Top 10 Terrifying Assaults On Free Speech Happening Right Now | ListVerse

Hands up: who loves freedom of speech? By our count, roughly all of you now have your hands waving about in the air. And why wouldn’t you? Free speech is a cornerstone of any modern democracy and arguably the most important provision in the US Constitution.

But just because we all agree that something is awesome doesn’t mean that it’s going to be around forever. Right now, free speech is under assault across the world. And unless we do something to defend it soon, we’re gonna find ourselves living in a world where the “free” part of free speech is only ever used ironically.

Ten: The War On Online Comments

You may have noticed that the Internet is a pretty nasty place. If you don’t believe us, feel free to go on Twitter and start sending out, say, pro-feminist or anti-Islam messages and see how long it takes for a lynch mob to form. But there’s recognizing that an environment is toxic, and then there’s attempting to sterilize it with a flamethrower. Right now, big Internet companies are choosing the latter.

Take the popular comment system Disqus. The company recently announced it was going to start censoring hate speech on its platform by deleting posts it deems “toxic.” In practical terms, this means that a shady algorithm will be removing reader comments from sites like Listverse without any input from our moderators or editors.

This is, to put it mildly, insane. It’s one thing for a site owner to decide what they will allow on their own site; it’s another for a comment platform to make that decision for them. Debates on controversial topics risk being censored because some biased algorithm deems something “inappropriate.” Then there’s the fact that it’s not Disqus’s place to delete inappropriate stuff in the first place. The First Amendment explicitly defends stuff most people would class as hate speech.[1] If we truly believe in free speech, that means believing that even the worst viewpoints have a right to be aired online.

Nine: Assaults On Anonymity

In 2014, the Internet group Anonymous doxed a whole bunch of KKKmembers, releasing their identities online. People across the political spectrum cheered. Those who didn’t focused on the danger of accidentally outing an innocent person as a Klansman. But precious few spoke out about the real danger of doxing. By taking away these dumb racists’ right to express their dumbly racist opinions anonymously, the hackers were imperiling free speech for us all.

Multiple US Supreme Court rulings have asserted that the right to anonymous speech is covered by the First Amendment.[2] Three of the Founding Fathers, for example, wrote the Federalist Papers under a pseudonym. Anonymity gives us the chance to criticize the government without fear of reprisal. It lets us publish pictures of Muhammad without worrying about being gunned down in the street.

Doxing endangers all of that. It’s a growing threat in our online world, but actual doxing isn’t the real problem. It’s how we respond to it that really matters.

If we act like it’s cool to dox Klansmen, Gamergaters, outspoken feminists, or anyone at all, we’re signaling that some people don’t deserve anonymous speech. That’s a slippery path to go down. It means people will stop saying what they truly think for fear of their identity being outed. When we’re scared to speak our minds, we no longer have free speech.

Eight: Rising Blasphemy Cases

Last week, Ireland announced it was dropping a blasphemy case against British actor and comedian Stephen Fry. Pause and let that sink in for a second. The crazy thing here isn’t that Ireland decided not to prosecute a comedian for saying God was “stupid.” It’s the fact that the law to prosecute him with even existed in the first place.

Sadly, the Irish example is one of a rising number of blasphemy cases that is threatening to destroy free speech across the world.[3] While Islamic nations tend to be worse, jailing or even executing people who insult the Prophet, Western countries are also getting in on the action. Poland prosecuted a singer in 2014 for ripping up a Bible onstage, while Greece handed out a ten-month suspended sentence to a guy who uploaded a picture of an Orthodox monk with pasta Photoshopped onto his face. Both convictions were quashed on appeal, but the fact that they ever went to trial is appalling.

As others have pointed out before, blasphemy laws don’t even make much sense on their own terms. If your God can’t deal with some doofus making spaghetti pictures of him, then he isn’t much of a God in the first place. Yet it seems not everyone sees it this way. As Britain’s Independent newspaper noted, a shocking number of people online responded to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre not by reposting the offending cartoons (as we’re proud to say Listverse did) but by blaming the cartoonists for drawing them in the first place. If that’s not covertly supporting blasphemy laws, we don’t know what is.

Seven: The War On Journalism

It can seem right now like the media is everyone’s favorite punching bag. While it’s right and proper that journalists should be challenged on shoddy research, it’s a problem when people start thinking of journalists as the “enemy.” As the Index on Censorship has noted, this hostile climate led to 2016 being the most dangerous year for journalism in decades.[4]

Freedom of the press is so entwined with free speech that the First Amendment explicitly mentions it. If a journalist can’t file a story that makes the powerful look bad, then it doesn’t matter what the man on the street is or isn’t free to say; you are living in an anti-democratic society. Worryingly, this appears to be the case across the world more and more often. Journalists are frequently murdered for writing unflattering stories in places like Russia or locked up and “purged” from their jobs in countries like Turkey (as 2,500 recently were following the coup attempt against Erdogan).

Worryingly, the West, too, is turning its back on media freedom. France recently passed a law that could throw journalists in jail for seven years for protecting sources, while in the US, President Trump has threatened to muzzle the press with egregious new libel laws.

Six: Destroying Speakers’ Lives

At what point did we as a society decide that it was cool to completely ruin people’s lives just for speaking their minds? That’s a serious question. In the last few years, a trend has been building that sees those who slip up and say something “bad” forced from their jobs, publicly humiliated, and never able to work again.

This is seen clearest on US campuses. Over the past few years, students have tried to destroy the lives of administrators who wrote an e-mail that refused to condemn insensitive Halloween costumes, other students who made “all lives matter” posters, fraternities that threw Kanye West–themed parties, journalism students who wrote articles critical of Black Lives Matter, and professors who committed microaggressions as bizarre as questioning the concept of microaggressions.[5]

Is anyone else shivering due to the subzero chilling effect here? Worryingly, such humiliation of those who speak up exists outside the campus, too. In 2013, two random guys at a tech conference were covertly filmed making jokes about “big dongles.” They wound up losing their jobs over the phrase’s perceived misogyny. When we’re at the stage that we can’t even make piss-poor jokes with our friends without our livelihoods being trashed, something is seriously wrong.

Five: ‘Cultural Appropriation’

While we’re talking about insane assaults on free speech, we might as well deal with cultural appropriation. Wikipedia helpfully defines this as “ the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture.” In practical terms, it means that talking about anything from a culture that isn’t your own can now land you in big trouble.

For example, a professor at the University of Ottawa had her student exercise classes cancelled for discussing yoga, with complainants likening her class to “genocide.” Also, food website Bon Appetit removed a contributor’s video and made them apologize after they confused the foods ramen and pho (which is certainly dumb but not worth getting censored over).[6] Or how about when Iggy Azalea was hounded online for being a white rapper. J.K. Rowling was harassed for daring to write a Native American magician into one of her books.

Does anyone else think this is completely absurd? While not as awful as arresting journalists or putting blasphemers on trial, we seem to have gotten to the stage where people are forced into silence on some subjects because they’re not from a specific demographic. When we’re seriously debating if it’s okay for a non-Asian food blogger to write Chinese food recipes, something has gone badly wrong with our culture’s conception of free speech.

Four: The Assassin’s Veto

There’s nothing like the fear of death to stop you from speaking your mind. That’s the whole concept behind the assassin’s veto. By gruesomely killing a handful of people who say something you dislike, you’ll shut down that entire avenue of conversation. Right now, it’s a veto that’s being wielded across the world to terrifying extremes.[7]

A whole lot of the time, it’s directed against those who insult or denigrate Islam. The murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for making a film about Muslim women being abused, the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo staff, and the hacking to death of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh has made even joking about Muhammad a dance with death. But it goes further than just the extremists of one religion. In Mexico, drug cartels have taken to torturing and brutally murdering anyone who speaks out against them. In Italy, the Mafia does likewise. In the US, both pro-choice and anti-abortion activists have been shot for simply expressing their opinions.

The bleakest part of all this is that it works. Speeches, plays, concerts, comedy shows, and lectures are all routinely canceled because of threats. Feminists, critics of Islam, right-wing speakers, and more have all been forced to curtail their own freedom of speech in case someone kills them. The effect is to dampen free speech across the entire world.

Three: Weaponized Protest

Freedom of speech includes the right to protest speech you disagree with. Those who punch protestors at rallies can no more claim to support free speech than Lenin could claim to support capitalism. But there’s exercising your democratic right to protest, and then there’s using that right to completely shut down the views you’re protesting against. Recently, it seems that protestors are aiming solely for the latter.

The idea of creating an environment your opponent is afraid to enter seems to have really taken off around 2013. Prior to that, protests at campuses rarely blocked an invited speaker from attending. Today, you hear about canceled lectures[8] with mind-numbing regularity. Right-wing speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos, Anne Coulter, and Ben Shapiro have been chased off college campuses, as have left-wing speakers like pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Carol Beier. Each time it happens, it demonstrates how little value is now placed on free speech and enlightened debate, versus simply shouting your enemy down.

Two: Awful Misuse Of Sexual Assault Law

We can’t believe we have to write this sentence. Penning an essay that deals with student-lecturer relationships in US colleges is not sexual harassment. We all know that. Yet, sexual harassment is exactly what it has been classed as. In 2015, feminist film professor Laura Kipnis (pictured above) was placed under investigation and risked losing her job for writing that very essay. The reason for all this? The chilling, free speech–destroying Title IX.[9]

If you’ve never heard of it, Title IX was a piece of legislation which President Nixon introduced that originally protected women from discrimination in colleges. Under Obama, its remit was expanded, and now it deals with sexual assault and sexual violence against female students. At least, it’s supposed to. But the wording is so vague that it can conceivably be made to define almost anything as “assault” or “harassment.” The result? A swathe of American professors unable to start an intellectual discussion without wondering if they’re going to be fired and smeared as sexual abusers.

This isn’t abuse as you or I would define it. Professors have been labeled as sexual deviants simply for using the phrase “f—, no” in front of students. They’ve been investigated as sex offenders for having relationships with students years after those students have graduated. In the most chilling case of all, they’ve even been investigated for complaining about the chilling effect of Title IX itself.

By branding those who use rude words or want to discuss harassment as sex offenders, we’re destroying any pretense of intellectual freedom on US campuses. Not only that, but we’re trivializing genuinely awful things like rape, and for what?

One: Partisan ‘Free Speech’

We mentioned earlier that supporting free speech means supporting free speech you do not like. Intellectually, we all agree with this. But in reality? It seems when push comes to shove, many people are only cool with free speech so long as it aligns with their values.

We saw this recently with the firing of flamboyant alt-right controversialist Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart. As long as Milo was using his free speech to attack women, feminists, and liberals, Breitbart was willing to champion his rights. The moment Milo said something that shocked conservatives (namely defending gay relationships between older men and teenage boys), they ditched him. Or look at parts of the left. During the Bush years, they vigorously defended the rights of libraries to stock books that the religious right disagreed with. Now they want to ban those same books for including “microaggressions.”

The trouble with writing about free speech is that people love their partisanbubble. They love to believe, for example, that being anti–free speech is purely the preserve of college liberals. But college conservatives also shut down speakers and try to get professors fired. A National Coalition Against Censorship survey recently found that both sides of the political spectrum are demanding trigger warnings for the different things they find offensive in books.[10] Yet if you asked most of them what they thought of free speech, we’re willing to bet they’d say they love it and that it was those on the opposite side who were against it.

If we carry on this partisan path, things are just going to get worse where the freedom to speak our minds is concerned. The real, terrifying assaults on free speech don’t come when small groups try to impose restrictions on us. They come when politics so blinds us that we’re willing to let our side say anything they want and then cheer them on when they try to shut down the other side completely.

Source: ListVerse

Advertisements

With the latest WikiLeaks revelations about the CIA – is privacy really dead? | The Guardian

ComeyBy Olivia Solon

Comey, has said that Americans should not have expectations of “absolute privacy”.

“There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America: there is no place outside of judicial reach,” Comey said at a Boston College conference on cybersecurity. The remark came as he was discussing the rise of encryption since Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of the NSA’s mass surveillance tools, used on citizens around the world.

Both the Snowden revelations and the CIA leak highlight the variety of creative techniques intelligence agencies can use to spy on individuals, at a time when many of us are voluntarily giving up our personal data to private companies and installing so-called “smart” devices with microphones (smart TVs, Amazon Echo) in our homes.

