original, there are shadowy government agents about, threatening to expose the secret at the center of their relationship. This time, though, the secrets cut both ways. It’s still no X-Files, but it interestingly reimagines what it means to be “alien” in our troubled Trump times.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V9whtM
via IFTTT