activistpost--2020-08-01--In Historic Opinion, Third Circuit Protects Public School Students’ Off-Campus Social Media Speech

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an historic opinion in B.L .
v. Mahanoy Area School District , upholding the free speech rights of public school students .
The court adopted the position EFF urged in our amicus brief that the First Amendment prohibits disciplining public school students for off-campus social media speech .
B.L .
was a high school student who had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and was placed on junior varsity instead .
Out of frustration , she posted—over the weekend and off school grounds—a Snapchat selfie with text that said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheer.
” One of her Snapchat connections took a screen shot of the “ snap ” and shared it with the cheerleading coaches , who suspended B.L .
from the J.V .
squad for one year .
She and her parents sought administrative relief to no avail , and eventually sued the school district with the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania .
In its opinion protecting B.L.
’ s social media speech under the First Amendment , the Third Circuit issued three key holdings .
First , the Third Circuit held that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off-campus ” speech .
The court recognized that the question of whether student speech is “ on-campus ” or “ off-campus ” is a “ tricky ” one whose “ difficulty has only increased after the digital revolution.
” Nevertheless , the court concluded that “ a student ’ s online speech is not rendered ‘ on campus ’ simply because it involves the school , mentions teachers or administrators , is shared with or accessible to students , or reaches the school environment.
” Therefore , B.L.
’ s Snapchat post was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created the snap away from campus , over the weekend , and without school resources , and she shared it on a social media platform unaffiliated with the school.
” The court quoted EFF ’ s amicus brief to highlight why protecting off-campus social media speech is so critical : Second , the Third Circuit reaffirmed its prior holding that the ability of public school officials to punish students for vulgar , lewd , profane , or otherwise offensive speech , per the Supreme Court ’ s opinion in Bethel School District No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does not apply to off-campus speech .
The court held that the fact that B.L.
’ s punishment related to an extracurricular activity ( cheerleading ) was immaterial .
The school district had argued that students have “ no constitutionally protected property right to participate in extracurricular activities.
” The court expressed concern when any form of punishment is “ used to control students ’ free expression in an area traditionally beyond regulation.
” Off-Campus Social Media Speech That “ Substantially Disrupts ” the On-Campus Environment is Not Punishable Third , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been left open by its prior decisions : whether public school officials may punish students for off-campus speech that is likely to “ substantially disrupt ” the on-campus environment .
School administrators often make this argument based on a misinterpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School ( 1969 ) .
Tinker involved only on-campus speech : students wearing black armbands on school grounds , during school hours , to protest the Vietnam War .
The Supreme Court held that the school violated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by suspending them for refusing to remove the armbands because the students ’ speech did not “ materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school , ” and school officials did not reasonably forecast such disruption .
Tinker was a resounding free speech victory when it was decided , reversing the previously widespread assumption that school administrators had wide latitude to punish student speech on campus .
Nevertheless , lower courts have more recently read Tinker as a sword against student speech rather than a shield protecting it , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deem “ disruptive.
” The Third Circuit unequivocally rejected reading Tinker as creating a pathway to punish student off-campus speech , such as B.L.
’ s Snapchat post .
The court concisely defined “ off-campus ” speech as “ speech that is outside school-owned , -operated , or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school ’ s imprimatur.
” The Third Circuit noted that EFF was the only party to argue that the court should reach this holding ( p. 22 n.8 ) .
The court reasoned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into every corner of modern life , ” and that it was time to end the “ legal uncertainty ” that “ in this context creates unique problems.
” The court stated , “ Obscure lines between permissible and impermissible speech have an independent chilling effect on speech.
” The Third Circuit clarified that schools may punish on-campus disruption that was caused by an off-campus social media post when a “ student who , on campus , shares or reacts to controversial off-campus speech in a disruptive manner.
” That is , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or expressive conduct within the school context that meets ” the Supreme Court ’ s demanding standards for actual and serious disruption of the school day .
Thus , “ a student who opens his cellphone and shows a classmate a Facebook post from the night before ” may be punished if that post , by virtue of being affirmatively shared on campus by the original poster , “ substantially disrupts ” the on-campus environment .
Similarly , if other students act disruptively on campus in response to that Facebook post , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he himself did not share the post on campus .
Additionally , the Third Circuit “ reserv [ ed ] for another day the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others , ” an issue that was not presented in this case .
The Third Circuit ’ s opinion is historic because it is the first federal appellate court to affirm that the substantial disruption exception from Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech .
Other circuits have upheld regulating off-campus speech citing Tinker in various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as when it is “ reasonably foreseeable ” that off-campus speech will reach the school environment , or when off-campus speech has a sufficient “ nexus ” to the school ’ s “ pedagogical interests.
” The Third Circuit rejected all these approaches .
The court argued that its “ sister circuits have adopted tests that sweep far too much speech into the realm of schools ’ authority.
” The court was critical of these approaches because they “ subvert [ ] the longstanding principle that heightened authority over student speech is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because there is a circuit split on this important First Amendment student speech issue , it is possible that the school district will seek certiorari and that the Supreme Court will grant review .
Until then , we can celebrate this historic win for public school students ’ free speech rights .
Sophia Cope is a Senior Staff Attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation ’ s civil liberties team , working on a variety of free speech and privacy issues .
She has been a civil liberties attorney for over 15 years and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy .
Her writing has appeared in the New York Times , Guardian , Slate , and Huffington Post .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Sophia Cope
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an historic opinion in B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, upholding the free speech rights of public school students. The court adopted the position EFF urged in our amicus brief that the First Amendment prohibits disciplining public school students for off-campus social media speech.
B.L. was a high school student who had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and was placed on junior varsity instead. Out of frustration, she posted—over the weekend and off school grounds—a Snapchat selfie with text that said, among other things, “fuck cheer.” One of her Snapchat connections took a screen shot of the “snap” and shared it with the cheerleading coaches, who suspended B.L. from the J.V. squad for one year. She and her parents sought administrative relief to no avail, and eventually sued the school district with the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
In its opinion protecting B.L.’s social media speech under the First Amendment, the Third Circuit issued three key holdings.
Social Media Post Was “Off-Campus” Speech
First, the Third Circuit held that B.L.’s post was indeed “off-campus” speech. The court recognized that the question of whether student speech is “on-campus” or “off-campus” is a “tricky” one whose “difficulty has only increased after the digital revolution.” Nevertheless, the court concluded that “a student’s online speech is not rendered ‘on campus’ simply because it involves the school, mentions teachers or administrators, is shared with or accessible to students, or reaches the school environment.”
Therefore, B.L.’s Snapchat post was “off-campus” speech because she “created the snap away from campus, over the weekend, and without school resources, and she shared it on a social media platform unaffiliated with the school.”
The court quoted EFF’s amicus brief to highlight why protecting off-campus social media speech is so critical:
Students use social media and other forms of communication with remarkable frequency. Sometimes the conversation online is a high-minded one, with students “participating in issue- or cause-focused groups, encouraging other people to take action on issues they care about, and finding information on protests or rallies.”
