Mediaboss Marketing

Editor, The Beacon:

As the chair of the Libertarian Party of Volusia County, I write to express our strong opposition to the recent policy proposed by the Volusia County School Board allowing for random searches of individuals at any time.

This policy not only undermines fundamental principles of individual rights and privacy, but also sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion of civil liberties within our community.

At the core of Libertarian philosophy lies a steadfast commitment to protecting individual freedoms and limiting government overreach. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that individuals are protected from arbitrary intrusion by authorities.

Random searches, devoid of probable cause or suspicion, blatantly violate this constitutional right and represent a flagrant disregard for the principles upon which our nation was founded.

Moreover, the implementation of random searches fosters an atmosphere of distrust and surveillance within our schools, where students and staff feel constantly monitored and scrutinized. This not only undermines the sense of autonomy and freedom necessary for a healthy learning environment, but also erodes the trust between citizens and the government an essential component of a functioning democratic society.

Furthermore, random searches have been shown to disproportionately impact certain groups, such as minorities and marginalized communities, leading to profiling and discrimination. Such practices not only perpetuate existing inequalities within our society, but also undermine efforts to promote fairness and justice for all.

Rather than resorting to intrusive and ineffective measures like random searches, we urge the Volusia County School Board to explore alternative approaches that prioritize the safety and well-being of students and staff, while respecting individual rights and privacy.

Measures such as improved mental-health support, conflict-resolution programs, and community engagement have proved to be more effective in creating a safe and supportive school environment.

In conclusion, as the chair of the Libertarian Party of Volusia County, I call upon the Volusia County School Board to reconsider its decision to implement random searches and instead uphold the principles of individual liberty, privacy and justice upon which our community is founded.

Matt Johnson DeLand

Go here to read the rest:
Opposing random searches and upholding Libertarian principles - The West Volusia Beacon

Immediately after his win over a fellow Ultimate Fighting Club mixed martial artist, Brazilian victor Renato Moicano is urging his fans and foes alike to demonstrate a greater love for America, the Constitution, and private property rights by reading free market economist Ludwig von Mises.

Mr. Moicano defeated Jalin Turner in a comeback lightweight match on Saturday night at the UFC 300 in Nevada. After his victory, Joe Rogan joined Mr. Moicano in the ring to talk about the win, but the Brazilian wanted to talk about something else.

First of all, I love America. I love the Constitution. I love the First Amendment. I want to carry all the fing guns. I love private property, he said into the microphone.

Let me tell you something: If you care about your fing country, read Ludwig von Mises and the six lessons of the Austrian economic school, motherfrs! he yelled to the audience, eliciting cheers.

Von Mises was one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, contributing to a revival of classical liberalism and a libertarian philosophy in economic thinking. As a teacher, he was influential in the lives and thinking of Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard, among others.

After fleeing the Nazis with his wife in 1940, he spent nearly 25 years teaching at New York University. The Mises Institute, funded in part by Americas most famous libertarian, Congressman Ron Paul, continues its economic research mission to this day.

In his most famous work, Human Action, von Mises makes the best defense of capitalism ever written, the Mises Institute writes.

Link:
UFC Fighter Delights Very Online Libertarians With Shoutout to Ludwig von Mises in Victory Speech - The New York Sun

Elon Musk revealed his intention to fund a national signature campaign for the First Amendment on X, sparking a mixture of praise and skepticism. While some lauded his commitment to free speech, others questioned his motives.

Musk's advocacy for free speech has been evident since acquiring X (formerly Twitter), where he confronts censorship attempts. However, X has now allegedly also become a platform for Nazi propaganda.

Elon Musk recently announced his plans to fund a national signature campaign supporting the First Amendment.

Taking to X, Musk wrote: "Given the relentless attacks on free speech. I am going to fund a national signature campaign in support of the First Amendment."

The announcement garnered widespread applause on social media, with users on the platform expressing eagerness to sign up.

Voting advocate Scott Presler offered his support, commenting: "We are currently collecting signatures for campaigns across the country. I can have an army of signature collectors at a moment's notice. Let me know if I may be of assistance."

An X user hailed Musk's initiative as historic, commenting: "You're going to go down in the history books. Not just for Tesla and SpaceX. But for saving free speech."

"I'm glad Elon is taking a stand when others with his level of influence are not. If we do not support him and defend our First Amendment rights at this juncture. With it being assaulted on all sides... we could very well lose it. A terrifying prospect to say the least," another user added.

However, some skeptics questioned Musk's motives, suggesting that the move was driven by ulterior motives rather than a genuine commitment to free speech.

One critic wrote, "He isn't taking a stand for free speech. He's doing this so he can use this platform to lie with impunity."

"The world's richest man didn't buy Twitter to save free speech. He bought it because he knows how powerful it is. Because he can use it to convince you of anything he wants you to believe. And the first thing he wants you to believe is that he saved free speechand you bought it," another added.

Musk's staunch advocacy for free speech has been evident, notably motivating his acquisition of Twitter. Since purchasing the platform, the billionaire has actively promoted an environment fostering diverse viewpoints and has confronted governmental and authoritative efforts to stifle expression. He has also pledged financial support for individuals facing professional repercussions due to their online engagement.

For instance, Musk was loud in his vocal opposition to regulatory overreach, such as the Canadian proposal for online streaming services. Taking to X, he wrote: "Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada. Shameful."