So, where does this leave us? Is privacy really dead, as Silicon Valley luminaries such as Mark Zuckerberg have previously declared?

Not according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s executive director, Cindy Cohn.

“The freedom to have a private conversation – free from the worry that a hostile government, a rogue government agent or a competitor or a criminal are listening – is central to a free society,” she said.

While not as strict as privacy laws in Europe, the fourth amendment to the US constitution does guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

That doesn’t mean citizens have “absolute privacy”.

“I don’t think there’s been absolute privacy in the history of mankind,” said Albert Gidari, director of privacy at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. “You walk out in public and it’s no longer private. You shout from one window to another and someone will hear you in conversation.”

“At the same time things are more intrusive, persistent, searchable, they never die. So our conception of what is or isn’t risk from a privacy perspective does change and evolve over time.”

The law hasn’t kept pace with digital technologies. For example, there is a legal theory called the “third-party doctrine” that holds that people who give up their information to third parties like banks, phone companies, social networks and ISPs have “no reasonable expectation of privacy”. This has allowed the US government to obtain information without legal warrants.

Unlike the NSA techniques revealed by Snowden, the CIA appears to favour a more targeted approach: less dragnet, more spearfishing.

The WikiLeaks files show that the CIA has assembled a formidable arsenal of cyberweapons designed to target individuals’ devices such as mobile phones, laptops and TVs by targeting the operating systems such as Android, iOS and Windows with malware.

It’s encouraging to note that the government has yet to crack the encryption of secure messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Signal and Confide. However, it does not need to if it can instal malware on people’s devices that can collect audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.

Gidari isn’t that surprised. “It confirms what everyone saw in last week’s episode of 24. People expect these tools to exist,” he said, adding that people were more surprised that the FBI was initially incapable of breaking into the San Bernardino killer’s iPhone.

“People expect the government to have these magic tools,” he said.

American citizens should not be lulled into a false sense of security that the CIA only targets foreign nationals. The “Vault 7” documents show a broad exchange of tools and information between the CIA, the National Security Agency, and other US federal agencies, as well as intelligence services of close allies Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

“We can’t spy on our own citizens but we can spy on anyone else’s,” explained Neil Richards, a law professor from Washington University. “If agencies are friends with each other, they have everybody else do their work for them and they just share the data.”

“Dividing the world into American citizens and non-American citizens is a false dichotomy,” Gidari added. “We don’t have a monopoly on spy tools.”

This leaves us with a terrifying new prospect: government spies essentially deploying viruses and trojans against their own citizens.

The onus is now on the companies that make the devices to plug any holes in their operating systems – something they do regularly through bug bounty programs, where security researchers disclose vulnerabilities in return for rewards.

It’s clear from the CIA files that the US government has flouted this custom in order to stockpile “zero days” – undisclosed exploits – for its own advantage. This is a practice the US government has previously publicly denied.

“If companies aren’t aware that a vulnerability exists they can’t patch it. If it exists it can be exploited by any malicious actor – whether that’s a hacker, foreign state or criminal enterprise,” said Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I have a big problem with the government leaving us vulnerable to the same tools in hand so other nation states and hackers could exploit them,” Gidari said. “That isn’t protecting American citizens.”

Gidari’s view echoes Apple’s stance when the FBI demanded the company build a backdoor to the iPhone so they could access data on the San Bernardino killer’s phone.

“Apple believes deeply that people in the United States and around the world deserve data protection, security and privacy. Sacrificing one for the other only puts people and countries at greater risk,” the company said at the time. The iPhone maker was more muted in its response to the Vault 7 dump, vowing to “rapidly address” any security holes.

“There is nearly universal consensus from technologists that it’s impossible to build weaknesses or access mechanisms into technology that can only be used by the good guys and not the bad,” Cohn said.

This week’s revelations are sure to increase the strain on relations between Silicon Valley and the US government. While some of the older telephony companies such as AT&T and Verizon, which rely heavily on government contracts, have a history of compliance with government requests, tech giants Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple have proved to be less compliant.

It’s not possible to meaningfully participate in modern life without relationships with some or all of these technology companies processing our data, Richards added. So it’s important to know where their loyalties lie – to their customers or to government.