Vulgar Off-Campus Social Media Speech is Not Punishable
Second, the Third Circuit reaffirmed its prior holding that the ability of public school officials to punish students for vulgar, lewd, profane, or otherwise offensive speech, per the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), does not apply to off-campus speech.
The court held that the fact that B.L.’s punishment related to an extracurricular activity (cheerleading) was immaterial. The school district had argued that students have “no constitutionally protected property right to participate in extracurricular activities.” The court expressed concern when any form of punishment is “used to control students’ free expression in an area traditionally beyond regulation.”
Off-Campus Social Media Speech That “Substantially Disrupts” the On-Campus Environment is Not Punishable
Third, the Third Circuit finally answered the question that had been left open by its prior decisions: whether public school officials may punish students for off-campus speech that is likely to “substantially disrupt” the on-campus environment. School administrators often make this argument based on a misinterpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School (1969).
Tinker involved only on-campus speech: students wearing black armbands on school grounds, during school hours, to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that the school violated the student protestors’ First Amendment rights by suspending them for refusing to remove the armbands because the students’ speech did not “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,” and school officials did not reasonably forecast such disruption.
Tinker was a resounding free speech victory when it was decided, reversing the previously widespread assumption that school administrators had wide latitude to punish student speech on campus. Nevertheless, lower courts have more recently read Tinker as a sword against student speech rather than a shield protecting it, allowing schools to punish student off-campus speech they deem “disruptive.”
The Third Circuit unequivocally rejected reading Tinker as creating a pathway to punish student off-campus speech, such as B.L.’s Snapchat post. The court concisely defined “off-campus” speech as “speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school’s imprimatur.”
The Third Circuit noted that EFF was the only party to argue that the court should reach this holding (p. 22 n.8). The court reasoned that “social media has continued its expansion into every corner of modern life,” and that it was time to end the “legal uncertainty” that “in this context creates unique problems.” The court stated, “Obscure lines between permissible and impermissible speech have an independent chilling effect on speech.”
Possible Limits on Student Social Media Speech
The Third Circuit clarified that schools may punish on-campus disruption that was caused by an off-campus social media post when a “student who, on campus, shares or reacts to controversial off-campus speech in a disruptive manner.” That is, a “school can punish any disruptive speech or expressive conduct within the school context that meets” the Supreme Court’s demanding standards for actual and serious disruption of the school day.
Thus, “a student who opens his cellphone and shows a classmate a Facebook post from the night before” may be punished if that post, by virtue of being affirmatively shared on campus by the original poster, “substantially disrupts” the on-campus environment. Similarly, if other students act disruptively on campus in response to that Facebook post, they may be punished—but not the original poster if he himself did not share the post on campus.
Additionally, the Third Circuit “reserv[ed] for another day the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others,” an issue that was not presented in this case.
Supreme Court Review Possible
The Third Circuit’s opinion is historic because it is the first federal appellate court to affirm that the substantial disruption exception from Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.
Other circuits have upheld regulating off-campus speech citing Tinker in various contexts and under different specific rules, such as when it is “reasonably foreseeable” that off-campus speech will reach the school environment, or when off-campus speech has a sufficient “nexus” to the school’s “pedagogical interests.”
The Third Circuit rejected all these approaches. The court argued that its “sister circuits have adopted tests that sweep far too much speech into the realm of schools’ authority.” The court was critical of these approaches because they “subvert[] the longstanding principle that heightened authority over student speech is the exception rather than the rule.”
Because there is a circuit split on this important First Amendment student speech issue, it is possible that the school district will seek certiorari and that the Supreme Court will grant review. Until then, we can celebrate this historic win for public school students’ free speech rights.
Source: EFF
Sophia Cope is a Senior Staff Attorney on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s civil liberties team, working on a variety of free speech and privacy issues. She has been a civil liberties attorney for over 15 years and has experience in both litigation and policy advocacy. Her writing has appeared in the New York Times, Guardian, Slate, and Huffington Post.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-07-31--Add Your Name to Letter Opposing FCC Expansion of Ultra-High Wireless with NO SAFETY TESTING

The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry .
Unfortunately , they are better known for doing the exact opposite ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) .
Current FCC Chair , Ajit Pai , refers to this as being “ not heavy handed.
” Lawsuits have been filed against agency for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation ( see 1 , 2 ) and 5G deployment ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
In 2019 , telecom executives gave U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that 5G is safe .
Congressional members have formally addressed the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) about this .
Municipal governments have filed lawsuits against the FCC regarding 5G deployment .
State representatives in Hawaii introduced a bill to ban it until studies show that it ’ s safe .
Municipalities have also passed resolutions to ban deployment ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .
5 ) and ordinances to limit and/or control installation .
Thanks to Americans for Responsible Technology and 5G Crisis for creating a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing insanity .
URGENT : We ’ re Sending a Letter to the FCC .
Add Your Name !
The Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) is looking to expand access to ultra-high wireless radiation frequencies for commercial use without having conducted any testing or environmental evaluations to assess the safety risks such exposures could pose to human health and the natural world .
That ’ s why this Take Action Tuesday we ’ re asking that you please help us circulate our latest FCC sign-on letter ( full text in PDF format @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildlife specialists , and/or relevant experts that you might know .
All signatures must be received by 8pm EST on Wednesday , August 5th , 2020 to be included in the final submission to the FCC .
View a full PDF of the letter here .
American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks ( see 1 , 2 ) from radiation .
Federal agencies have warned that it can threaten national security , public safety , and weather forecasting accuracy .
The majority of scientists worldwide are opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s safe .
Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) .
Engineers have warned that 5G can overheat base stations .
5G base stations use 2-3X more energy to operate than 4G base stations .
5G will generate enormous amounts of e-Waste which experts say we have too much of already – most of which isn ’ t being recycled .
Activist Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .

By B.N. Frank
The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. Unfortunately, they are better known for doing the exact opposite (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Current FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, refers to this as being “not heavy handed.” Lawsuits have been filed against agency for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation (see 1, 2) and 5G deployment (see 1, 2, 3).
In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they have NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe. Congressional members have formally addressed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about this. Municipal governments have filed lawsuits against the FCC regarding 5G deployment. State representatives in Hawaii introduced a bill to ban it until studies show that it’s safe. Municipalities have also passed resolutions to ban deployment (see 1, 2, 3, 4. 5) and ordinances to limit and/or control installation.
Thanks to Americans for Responsible Technology and 5G Crisis for creating a letter to send to the FCC opposing this ongoing insanity.
From 5G Crisis:
URGENT: We’re Sending a Letter to the FCC. Add Your Name!
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to expand access to ultra-high wireless radiation frequencies for commercial use without having conducted any testing or environmental evaluations to assess the safety risks such exposures could pose to human health and the natural world.
That’s why this Take Action Tuesday we’re asking that you please help us circulate our latest FCC sign-on letter (full text in PDF format below) to any medical professionals, wildlife specialists, and/or relevant experts that you might know. All signatures must be received by 8pm EST on Wednesday, August 5th, 2020 to be included in the final submission to the FCC.
Sign now!
View a full PDF of the letter here.
Sign the letter now!
American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks (see 1, 2) from radiation. Federal agencies have warned that it can threaten national security, public safety, and weather forecasting accuracy.
The majority of scientists worldwide are opposed to 5G until studies show that it’s safe. Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Engineers have warned that 5G can overheat base stations. 5G base stations use 2-3X more energy to operate than 4G base stations. 5G will generate enormous amounts of e-Waste which experts say we have too much of already – most of which isn’t being recycled.
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.


activistpost--2020-07-31--Brief Filed Jointly by Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense in Case Against FCC

Brief Filed Jointly by Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense in Case Against FCC on 5G and Wireless Radiation

The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry .
Lawsuits have been filed against agency for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation ( see 1 , 2 ) and 5G deployment ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Earlier this week Environmental Health Trust and Children ’ s Health Defense jointly filed a brief with their lawsuit against the FCC .
PRESS EVENT : Environmental Health Trust Files Brief in Landmark Case Against FCC on 5G and Wireless Radiation WHERE : Zoom Link Update : Video will be posted shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Trust has filed the legal brief today , Wednesday , July 29 , in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia , in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) .
Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC ’ s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “ safety ” limits and the FCC ’ s refusal to adopt scientific , biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment .
The brief is filed jointly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones , laptops and cell towers .
Furthermore , the FCC “ sees no reason to take steps to protect children ” , despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies .
Therefore , its decision not to review the “ safety ” limits is arbitrary , capricious , not evidence-based and unlawful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA ) , the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) , and the 1996 Telecommunications Act ( TCA ) .
See the brief at this link – Environmental Health Trust v. FCC In 2019 , telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they have NO scientific evidence that it ’ s safe .
Congressional members have formally addressed the FCC about 5G .
Municipal governments have filed lawsuits against the FCC regarding 5G deployment .
State representatives in Hawaii introduced a bill to ban 5G until studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Municipalities have passed resolutions to ban installation until studies prove it ’ s safe ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .
5 ) and also passed ordinances to limit and/or control installation .
American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks ( see 1 , 2 ) from radiation emissions .
Federal agencies have warned that it can threaten national security , public safety , and weather forecasting accuracy .
Engineers have warned that 5G can overheat base stations .
Overheating base stations means extra energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5G base stations use 2-3X more energy to operate than 4G base stations .
5G will also generate enormous amounts of e-Waste which experts say we have too much of already .
82 % of it isn ’ t even being recycled .
Opposition to 5G is increasing worldwide .
Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) .
The majority of scientists worldwide are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s safe .
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. Lawsuits have been filed against agency for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation (see 1, 2) and 5G deployment (see 1, 2, 3).
Earlier this week Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense jointly filed a brief with their lawsuit against the FCC.
From Environmental Health Trust:
PRESS EVENT: Environmental Health Trust Files Brief in Landmark Case Against FCC on 5G and Wireless Radiation
WHEN: Thursday, July 30 at 12:00 p.m. EDT
WHERE: Zoom Link Update: Video will be posted shortly to this page.
WHAT: Environmental Health Trust has filed the legal brief today, Wednesday, July 29, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
SPEAKERS
Devra Davis, President Environmental Health Trust
Theodora Scarato, Executive Director, Environmental Health Trust
Edward Myers Esq., Attorney for Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC’s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “safety” limits and the FCC’s refusal to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense.
Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones, laptops and cell towers. Furthermore, the FCC “sees no reason to take steps to protect children”, despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies. Therefore, its decision not to review the “safety” limits is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based and unlawful.
Our brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).
See the brief at this link – Environmental Health Trust v. FCC
In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they have NO scientific evidence that it’s safe. Congressional members have formally addressed the FCC about 5G. Municipal governments have filed lawsuits against the FCC regarding 5G deployment. State representatives in Hawaii introduced a bill to ban 5G until studies show that it’s safe. Municipalities have passed resolutions to ban installation until studies prove it’s safe (see 1, 2, 3, 4. 5) and also passed ordinances to limit and/or control installation.
American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks (see 1, 2) from radiation emissions. Federal agencies have warned that it can threaten national security, public safety, and weather forecasting accuracy.
Engineers have warned that 5G can overheat base stations. Overheating base stations means extra energy needed to keep them from overheating. 5G base stations use 2-3X more energy to operate than 4G base stations. 5G will also generate enormous amounts of e-Waste which experts say we have too much of already. 82% of it isn’t even being recycled.
Opposition to 5G is increasing worldwide. Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The majority of scientists worldwide are opposed to 5G until studies show that it’s safe.
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-08-01--Google Says New “Contact Tracing” App To Launch In Coming Weeks

Shortly after launching a new contact-tracing program in Ontario , a top Google executive said in a blog post published Friday that 20 US states and territories ( roughly 45 % of the country ’ s population ) are “ exploring ” using the tool Google built with Apple to create new contact-tracing programs , and that the new apps are set to launch in the coming weeks .
Google had previously said in May that three states , Alabama , North Dakota and South Carolina , would be launching apps using the exposure notification tool .
Those states are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Additionally , the company said during its update that 16 countries and regions outside the US have launched apps using the Apple-Google tool , while other countries – including France and the UK – have sought to build their own tools from scratch , though the UK infamously pivoted , abandoned its custom system , and adopted the Google-Apple protocol .
However , the UK has yet to launch this new app , and it ’ s unclear when it will be ready , as the Telegraph recently reported .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system ( which is based on the Google-Apple system ) is supposed to work , per the Telegraph .
The technology should enable users to track whether they came in contact with any infected people via Bluetooth signals .
VP of Engineering David Burke penned the post , which was published Friday afternoon on the East Coast .
Read it in full below : In May , we partnered with Apple to launch the Exposure Notifications System ( ENS ) and made it available to public health authorities around the world in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health authorities to develop apps that augment manual contact tracing efforts while preserving the privacy of their citizens .
As of today , public health authorities have used ENS to launch in 16 countries and regions across Africa , Asia , Europe , North America and South America , with more apps currently under development .
In the United States , 20 states and territories—representing approximately 45 percent of the U.S. population—are exploring apps based on ENS .
We expect to see the first set of these apps roll out over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Laboratories also announced recently that it will host a national key server to support all U.S. states , which will allow people with Exposure Notification apps to receive alerts even if they travel across state borders .
We ’ ve continued to improve the technology and provide more transparency based on feedback we ’ ve received from public health authorities and other experts .
Public health authorities will continue to make their own decisions about how exposure notifications become part of their plans in controlling COVID-19 , and we will work to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feedback .
Here are some of the changes we ’ ve already made , as well as some upcoming additional changes .
Since the Exposure Notification API was publicly released in May , we ’ ve spoken with dozens of public health authorities to understand how the API could be improved to help them better manage the COVID-19 pandemic while preserving privacy .
Based on this feedback , we recently launched an update to the API , which includes the following changes : When an exposure is detected , public health authorities now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of risk associated with that exposure based on technical information from the API .
Bluetooth calibration values for hundreds of devices have been updated to improve the detection of nearby devices .
The API now supports interoperability between countries , following feedback from governments that have launched Exposure Notification apps .
To help public health authorities build apps more efficiently , we ’ ve added reliability improvements for apps and developer debug tools .
We ’ ve improved clarity , transparency and control for users .
For example , the Exposure Notifications settings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toggle at the top of the page .
In addition , users will also see a periodic reminder if ENS is turned on .
We ’ ve heard feedback that public health authorities and developers want more technical guidance about how ENS works .
In response , we ’ ve published the following resources over the last few weeks : Reference verification server to help guide public health authorities in building a server that allows verification of test results when users report themselves as positive for COVID-19 .
Implementation code showing how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Telemetry design explaining what de-identified diagnostics data is collected to ensure that ENS is functioning properly and securely .
Additional technical resources will be publicly shared as we continue to improve ENS .
The Exposure Notifications website has more information about ENS , and offers educational and technical resources , as well as the latest updates .
As a quick reminder , here are some of the core privacy protections that were built into ENS : You decide whether you want to use Exposure Notifications—it ’ s off unless you turn it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ location data from your device .
Your identity is not shared with Google , Apple or other users .
Only public health authorities can use this system .
Finally , we ’ ve received questions about why your Android device location setting has to be turned on if you want to use an Exposure Notification app .
We want to explain why this particular setting needs to be on , and how you can control your location settings on Android .
To be absolutely clear , ENS does not use device location , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health authority apps from requesting or collecting device location .
Instead , ENS uses Bluetooth technology to detect when two devices are near each other , without revealing the location of either device .
While Bluetooth scanning doesn ’ t necessarily reveal location , it can in some cases be used to infer your device ’ s location .
For example , if a shopping app scans for the Bluetooth signals of a stationary Bluetooth beacon located inside a store , then the app could infer that you went to that store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind , we designed the Android operating system to prevent Bluetooth scanning unless the device location setting is on .
At that time no one could have anticipated that Bluetooth scanning might one day be helpful in controlling a global pandemic like COVID-19 .
Our engineering teams have been working to update the next version of Android with Exposure Notifications in mind .
On Android 11 , which will soon be released , users will be able to use Exposure Notification apps without turning on the device location setting .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only , given that ENS has been designed in such a way that neither the system nor the apps using it can infer device location through Bluetooth scanning , and apps that are allowed to use ENS are subject to additional policies that disallow automatic collection of location .
All other apps and services will still be prohibited from performing Bluetooth scanning unless the device location setting is on .
But even in current versions of Android , when you turn on the device location setting , your phone continues to prohibit access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that don ’ t have permission to use device location .
The device location setting is like a circuit breaker in a house : When it ’ s on , power is flowing to the house , but you can turn the lights on or off in each room .
If you turn on the device location setting to use ENS , it won ’ t affect the decisions you ’ ve already made about specific apps .
You can always view and change which apps have access to your device location @ @ @ @ @ @ @ App permissions .
We ’ re committed to supporting public health authorities as they build tools to fight COVID-19 .
We ’ ll continue to improve ENS based on feedback , while ensuring that people can trust in the privacy-preserving design of this technology .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
Shortly after launching a new contact-tracing program in Ontario, a top Google executive said in a blog post published Friday that 20 US states and territories (roughly 45% of the country’s population) are “exploring” using the tool Google built with Apple to create new contact-tracing programs, and that the new apps are set to launch in the coming weeks.
Google had previously said in May that three states, Alabama, North Dakota and South Carolina, would be launching apps using the exposure notification tool. Those states are still using the protocols, it appears.
Additionally, the company said during its update that 16 countries and regions outside the US have launched apps using the Apple-Google tool, while other countries – including France and the UK – have sought to build their own tools from scratch, though the UK infamously pivoted, abandoned its custom system, and adopted the Google-Apple protocol.
However, the UK has yet to launch this new app, and it’s unclear when it will be ready, as the Telegraph recently reported.
Here’s how the UK’s app-based system (which is based on the Google-Apple system) is supposed to work, per the Telegraph.
Source: The Telegraph
The technology should enable users to track whether they came in contact with any infected people via Bluetooth signals.
VP of Engineering David Burke penned the post, which was published Friday afternoon on the East Coast. Read it in full below:
In May, we partnered with Apple to launch the Exposure Notifications System (ENS) and made it available to public health authorities around the world in their fight against COVID-19. The ENS allows public health authorities to develop apps that augment manual contact tracing efforts while preserving the privacy of their citizens. As of today, public health authorities have used ENS to launch in 16 countries and regions across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America, with more apps currently under development.
In the United States, 20 states and territories—representing approximately 45 percent of the U.S. population—are exploring apps based on ENS. We expect to see the first set of these apps roll out over the coming weeks. The Association of Public Health Laboratories also announced recently that it will host a national key server to support all U.S. states, which will allow people with Exposure Notification apps to receive alerts even if they travel across state borders.
We’ve continued to improve the technology and provide more transparency based on feedback we’ve received from public health authorities and other experts. Public health authorities will continue to make their own decisions about how exposure notifications become part of their plans in controlling COVID-19, and we will work to improve the technology in response to their feedback. Here are some of the changes we’ve already made, as well as some upcoming additional changes.
Improvements to the Exposure Notification API
Since the Exposure Notification API was publicly released in May, we’ve spoken with dozens of public health authorities to understand how the API could be improved to help them better manage the COVID-19 pandemic while preserving privacy. Based on this feedback, we recently launched an update to the API, which includes the following changes:
When an exposure is detected, public health authorities now have more flexibility in determining the level of risk associated with that exposure based on technical information from the API.
Bluetooth calibration values for hundreds of devices have been updated to improve the detection of nearby devices.
The API now supports interoperability between countries, following feedback from governments that have launched Exposure Notification apps.
To help public health authorities build apps more efficiently, we’ve added reliability improvements for apps and developer debug tools.
We’ve improved clarity, transparency and control for users. For example, the Exposure Notifications settings on Android now include a simple on/off toggle at the top of the page. In addition, users will also see a periodic reminder if ENS is turned on.
Technical guidance and transparency
We’ve heard feedback that public health authorities and developers want more technical guidance about how ENS works. In response, we’ve published the following resources over the last few weeks:
Reference verification server to help guide public health authorities in building a server that allows verification of test results when users report themselves as positive for COVID-19.
