Mediaboss Marketing

For many analysts, the idea that one might link China and ethics in the same breath in talking of information freedom might seem strange. In cyberspace, it is a country known more for its i-dictatorship rather than its e-democracy.

Yet, as surely as China has moved from peoples communes in agriculture to private household production or from banning private property to embracing it, China is also well down the path toward information freedom.

It may yet have several very big obstacles to cross, not the least continued censorship and punishment for dissemination of politically unorthodox ideas. But China is on that path, even if it would be a brave person who might predict the arrival time for the journeys end. Will it be in this decade or the next one?

As long as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remains in power, its default position would appear to be one of information dictatorship and continued suppression of ideas that challenge key CCP orthodoxies.

The degree and character of censorship has changed massively in the last three decades. In spite of this widespread liberalization, the CCP is not giving up easily on this last bastion of dictatorship the control of information. In fact, since Xi Jinping came to power in November 2012, the screws have been tightened further.

One of the best indicators of this has been the issue of regulations concerning re-registration of all journalists in China dependent on their familiarity with CCP ideology. The regulations on journalists couple with a prohibition on Chinese news outlets from carrying news items from any other media source, especially foreign ones, without special dispensation.

So what basis is there for any hope that the CCP might tear down the remaining obstacles to information freedom in this secret state? One answer lies in understanding the trajectory of Chinas innovation policy and the related policy of CCP control of education, especially the universities.

The countrys leaders have staked the future of the CCP on a promise of national resurgence and leadership in science and technology. The trajectory of innovation policy in China has been impressive, as have been the necessary enabling departures from Communist orthodoxy.

One of the most significant was official recognition beginning in the middle of the first decade of this century that the private sector, not the government, was the key to establishing a thriving national innovation system.

A second evolution was the recognition that such a system depends on a vibrant and creative relationship between university-based research and the private sector.

More:
Can China Innovate Without Freedom of Information?

The U.S. Justice Department is unlikely to bring civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012, despite allegations that that the killing was racially motivated. The investigation was opened two years ago, after the incident triggered protests across the country.

The Justice Departments civil rights division investigated Zimmerman, but officials now say that they do not have enough evidence to bring federal charges against him, the Washington Post reported. Martins family attorney reportedly said that they have not heard a final decision from U.S. officials on the case while a spokesperson for the Department reportedly said that the investigation is active and ongoing.

Zimmermanwasacquittedof a second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in a state trial in Florida, despite several demands to Attorney General Eric H. Holder that a federalcivil rights caseshould be opened against him.

I was watching the whole case pretty closely for two years, and they didnt do anything except take those 40 statements, Mark OMara, Zimmermans attorney said,accordingto the Washington Post, adding that the statements suggested that George acted in very non-racist ways. He took a black girl to the prom. His best buddy was a black guy. He mentored two black kids. He sought justice for a black homeless man beaten up by a white cops son.

To those who have seen civil rights investigations and civil rights violations, OMara added, It looked as though the Department of Justice was just placating pressure that existed by suggesting there was an ongoing investigation.

Martin was unarmed whenZimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, shot and killed him. Prosecutors in a civil rights case would not only have to prove that Zimmerman followedMartinbecause of his race, but would also have to prove that his shooting of Martin was racially motivated.

These are very difficult cases to make, a law enforcement official who knew about the case told the Washington Post, adding: There is a high burden. We have to prove that a person was doing this with the intent of depriving someone of his civil rights.

Read more here:
George Zimmerman May Not Face Civil Rights Charges In Trayvon Martin's Death Case

Forget Ello, heres Wayfare real unique social networking
Forget Ello, here #39;s Wayfare real unique social networking.

By: DE452

More:
Forget Ello, heres Wayfare real unique social networking - Video

7 Hour Pokemon Stream! (Nintendo Japan)
Stay connected with me via Social Networking! Skype: auroravirus (Ask to be in my Pokemon Skype Group!) PSN: HyperWolf120 (Main) RaiVolt (Backup) Facebook ...

By: ZephyrSonic

Excerpt from:
7 Hour Pokemon Stream! (Nintendo Japan) - Video

Ive blogged a few times about the Third Circuits litigation in United States v. Katzin, a case on the Fourth Amendment implications of installing a GPS device. Initially, a panel of the court held that installing a GPS device on a car requires a warrant and that the exclusionary rule applied because there was no binding precedent allowing the government to install the device. Next, DOJ moved for en banc rehearing of just the exclusionary rule holding, which the Third Circuit granted. That brings us to the new development: On Wednesday, the en banc Third Circuit ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply.

Here are three thoughts on the new case.

1) The Third Circuit focuses on the overall culpability of the officer who conducted the search, relying on the broad reading of Davis and Herring. The key passage seems to be this:

The constellation of circumstances that appeared to authorize their conduct included well settled principles of Fourth Amendment law as articulated by the Supreme Court, a near-unanimity of circuit courts applying these principles to the same conduct, and the advice of an AUSA pursuant to a DOJ-wide policy. Given this panoply of authority, we cannot say that a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal, id., nor that the agents acted with deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for [Appellees] Fourth Amendment rights, Davis, 131 S. Ct. at 2427 (quoting Herring, 555 U.S. at 144) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, suppression is inappropriate because it would not result in deterrence appreciable enough to outweigh the significant social costs of suppressing reliable, probative evidence, upon which the Governments entire case against Appellees turns.

Ive been assuming that the debate over the broad vs. narrow reading of Davis was destined to be decided by the Supreme Court eventually. With that said, its interesting that all the circuits so far are reading the case so broadly so that no clear split has yet emerged. I personally find the broad reading of Davis to be very problematic, but I would guess that there are five votes on the current Court that would agree with that broad reading.

2) In this case, defense counsel conceded the relevance of the agent consulting with a prosecutor about the legality of the practice as part of the exclusionary rule calculus. See Slip Op at 34, n.13. Theres some precedential support for that, I recognize. At the same time, it strikes me as a really problematic rule. Think of the incentives it creates. First, agents have an incentive to ask the most aggressive prosecutor they know. Agents wont ask for legal advice from Cautious Cathy; instead theyll run it by Aggressive Andy. Second, the rule gives prosecutors an incentive to give out aggressive advice. If youre a prosecutor and agents ask for your legal advice, you will know that by approving a questionable practice, the mere fact of your approval becomes an argument against the exclusionary rule applying if you turn out to be wrong. The exclusionary rule becomes narrower as the prosecutors become more aggressive.

3) Notably, the court vacated the merits ruling that a warrant was required even though DOJ did not ask the court to revisit that issue.

Orin Kerr is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches and writes in the area of criminal procedure and computer crime law.

The rest is here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule