Mediaboss Marketing

Editor's note: NCR readers interested in immigration reform and voting rights will no doubt find this article about the race for the secretary of state in Kansas well worth the read. The incumbent secretary of state, Republican Kris Kobach, faces stiff competition from Democrat challenger Jean Schodorf, in part because Kobach has made a national name for himself as a consultant to state legislatures thathave tightened anti-immigration laws, like Alabama and Arizona, and multiple other states that have recently enacted legislation that demands proof of citizenship before a person can vote. NCR brings this story to you with the cooperation of NPR affiliate KCUR in Kansas City, Mo.

Americans saw how important a state elections officer can be in 2000, when Florida Secretary of State Kathryn Harris certified the presidential election for George Bush.

Recently, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach intervened in a contentious race that could alter the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.

Kobach is known nationwide as a conservative Republican in a deeply red state. But this year, he is struggling to win re-election.

To see him meeting with half a dozen supporters in a bar just off Metcalf Avenue in Overland Park, you might not think Kris Kobach had come all that far from his childhood in Topeka, where his dad owned a Buick dealership.

NCR is reporting from the Vatican during the synod on the family. Support our journalism by subscribing or donating today.

But this smiling, enthusiastic guy holds degrees from Harvard, Oxford and Yale, and he's a stalwart of the anti-immigration movement nationwide.

"I have been involved in restoring the rule of law in immigration," Kobach said. "That means trying to stop the lawlessness in the Obama administration, and that also means defending states like Arizona."

Arizona enacted the strictest immigration law in the country four years ago. It compelled police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they thought may be in the country illegally. Kobach not only wrote the statue, he defended it before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is the original post:
Kansas Republicans split over secretary of state race

Mike Jones Supports the First Amendment, Even When Local Gov #39;t Doesn #39;t Like to Be Questioned
All videos by Dale Matthews are on the non-commercial site BadCounty com and also on Facebook and Twitter. Josephine County Weekly Business Session, Septem...

By: Dale Matthews

More here:
Mike Jones Supports the First Amendment, Even When Local Gov't Doesn't Like to Be Questioned - Video

INFORMUCATE: FIRST AMENDMENT
Informucate Fast Facts Videos cover thousands of topics, with more added daily.and if you like our videos, you will love our unique take on the news at http://www.informucate.com.

By: INFORMUCATE

Follow this link:
INFORMUCATE: FIRST AMENDMENT - Video

VICTORY! Federal Judge Rules #39;Police Violated Constitutional Rights #39; of Ferguson Protesters!
http://www.undergroundworldnews.com A Missouri federal judge has agreed with an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit claiming the First Amendment rights of Ferguson residents and their supporters...

By: DAHBOO77

More here:
VICTORY! Federal Judge Rules 'Police Violated Constitutional Rights' of Ferguson Protesters! - Video

Twitter just sued the federal government over restrictions the government places on how much the company can disclose about surveillance requests it receives.

For months, Twitter has tried to negotiate with the government to expand the kind of information that it and other companies are allowed to disclose. But it failed. Today, Twitter asserts in its suit that preventing the company from telling users how often the government submits national security requests for user data is a violation of the First Amendment.

The move goes a step beyond a challenge filed by Google and other companies last year that also sought permission on First Amendment grounds to disclose how often it receives national security requests for data. In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks about government spying and the so-called PRISM program, the companies sought to add statistics about national security requests to transparency reports that some of them were already publishing. Up to that point, the reports had revealed only the number of general law enforcement requests for data that the companies received each year, not so-called National Security Letters the companies received for data or other national security requests submitted with a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The companies asserted that without the ability to disclose more details about the data requests they received, the public was left to speculate wildly that they were providing unfettered access to user data or giving the government information in bulk. If the public knew how few requests for data they actually received, they argued, people would be re-assured that this was not the case.

[G]overnment nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation, Googles Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote in a letter to the attorney general and FBI. Googles numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Although the companies won a partial victory in negotiation when the government agreed earlier this year to let them publish broad statistics about national security requests they received, the statistics turned out to be nothing more than a coy tease. They provided no real transparency. The companies were only allowed to publish a range of the requests they received. For example, they were only allowed to disclose that they had received between 0 and 999 national security requests for data. They also had a six-month delay imposed on them, prohibiting them from disclosing certain sets of information, and a two-year delay for disclosing other sets of data.

In August, Google and Microsoft pressed for the right to release more statistics, including a breakdown of the number of requests specifically targeting user content, versus requests seeking metadata.

Twitter was not part of the legal challenges filed by the other companies but engaged in its own battle for more transparency. Last April, the company submitted a draft of the kind of transparency report it sought to make public.

Twitter sought, among other things, to narrow the scope for reporting statistics. Instead of reporting requests in a range of 0 to 999, it wanted to be able to report actual aggregate numbers for the number of NSL and FISA orders it received and to be able to break down, in smaller batches, each type of request. For example, it wanted to be able to report the number of NSLs and FISA orders it received in a range of 1-99.

The Justice Department responded in September that the proposed report contained classified informationwithout specifying which part of the information was classifiedthat could not be publicly released under the current FISA and National Security Letter laws. These statutes come with a gag order preventing service providers from disclosing the data requests they receive.

Read more from the original source:
Twitter Sues the Government for Violating Its First Amendment Rights