Implementation code showing how the Exposure Notification API works underneath the hood.
Telemetry design explaining what de-identified diagnostics data is collected to ensure that ENS is functioning properly and securely.
Additional technical resources will be publicly shared as we continue to improve ENS.
Education and privacy protections
The Exposure Notifications website has more information about ENS, and offers educational and technical resources, as well as the latest updates.
As a quick reminder, here are some of the core privacy protections that were built into ENS:
You decide whether you want to use Exposure Notifications—it’s off unless you turn it on.
ENS doesn’t use location data from your device.
Your identity is not shared with Google, Apple or other users.
Only public health authorities can use this system.
Finally, we’ve received questions about why your Android device location setting has to be turned on if you want to use an Exposure Notification app. We want to explain why this particular setting needs to be on, and how you can control your location settings on Android.
To be absolutely clear, ENS does not use device location, and the policies for using ENS prohibit public health authority apps from requesting or collecting device location. Instead, ENS uses Bluetooth technology to detect when two devices are near each other, without revealing the location of either device. While Bluetooth scanning doesn’t necessarily reveal location, it can in some cases be used to infer your device’s location. For example, if a shopping app scans for the Bluetooth signals of a stationary Bluetooth beacon located inside a store, then the app could infer that you went to that store. So in 2015, with privacy in mind, we designed the Android operating system to prevent Bluetooth scanning unless the device location setting is on. At that time no one could have anticipated that Bluetooth scanning might one day be helpful in controlling a global pandemic like COVID-19.
Our engineering teams have been working to update the next version of Android with Exposure Notifications in mind. On Android 11, which will soon be released, users will be able to use Exposure Notification apps without turning on the device location setting. We’re making this update for Exposure Notifications only, given that ENS has been designed in such a way that neither the system nor the apps using it can infer device location through Bluetooth scanning, and apps that are allowed to use ENS are subject to additional policies that disallow automatic collection of location. All other apps and services will still be prohibited from performing Bluetooth scanning unless the device location setting is on.
But even in current versions of Android, when you turn on the device location setting, your phone continues to prohibit access to any apps, including Google apps, that don’t have permission to use device location. The device location setting is like a circuit breaker in a house: When it’s on, power is flowing to the house, but you can turn the lights on or off in each room. If you turn on the device location setting to use ENS, it won’t affect the decisions you’ve already made about specific apps. You can always view and change which apps have access to your device location by going to Settings > Location > App permissions.
We’re committed to supporting public health authorities as they build tools to fight COVID-19. We’ll continue to improve ENS based on feedback, while ensuring that people can trust in the privacy-preserving design of this technology.
Source: Google
Article sourced from Zerohedge
Top image: Pixabay
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-08-01--State’s Highest Court Says Cops Can No Longer Use Smell of Weed to Search or Arrest People

Maryland — In case after infuriating case , the Free Thought Project has reported on instances of horrifying rights violations all stemming from a police officer claiming to smell a plant .
We have seen both women and men sodomized and raped — often times in public — as cops search for this smell .
We have seen entire families held hostage , women and children beaten up , rampant sexual assault , and all of it stemming from a plant smell .
Apparently , the violence has gotten so out of hand that one top court in Maryland is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odor of marijuana , without more , does not provide law enforcement officers with the requisite probable cause to arrest and perform a warrantless search of that person incident to the arrest , ” the court said in a unanimous ruling authored by Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera this week .
The Court of Appeals of Maryland , the highest-ranking court in the state , builds on a ruling last year — which opened by quoting Bob Dylan singing “ the times they are a-changin ’ ” — that police are not justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the smell of marijuana .
Now , the new ruling goes further by stating that the smell alone is also not justification to make an arrest either .
The ruling was unanimous and common sense prevailed among all seven judges .
The ruling came from a case that unfolded in 2016 in which Michael Pacheco was searched and subsequently arrested because police claimed to smell weed in his car .
During the proceedings , the state claimed that an odor could be indicative of a larger amount , which gives police probable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court claimed this is not the case on an individual , they upheld that cops could search your vehicle if they smell weed .
“ One of the justifications for the automobile exception is the diminished expectation of privacy one enjoys in his or her vehicle , ” the court ruled this week .
“ In juxtaposition , there is a heightened expectation of privacy enjoyed in one ’ s person .
Arresting and searching a person , without a warrant and based exclusively on the odor of marijuana on that person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unreasonable and does violence to the fundamental privacy expectation in one ’ s body ; the same concerns do not attend the search of a vehicle.
” David Jaros , a law professor at the University of Baltimore , said the ruling is more “ evidence that a mere citation-level of marijuana can not be leveraged into probable cause to search … and serves notice on police and state ’ s attorneys.
” But , he said , “ while it seems significant , if you want to change the trajectory of policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ searches and marijuana are used , we have to confront ” the issue of vehicle searches based on the smell of marijuana .
There remains a wide array of tools at the disposal for police to parlay a minor stop into a search , and despite being decriminalized , marijuana has remained a common way for police to stop and search people .
Police may stop people based on a traffic violation , say they smell marijuana , and search the vehicle .
; such stops are often racially disproportionate .
Become an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month at Patreon .
Though it is not perfect , as Jaros points out , this ruling is still a major boon for freedom and will only serve to improve police and citizen interactions by removing one of the ways police can harass individuals .
Hopefully it will spread to other states .
“ It ’ s a massive impact of not going all the way and fully legalizing marijuana , ” Jaros said .
As TFTP reported in June 2019 , an infuriating video was shared with the Free Thought Project showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple innocent people because one of them smelled marijuana .
No marijuana was found , but that didn ’ t stop cops from holding a family and their guests hostage for over an hour to look for it .
Also in June , TFTP reported the case of Erica Reynolds , 37 , who is seeking $ 12.5 million in damages accusing police of sexual assault and battery , wrongful arrest , false imprisonment , gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress .
The reason for this sexual assault and battery ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ TFTP reported on another case in which Chanel Bates , 26 , was leaving a restaurant when she was targeted by police who claimed they smelled marijuana .
The officers ’ olfactory intuition was then used as the justification to detain , savagely beat , and kidnap the entirely innocent woman who had caused harm to no one .
The infuriating and disturbing scene was captured on video .
In the land of the free , cops will claim to smell a plant on you and use that claim to violate your body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people still have the audacity to call this “ justice.
” Luckily , as this ruling in Maryland highlights , these people are becoming fewer by the minute .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matt Agorist
Maryland — In case after infuriating case, the Free Thought Project has reported on instances of horrifying rights violations all stemming from a police officer claiming to smell a plant. We have seen both women and men sodomized and raped — often times in public — as cops search for this smell. We have seen entire families held hostage, women and children beaten up, rampant sexual assault, and all of it stemming from a plant smell. Apparently, the violence has gotten so out of hand that one top court in Maryland is doing something about it.