Since Snowden’s revelations of mass surveillance, companies such as Apple, Google and Microsoft have been working hard to rebuild trust with consumers through strengthening security, fighting government data requests and releasing transparency reports highlighting when and how many requests are made.

“It’s a very encouraging development if we care about civil liberties and the right to privacy, but at the same time it’s unsatisfying if the discretion of a company is the only real protection for our data,” Richards said.

“We need to build the digital society we want rather than the one handed to us by default,” he added.

This will require a complete overhaul of the laws relating to when the government can collect location and content information, something civil liberty campaigners have been pushing for.

“These decisions need to be made by the public, not by law enforcement or tech executives sitting in private,” Richards said.

Source:  The Guardian

State of Surveillance with Edward Snowden | VICE News

When NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked details of massive government surveillance programs in 2013, he ignited a raging debate over digital privacy and security. That debate came to a head this year, when Apple refused an FBI court order to access the iPhone of alleged San Bernardino Terrorist Syed Farook. Meanwhile, journalists and activists are under increasing attack from foreign agents. To find out the government’s real capabilities, and whether any of us can truly protect our sensitive information, VICE founder Shane Smith heads to Moscow to meet the man who started the conversation, Edward Snowden.

Source: VICE News

Global Financial Update with Foster Gamble | Thrive Movement Thrive Connect

Foster: Last November, when we finally felt that the research we’d been doing for several years since the film came out had progressed to the point where it was solid enough to begin to share publicly, we shared a bunch of things. Here are some of the things we were sharing then that have come to pass.

The BRICS bank has now been funded and is going operational. There is a Shanghai gold exchange. There is a new rating service, which provides an option to Fitch, Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and so forth that I think is going to be much more honest in its ratings given that it’s not beholden to the Western banking cabal to do their bidding on rating particular corporations and governments, especially the U.S. The AIIB, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, has now been launched with the participation of usual U.S. allies like the U.K. and Germany and over 50 other countries. The U.S. has chosen not to participate in the founding of that. Japan is the only other major country that has chosen not to participate at this time, most likely because Prime Minister Abe, as far as we can tell, is very much a puppet for the Rockefeller-Rothschild banking system so far. We have been told that there are deals going on behind closed doors that Japan is preparing to join but not until it is safe and appropriate to do that given their obligations.

Another one is that we had predicted (based on information from our sources) that there would be numerous banker and corporate CEO resignations. There have been over 500 of them worldwide. We also said that there would probably be suspicious deaths in the banking and corporate communities and we’ve been seeing those. I think there have been over 40 of those now in the European and U.S. banking communities. And there have been arrests of bankers in Iceland. Also, the U.S. has continued to stall the IMF 2010 reforms that would rebalance the representation of countries in the IMF in terms of decision-making and also include more currencies like the yuan in the international basket of currencies. The suppression of gold and silver prices has continued artificially and it looks from our sources we’re being told that that’s apt to continue until the yuan, the Chinese currency, is globally accepted because meanwhile they’re having the opportunity to buy gold and silver at low prices while the Western bankers are suppressing the prices in order to keep interest rates from going up which would so threaten the precarious situation of the major U.S. banks and governments themselves.

Finally, I just want to add in terms of the validation of the number of our insider sources that some of the things they say, we were like “What?” and then a few weeks or a few months later it happens again and again. Our sources predicted the end of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, which was pretty outrageous given that the Federal Reserve was still printing between $50 and $70 billion dollars of new fake money a month and now they have suspended that right on schedule. We are told that’s because their franchise to print money has been suspended by the Asian Elders to whom they’re indebted. They also predicted the revaluation of the Swiss Franc and a few days later that happened. Then, we were told that China would be making major infrastructure investments in Brazil. We were just told that about a week and a half to two weeks ago and then, sure enough, a few days later it started coming out in the mainstream news that that is in fact going on to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

So that’s a sample of the things that might have sounded outrageous when we said them (or when people said them to us), but now they are in fact occurring and it certainly provides pieces of the puzzle showing the trends that are emerging.

So let’s move on to trends next. What are some of the trends that we’re seeing that are in the public view that have to do with global finance? First of all, negative interest rates, or what Chase Bank has taken to calling “balance sheet utilization fees” (BSUFs). What that really means is rather than getting interest on your deposits at the bank, now you’re going to have to pay them for them to keep your money while they fractionally multiply it for their own benefit. You can tell this is getting quite Orwellian and yet whatever they can get away with they’re obviously going to continue to do.

Meanwhile, Citigroup, Chase, Barclays, and the Royal Bank of Scotland have been fined a total of $9 billion, which is a lot of money, for their participation in rigging international markets. Again, that’s a lot of money and it’s good to see that there are some fines and so forth, but if you stand back and put this into context, there are no individual prosecutions, no jail time, no companies shut down, and meanwhile, during that same time, those same banks made an estimated $85 billion on their actions. Some wag might call this merely the cost of doing business and, of course, to the banks that is all it seems. It’s a little slap on the wrist publicly to keep the people quiet and keep them from revolting. They pay under 10% (or around 10%) basically as a fee to the government to let them keep rigging things and then business goes on as usual.

All of the major banks have also had to comply with a government requirement to submit plans for their own economic collapse, which of course, could lead to larger economic collapses and they’ve all done that. And there’s good reason for them to do that because the numbers I’ve heard are north of $700 trillion in derivatives debt that they’re currently holding on their books. Obviously, they’re not a solvent institution if that were to be taken seriously. Read more…

Source: Thrive Movement Thrive Connect

2014 Term Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

banner_h120


The “slip” opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the “bench” opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion–majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus–but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. The slip opinions collected here are those issued during October Term 2014 (October 6, 2014, through October 4, 2015).

These opinions are posted on the Website within minutes after the bench opinions are issued and will remain posted until the opinions for the entire Term are published in the bound volumes of the United States Reports. For further information, see Column Header Definitions and the file entitled Information About Opinions.

Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and–one year after the issuance of that print–by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls.

R- Date Docket Name J. Pt.
73 6/26/15 14-556 Obergefell v. Hodges K 576/2
72 6/26/15 13-7120 Johnson v. United States AS 576/2
71 6/25/15 13-1371 Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. K 576/2
70 6/25/15 14-114 King v. Burwell R 576/2
69 6/22/15 13-720 Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC EK 576/1
68 6/22/15 13-1175 Los Angeles v. Patel SS 576/1
67 6/22/15 14-6368 Kingsley v. Hendrickson B 576/1
66 6/22/15 14-275 Horne v. Department of Agriculture R 576/1
65 6/18/15 13-1433 Brumfield v. Cain SS 576/1
64 6/18/15 13-1428 Davis v. Ayala A 576/1
63 6/18/15 13-1352 Ohio v. Clark A 576/1
62 6/18/15 14-144 Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. B 576/1
61 6/18/15 14-378 McFadden v. United States T 576/1
60 6/18/15 13-502 Reed v. Town of Gilbert T 576/1
59 6/15/15 14-185 Reyes Mata v. Lynch EK 576/1
58 6/15/15 14-103 Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC T 576/1
57 6/15/15 13-1402 Kerry v. Din AS 576/1
56 6/08/15 13-628 Zivotofsky v. Kerry K 576/1
55 6/01/15 14-939 Taylor v. Barkes PC 575/2
54 6/01/15 13-1034 Mellouli v. Lynch G 575/2
53 6/01/15 13-1421 Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett T 575/2
52 6/01/15 14-86 EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. AS 575/2
51 6/01/15 13-983 Elonis v. United States R 575/2
50 5/26/15 13-935 Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif SS 575/2
49 5/26/15 12-1497 Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter A 575/2
48 5/26/15 13-896 Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. K 575/2
47 5/18/15 13-1487 Henderson v. United States EK 575/2
46 5/18/15 13-1412 City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan A 575/2
45 5/18/15 13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne A 575/2
44 5/18/15 13-1333 Coleman v. Tollefson B 575/2
43 5/18/15 13-550 Tibble v. Edison Int’l B 575/2
42 5/18/15 14-400 Harris v. Viegelahn G 575/2
41 5/04/15 14-116 Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank R 575/2
40 4/29/15 13-1019 Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC EK 575/1
39 4/29/15 13-1499 Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar R 575/1
38 4/22/15 13-1074 United States v. Kwai Fun Wong EK 575/1
37 4/21/15 13-271 Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc. B 575/1
36 4/21/15 13-9972 Rodriguez v. United States G 575/1
35 3/31/15 14-15 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. AS 575/1
34 3/30/15 14-618 Woods v. Donald PC 575/1
33 3/30/15 14-593 Grady v. North Carolina PC 575/1
32 3/25/15 13-895 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama B 575/1
31 3/25/15 12-1226 Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. B 575/1
30 3/24/15 13-435 Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Industry Pension Fund EK 575/1
29 3/24/15 13-352 B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. A 575/1
28 3/09/15 126, Orig. Kansas v. Nebraska D 575/1
27 3/09/15 13-1041 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. SS 575/1
26 3/09/15 13-1080 Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads K 575/1
25 3/04/15 13-553 Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc. AS 575/1
24 3/03/15 13-1032 Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl T 575/1
23 2/25/15 13-7451 Yates v. United States G 574/2
22 2/25/15 13-534 North Carolina Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC K 574/2
21 2/24/15 126, Orig. Kansas v. Nebraska EK 574/2
20 1/26/15 13-1010 M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett T 574/2
19 1/21/15 13-1211 Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank SS 574/2
18 1/21/15 13-1174 Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. G 574/2
17 1/21/15 13-894 Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean R 574/2
16 1/20/15 14-6873 Christeson v. Roper PC 574/2
15 1/20/15 13-6827 Holt v. Hobbs A 574/2
14 1/20/15 13-854 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. B 574/2
13 1/14/15 13-975 T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell SS 574/2
12 1/14/15 13-7211 Jennings v. Stephens AS 574/2
11 1/13/15 13-9026 Whitfield v. United States AS 574/2
10 1/13/15 13-684 Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. AS 574/2
9 12/15/14 5, Orig. United States v. California D 574/1
8 12/15/14 13-719 Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens G 574/1
7 12/15/14 13-604 Heien v. North Carolina R 574/1
6 12/09/14 13-517 Warger v. Shauers SS 574/1
5 12/09/14 13-433 Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk T 574/1
4 11/17/14 14-95 Glebe v. Frost PC 574/1
3 11/10/14 14-212 Carroll v. Carman PC 574/1
2 11/10/14 13-1318 Johnson v. City of Shelby PC 574/1
1 10/06/14 13-946 Lopez v. Smith PC 574/1

 

The Actual 2015 DHS Report On Sovereign Citizens Does Not Contain The Claims Made by CNN | Conservative Treehouse

DHSIntelligenceAssessmentSovereignCitizens

Editor’s Note: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) & Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) characterizations of sovereign citizens are extremely simple-minded. Furthermore the CNN spin on the report as noted below was grossly distorted. Most of the sovereign citizens I’ve had contact with over the years were non-violent, posed no threat to the government, were sincere in their efforts to restore accountability in government, justice in the courts and liberty to the country. For the record the founding fathers were sovereign citizens of their respective states.

Within the CNN analysis they claim serious threats:

[…] ”from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS”.

Except, there’s something very divergent – The actual report does not claim that the threat to police is growing, it does not conflate sovereigns with other anti-government groups, it makes no broad claims about terror on the right,  and it does not compare the sovereigns to ISIS or to any other foreign terrorists.

There is absolutely nothing in the report to suggest such an interpretation.  Heck, the words “right-wing” do not even show up in the report anywhere. 

As Reason.Com outlines:

[…]  The document declares on its first page that most sovereign citizens are nonviolent, and that it will focus only on the violent fringe within a fringe—the people it calls “sovereign citizen extremists,” or SCEs. It describes their violence as “sporadic,” and it does not expect its rate to rise, predicting instead that the violence will stay “at the same sporadic level” in 2015. The author or authors add that most of the violence consists of “unplanned, reactive” clashes with police officers, not preplanned attacks. (more)

Here is the actual report. You can compare it to the CNN interpretation and decide for yourself.

Download: Sovereign Citizen Extremist Ideology Report (February 5, 2015)
Source: Conservative Treehouse

DHSCharacterization