More recently, Musk confronted the Brazilian government's decision to restrict access to specific X accounts within the nation. Despite facing a subsequent court order mandating the suspension of these accounts, Musk adamantly resisted such attempts at censorship through various means.

Musk's advocacy for free speech has led to X becoming a platform where Nazi ideology and propaganda thrive, with numerous paid subscribers using the platform to share content glorifying Adolf Hitler and his regime.

Investigations by NBC News also revealed that over 150 "Premium" subscriber accounts, along with thousands of unpaid accounts, have been disseminating pro-Nazi material on X, often violating the platform's rules. These accounts consistently post anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi content, including praise for Nazi soldiers, dissemination of Nazi symbols, and Holocaust denial.

The spread of pro-Nazi content extends beyond the platform's margins, with some posts garnering millions of views and widespread resharing.

According to the executive director of Life After Hate, Patrick Riccards, "A welcoming social media environment can make Nazi sympathizers feel validated in their views and recruit others to their cause. "For those who are already driven by hate, it is a big warm hug," he added.

Earlier this week, Musk announced that X will introduce a payment system where users must pay to post and engage with others. He explained that the move aims to combat the proliferation of fake and bot accounts by requiring a "small fee" for access to core features.

"Unfortunately, a small fee for new user write access is the only way to curb the relentless onslaught of bots," he wrote, per The Independent. "Current AI (and troll farms) can pass 'Are you a bot?' with ease." "The onslaught of fake accounts also uses up the available namespace, so many good handles are taken as a result," he added.

This follows a pilot program in New Zealand and the Philippines last year, which mandated a one-dollar-a-year subscription for new users to access essential functions. Musk's remarks suggest a broader implementation of this model.

Responding to queries, Musk hinted that the fee might only apply during the initial three months of a user's membership.

Continue reading here:
Elon Musk's Plan To Fund National Signature Campaign In Support Of First Amendment Met With Praise - Yahoo! Voices

At the same time, the justices also held that a mental state of recklessness would be enough to meet that threshold. [Colorado] must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 72 majority. The State need not prove any more demanding form of subjective intent to threaten another. Since Colorado prosecuted him under a different standard, the court ruled that it had violated the First Amendment.

Sending threatening Facebook messages does not appear to have much in common with organizing protests against police violence, at first glance. But both cases involve questions of how far the First Amendment goes to protect speech that is, shall we say, adjacent to the possibility of violence. In Counterman, the justices referred to Claiborne multiple times. Kagan, writing for the majority, cited Claiborne alongside other cases to note that the First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or criminal, unless the speakers words were intended (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.

She also noted that, in incitement cases, the court has often recognized that incitement to disorder is commonly a hairs-breadth away from political advocacyand particularly from strong protests against the government and prevailing social order, again pointing to Claiborne. The courts emphasis on an intent requirement in First Amendment cases would appear to doom the officers lawsuit against Mckesson, which hinges entirely on the lower standard of negligence.

More:
Don't Panic About the Supreme Court's Right to Protest RulingYet - The New Republic

Over at Vox, Ian Millhiser

The Supreme Court really should leave the trolling to the professionals. Denying that January 6 was a sui generis event, which it clearly was (unless you count Second Manassas), is now conservative gospel.

But Millhiser calls our attention to a case that the Nine Wise Souls declined to consider. This one comes out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal judiciarys primary petri dish for growing really bad ideas. The case is Mckesson v. Doe. (Mckesson is civil-rights activist DeRay Mckesson, whom the government has been hassling ever since he helped found the Black Lives Matter movement.) In 2016, Mckesson organized a protest outside the headquarters of the Baton Rouge Police Department in response to the police shooting of a man named Alton Sterling, who got ventilated while pinned to the ground by officers. During the protest, someonenobody knows whothrew a rock and severely injured an officer. The victim of the rock throwing sued Mckesson for having organized the protest.

This, of course, is all bollocks. Suing the organizers of a protest for the actions of each participant is a none-too-subtle assault on the First Amendment, and also an open invitation for false-flag infiltrators seeking to damage the organizers of a protest. The controlling caseat least prior to the present momentwas NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., a 1982 decision in which the Supreme Court refused to hold the leaders of the NAACP who had organized a boycott of white-owned businesses responsible for losses sustained by the store owners. The business owners claimed that their customers had been threatened by some of the boycotters, and they sought in court to hold the NAACP liable for the actions of unnamed people who had associated themselves with the boycott. One intriguing aspect to the case is that the events in question happened in 1969, but the Supreme Court didnt rule until thirteen years later.

The Fifth Circuit tossed out some of Officer Does causes of action but left one alive. The court said Mckesson was responsible for the violence because he had situated the demonstration at the police headquarters, and that he should have anticipated that violence would break out. Thus were First Amendment rights curtailed in the three states coveredTexas, Louisiana, and Mississippiand the Supreme Court on Monday washed its hands of the case, so the curtailment is going to be semi-permanent. Perhaps the carefully cultivated conservative majority blew off the Mckesson case so that it could get around to coddling the insurrectionists. Priorities, people.

Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976. He lives near Boston and has three children.

Read more here:
Supreme Court Is Apparently Fine with the Assault on the First Amendment That Is Mckesson v. Doe - Esquire