“The odor of marijuana, without more, does not provide law enforcement officers with the requisite probable cause to arrest and perform a warrantless search of that person incident to the arrest,” the court said in a unanimous ruling authored by Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera this week.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland, the highest-ranking court in the state, builds on a ruling last year — which opened by quoting Bob Dylan singing “the times they are a-changin’” — that police are not justified in searching a person based solely off of the smell of marijuana.
Now, the new ruling goes further by stating that the smell alone is also not justification to make an arrest either.
The ruling was unanimous and common sense prevailed among all seven judges. The ruling came from a case that unfolded in 2016 in which Michael Pacheco was searched and subsequently arrested because police claimed to smell weed in his car.
During the proceedings, the state claimed that an odor could be indicative of a larger amount, which gives police probable cause to search for more. Though the court claimed this is not the case on an individual, they upheld that cops could search your vehicle if they smell weed.
“One of the justifications for the automobile exception is the diminished expectation of privacy one enjoys in his or her vehicle,” the court ruled this week. “In juxtaposition, there is a heightened expectation of privacy enjoyed in one’s person. Arresting and searching a person, without a warrant and based exclusively on the odor of marijuana on that person’s body or breath, is unreasonable and does violence to the fundamental privacy expectation in one’s body; the same concerns do not attend the search of a vehicle.”
As the Baltimore Sun reports:
David Jaros, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, said the ruling is more “evidence that a mere citation-level of marijuana cannot be leveraged into probable cause to search … and serves notice on police and state’s attorneys.” But, he said, “while it seems significant, if you want to change the trajectory of policing and criminalization in terms of how police searches and marijuana are used, we have to confront” the issue of vehicle searches based on the smell of marijuana. There remains a wide array of tools at the disposal for police to parlay a minor stop into a search, and despite being decriminalized, marijuana has remained a common way for police to stop and search people. Police may stop people based on a traffic violation, say they smell marijuana, and search the vehicle.; such stops are often racially disproportionate.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Though it is not perfect, as Jaros points out, this ruling is still a major boon for freedom and will only serve to improve police and citizen interactions by removing one of the ways police can harass individuals. Hopefully it will spread to other states.
“It’s a massive impact of not going all the way and fully legalizing marijuana,” Jaros said.
As TFTP reported in June 2019, an infuriating video was shared with the Free Thought Project showing North Carolina cops violate the rights of multiple innocent people because one of them smelled marijuana. No marijuana was found, but that didn’t stop cops from holding a family and their guests hostage for over an hour to look for it.
Also in June, TFTP reported the case of Erica Reynolds, 37, who is seeking $12.5 million in damages accusing police of sexual assault and battery, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The reason for this sexual assault and battery? Cops smelled weed.
In November, TFTP reported on another case in which Chanel Bates, 26, was leaving a restaurant when she was targeted by police who claimed they smelled marijuana. The officers’ olfactory intuition was then used as the justification to detain, savagely beat, and kidnap the entirely innocent woman who had caused harm to no one. The infuriating and disturbing scene was captured on video.
In the land of the free, cops will claim to smell a plant on you and use that claim to violate your body in the most horrific way. And some people still have the audacity to call this “justice.” Luckily, as this ruling in Maryland highlights, these people are becoming fewer by the minute.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-08-01--Now in Effect: Three Louisiana Laws Expand Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition

Today , three Louisiana laws went into effect that expand the state ’ s medical-marijuana program despite federal prohibition .
Rep. Larry Bagley ( R-Stonewall ) introduced House Bill 819 ( HB819 ) in March .
The new law gives physicians complete discretion in recommending medical marijuana to their patients .
As introduced , the legislation added traumatic brain injuries and concussions to the list of conditions that qualify a patient for medical marijuana .
A House committee expanded the bill to allow doctors to recommend medicinal cannabis to patients for any debilitating condition that they deem fit .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marijuana purchases in the state prescription monitoring program database .
On May 15 , the House passed HB819 by a 77-15 vote .
The Senate approved the measure on May 27 by a 28-6 vote .
With Gov .
John Bel Edwards ’ signature , the law goes went into effect Aug. 1 .
Louisiana joins California , Maine , and Virginia in giving doctors full discretion to recommend cannabis .
Rep. Jeremy LaCombe ( D-Livonia ) introduced House Bill 418 ( HB418 ) back in February .
Under the law , any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patient and any facility that is licensed by the Louisiana Department of Health that has patients in its care using medical marijuana under state law are exempt from prosecution under the state ’ s marijuana laws .
In effect , the law ensures physicians recommending medical marijuana will be shielded from state prosecution .
On May 22 , the House passed HB418 by a 75-18 vote .
The Senate approved the measure on Friday 34-2 .
The House concurred with a technical amendment and with Edwards ’ signature , the law went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-Baton Rouge ) introduced House Bill 211 ( HB211 ) in February .
The law protects banks and credit unions that service cannabis businesses from being penalized by state regulators .
The new statute prohibits regulators from taking any action to discourage financial institutions in the state from servicing legitimate medical marijuana businesses , or from levying any penalties against banks or credit unions serving medical marijuana businesses .
The House passed HB211 by a 73-20 vote and the Senate approved the measure 29-0 .
With Edwards ’ signature , the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
West Virginia enacted a similar law last year .
This legislation intended to allay fears that banks will be prosecuted or penalized for taking in marijuana-related accounts .
The Federal government has used banking laws as a weapon in its unconstitutional war on cannabis by making it impossible for marijuana businesses to access the banking system – even in states where marijuana has been legalized .
The feds can prosecute bankers for knowingly engaging with cannabis businesses under the Bank Secrecy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ( RICO ) Act .
While the enactment of HB211 can not stop federal prosecution of a Louisiana financial institution engaging in the medical marijuana business , it will provide some assurance that the state will shield it from financial loss and could create an environment where banks in the state are willing to handle medical marijuana funds .
Under the federal Controlled Substances Act ( CSA ) passed in 1970 , the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana .
Of course , the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state , despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court .
If you doubt this , ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition .
Despite federal prohibition , Louisiana legalized medical marijuana in 2015 , but there wasn ’ t any viable program in the state until the passage of two laws the following year .
The state expanded the program in 2018 .
Further expansion would remove yet another layer of laws punishing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , but federal prohibition would remain in effect .
This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state , not federal law .
When states stop enforcing marijuana laws , they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests .
Furthermore , figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA ’ s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state .
That doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lesson ?
The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance .
Louisiana joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition , and nullifying it in practice .
Colorado , Washington state , Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis , and California , Nevada , Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016 .
Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018 .
Vermont became the first state to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 .
Illinois followed suit in 2019 .
With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use , the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can ’ t enforce prohibition anymore .
The lesson here is pretty straightforward .
When enough people say , ‘ No !
’ to the federal government , and enough states pass laws backing those people up , there ’ s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws , regulations or mandates down our throats .
Efforts to expand medical marijuana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand .
As the state tears down some barriers , markets develop and demand expands .
That creates pressure to further relax state law .
These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition .
Michael Maharrey [ send him email ] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center .
He is from the original home of the Principles of ’ 98 – Kentucky and currently resides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book , Our Last Hope : Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty .
You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @

By Michael Maharrey
Today, three Louisiana laws went into effect that expand the state’s medical-marijuana program despite federal prohibition.
Rep. Larry Bagley (R-Stonewall) introduced House Bill 819 (HB819) in March. The new law gives physicians complete discretion in recommending medical marijuana to their patients. As introduced, the legislation added traumatic brain injuries and concussions to the list of conditions that qualify a patient for medical marijuana. A House committee expanded the bill to allow doctors to recommend medicinal cannabis to patients for any debilitating condition that they deem fit. A Senate amendment requires dispensaries to record medical marijuana purchases in the state prescription monitoring program database.
On May 15, the House passed HB819 by a 77-15 vote. The Senate approved the measure on May 27 by a 28-6 vote. With Gov. John Bel Edwards’ signature, the law goes went into effect Aug. 1.
Louisiana joins California, Maine, and Virginia in giving doctors full discretion to recommend cannabis.
Rep. Jeremy LaCombe (D-Livonia) introduced House Bill 418 (HB418) back in February. Under the law, any physician who recommends medical marijuana to a patient and any facility that is licensed by the Louisiana Department of Health that has patients in its care using medical marijuana under state law are exempt from prosecution under the state’s marijuana laws. In effect, the law ensures physicians recommending medical marijuana will be shielded from state prosecution.
On May 22, the House passed HB418 by a 75-18 vote. The Senate approved the measure on Friday 34-2. The House concurred with a technical amendment and with Edwards’ signature, the law went into effect Aug. 1.
Rep. Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge) introduced House Bill 211 (HB211) in February. The law protects banks and credit unions that service cannabis businesses from being penalized by state regulators. The new statute prohibits regulators from taking any action to discourage financial institutions in the state from servicing legitimate medical marijuana businesses, or from levying any penalties against banks or credit unions serving medical marijuana businesses.
The House passed HB211 by a 73-20 vote and the Senate approved the measure 29-0. With Edwards’ signature, the law went into effect Aug. 1.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
West Virginia enacted a similar law last year. This legislation intended to allay fears that banks will be prosecuted or penalized for taking in marijuana-related accounts. The Federal government has used banking laws as a weapon in its unconstitutional war on cannabis by making it impossible for marijuana businesses to access the banking system – even in states where marijuana has been legalized. The feds can prosecute bankers for knowingly engaging with cannabis businesses under the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
While the enactment of HB211 cannot stop federal prosecution of a Louisiana financial institution engaging in the medical marijuana business, it will provide some assurance that the state will shield it from financial loss and could create an environment where banks in the state are willing to handle medical marijuana funds.
EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION
Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.
Despite federal prohibition, Louisiana legalized medical marijuana in 2015, but there wasn’t any viable program in the state until the passage of two laws the following year. The state expanded the program in 2018. Further expansion would remove yet another layer of laws punishing the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.
Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Louisiana joins a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.
Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when voters legalized cannabis for general use in 2018. Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. Illinois followed suit in 2019.
With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.
The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.
Efforts to expand medical marijuana laws in Louisiana underscore another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is from the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-08-01--Facebook to License Robots for Installing Fiber on Powerlines = Job Cuts for Humans + Sounds Risky

Facebook provides a free social media platform but that obviously that hasn ’ t stopped them from making boatloads of money which they ’ ve invested in questionable and reprehensible business ventures .
Much of their income is based on collecting and sharing personal user data ( see 1 , 2 , 3 .
4 ) also known as “ Surveillance Capitalism.
” Other recent business ventures include promoting the use of Virtual Reality ( VR ) despite health risks from VR use and licensing robots to install fiber for internet service .
The problem : Half of the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meet the machines that may provide the solution .
In a blog post , Facebook says it ’ s come up with a robot capable of aerial fiber optic cable deployment .
It ’ s part of a bid by Facebook Connectivity to bring high-speed internet to remote parts of the world .
Facebook won ’ t install or control the fiber networks , but will instead license the robotic installation technology to internet service providers .
Only time will tell if robots are a better option than humans for this job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding safety issues associated with automated vehicles ( AVs ) .
Of course , ISPs that decide to license robots from Facebook should insure themselves for ALL risks associated with installation ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information , visit our archives .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Facebook provides a free social media platform but that obviously that hasn’t stopped them from making boatloads of money which they’ve invested in questionable and reprehensible business ventures.
Much of their income is based on collecting and sharing personal user data (see 1, 2, 3. 4) also known as “Surveillance Capitalism.” Other recent business ventures include promoting the use of Virtual Reality (VR) despite health risks from VR use and licensing robots to install fiber for internet service.
From Popular Mechanics:
Here Come Facebook’s Fiber-Wrapping Robots The problem: Half of the world doesn’t have internet access. Meet the machines that may provide the solution. In a blog post, Facebook says it’s come up with a robot capable of aerial fiber optic cable deployment. It’s part of a bid by Facebook Connectivity to bring high-speed internet to remote parts of the world. Facebook won’t install or control the fiber networks, but will instead license the robotic installation technology to internet service providers. Read full article
Only time will tell if robots are a better option than humans for this job. Automation already has a bad reputation especially regarding safety issues associated with automated vehicles (AVs). Of course, ISPs that decide to license robots from Facebook should insure themselves for ALL risks associated with installation (see 1, 2, 3).
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives.
Image: Gigazine
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-08-02--US Beach Towns Fear Collapse As Summer Of Pandemic Causes Havoc

The executive director of the Bethany-Fenwick Chamber of Commerce , Lauren Weaver , told USA Today that “ our businesses ( located on the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula ) have 12 weeks to make money to survive the rest of the year… sales for the town ’ s 75 or so beach-district merchants are down 40 % to 70 % compared with a year ago.
” Weaver warned : “ A lot of them are not going to survive ” this season .
Bethany-Fenwick is an upscale beach community , home to wealthy elites , such as Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it challenging for local businesses to operate , many of whom only make money during the summer months .
Down the street , about 20 minutes south , revenue for businesses in Ocean City , Maryland , is down 20 % to 25 % , said Susan Jones , head of the Ocean City Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Association .
Jones said the city ’ s decision to reopen beaches in early May despite the virus pandemic helped businesses survive .
She said this year is a not a profitability story , but rather a break-even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beaches , which are a string of beach towns that generate more than $ 3.5 billion in annual revenue , according to Southern Delaware Tourism .
Much of the area is dependent on travel and tourism .
Bethany was shut down for 2.5 months to mitigate the virus spread , reopened in early June with stores and restaurants operating at 30 % capacity .
Capacity has doubled to 60 % in July ; the recovery , however , is anything but smooth .
The reopening of eateries in Dewey has been rough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down restaurants before July 4 holiday , one of the biggest revenue days of the year for businesses in the area , after tourists tested positive for COVID-19 .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income The Bethany Beach Ocean Suites Hotel said the average summer rate is $ 799 per night , has been dramatically reduced following a rash of cancellations .
Alex Heidenberger , who co-owns Mango ’ s eatery in Bethany , said he “ cried ” when the governor decided to shut restaurants ahead of July 4th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revenue fell by $ 300,000 in the weeks before and after July 4 , accounting for the bulk of the $ 400,000 in losses the restaurant has sustained during the crisis.
” During the good times , he said the restaurant made $ 200,000 per week in sales , and around $ 2 million in summer revenue .
This summer , he said , Mango ’ s sales have been halved .
Heidenberger said he hasn ’ t paid the mortgage in four months .
Profitability at the restaurant has collapsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has had to serve as a lifeguard on the beach as a shortage in beach crew was due to lockdowns .
He wasn ’ t sure if Mango ’ s was going to make it through the summer : A similar collapse is happening in beach communities in California , Florida , New Jersey , and Texas .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
The executive director of the Bethany-Fenwick Chamber of Commerce, Lauren Weaver, told USA Today that “our businesses (located on the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula) have 12 weeks to make money to survive the rest of the year… sales for the town’s 75 or so beach-district merchants are down 40% to 70% compared with a year ago.”
Weaver warned: “A lot of them are not going to survive” this season.
Bethany-Fenwick is an upscale beach community, home to wealthy elites, such as Joe Biden.
The virus pandemic has made it challenging for local businesses to operate, many of whom only make money during the summer months.
Down the street, about 20 minutes south, revenue for businesses in Ocean City, Maryland, is down 20% to 25%, said Susan Jones, head of the Ocean City Hotel-Motel-Restaurant Association.
Jones said the city’s decision to reopen beaches in early May despite the virus pandemic helped businesses survive. She said this year is a not a profitability story, but rather a break-even story.
Back to Rehoboth and Dewey Beaches, which are a string of beach towns that generate more than $3.5 billion in annual revenue, according to Southern Delaware Tourism. Much of the area is dependent on travel and tourism.
Bethany was shut down for 2.5 months to mitigate the virus spread, reopened in early June with stores and restaurants operating at 30% capacity. Capacity has doubled to 60% in July; the recovery, however, is anything but smooth.
The reopening of eateries in Dewey has been rough. Gov. John Carney had to shut down restaurants before July 4 holiday, one of the biggest revenue days of the year for businesses in the area, after tourists tested positive for COVID-19.
The Bethany Beach Ocean Suites Hotel said the average summer rate is $799 per night, has been dramatically reduced following a rash of cancellations.
Alex Heidenberger, who co-owns Mango’s eatery in Bethany, said he “cried” when the governor decided to shut restaurants ahead of July 4th weekend.
Heidenberger said, “Mango’s revenue fell by $300,000 in the weeks before and after July 4, accounting for the bulk of the $400,000 in losses the restaurant has sustained during the crisis.”
“To take two steps back, that is the worst possible scenario,” said Heidenberger.
During the good times, he said the restaurant made $200,000 per week in sales, and around $2 million in summer revenue. This summer, he said, Mango’s sales have been halved.
“It’s really devastating us,” he said. “I’m operating at a loss,” adding that, “every day is a new challenge — it’s just exhausting.”
Heidenberger said he hasn’t paid the mortgage in four months. Profitability at the restaurant has collapsed. With the beach town in crisis, he has had to serve as a lifeguard on the beach as a shortage in beach crew was due to lockdowns.
“I’m working harder than I have ever worked in my life,” he said, adding that he puts in about 80 hours a week at the two restaurants. Yet, “I have no money… This is all I think about. I don’t sleep.”
He wasn’t sure if Mango’s was going to make it through the summer:
“I don’t know what the future is going to be,” Heidenberger said, noting his family already has closed two restaurants in D.C. as a result of the pandemic. At the same time, he said, “This is all I know. This is what I love.”
A similar collapse is happening in beach communities in California, Florida, New Jersey, and Texas.
Source: Zerohedge
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-08-02--The Plan To Silence Doctors Once And For All

Last week an organization of doctors called America ’ s Frontline Doctors went to Washington DC and gave a press release in front of the Supreme Court .
What this group of doctors said directly contradicted official positions of the World Health Organization and the Centers For Disease Control regarding the coronavirus and treatment of the infection as the new experimental vaccine could arrive before the end of the year .
Members of the doctors ’ organization have been fired from their jobs , they have had their website removed and the viral video has been almost scrubbed from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
It appears that censoring doctors who speak out against the medical establishment may only be a temporary solution .
Just today , right on time , the World Economic Forum released a video called ‘ When Your Doctor Is A Robot.
’ Will doctors and nurses one day be replaced by artificial intelligence and robots ?
After all , robots don ’ t ask questions… They follow orders .
NOTE : This was pulled from YouTube within minutes , but still available on a platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries https : //www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability/astrazeneca-to-be-exempt-from-coronavirus-vaccine-liability-claims-in-most-countries-idUSKCN24V2EN Brookings Launches Global Health Financing Initiative with Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation https : //www.brookings.edu/news-releases/brookings-launches-global-health-financing-initiative-with-grant-from-the-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/ Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Spiro Skouras
Last week an organization of doctors called America’s Frontline Doctors went to Washington DC and gave a press release in front of the Supreme Court.
What this group of doctors said directly contradicted official positions of the World Health Organization and the Centers For Disease Control regarding the coronavirus and treatment of the infection as the new experimental vaccine could arrive before the end of the year.
Members of the doctors’ organization have been fired from their jobs, they have had their website removed and the viral video has been almost scrubbed from the internet.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
It appears that censoring doctors who speak out against the medical establishment may only be a temporary solution. Just today, right on time, the World Economic Forum released a video called ‘When Your Doctor Is A Robot.’
Will doctors and nurses one day be replaced by artificial intelligence and robots? After all, robots don’t ask questions… They follow orders.
NOTE: This was pulled from YouTube within minutes, but it is still available on a platform that promotes free speech: BitChute

Frontline ER Doctor From Viral HCQ Video Fired From Job (Updated)
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/07/frontline-er-doctor-from-viral-hcq-video-fired-from-job.html
AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability/astrazeneca-to-be-exempt-from-coronavirus-vaccine-liability-claims-in-most-countries-idUSKCN24V2EN
Will Robots Replace Doctors?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/usc-brookings-schaeffer-on-health-policy/2019/03/05/will-robots-replace-doctors/
Brookings Launches Global Health Financing Initiative with Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
https://www.brookings.edu/news-releases/brookings-launches-global-health-financing-initiative-with-grant-from-the-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/
Follow Spiro on BitChute bitchute.com/channel/spiro/ Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/o_rips
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.