One little US town is showing the world how a small community can take on big oil and gas. Lafayette, Colo. (pop. 25,733) was unhappily facing fracking within their town area. The citizens banded together with environmental groups and amended their Community Bill of Rights to secure their right to clean air, pure water, and the rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish.

Besides Lafayette’s stand, moratoriums and bans have been enacted in six small cities and towns with a combined total of more than 400,000 citizens.

The Community Bill of Rights was amended on November 6, Election Day. The margin for the vote was nearly 60 percent, and in nearby Oberlin, OH. (pop. 8,286) the vote was over 70 percent in favor.

The vote was held after an employee of Halliburton, the world’s second largest oil field services company, filed a complaint with the elections board that the amendment being proposed by the community would have to include a summary of the measure according to state law.

The petitioners included the entirety of the amendment language, and the city clerk, Susan Koster, threw out the petition challenge, stating, “As a home rule city, Lafayette operates under a citizen adopted charter. In the case of this protest, the petition submitted to amend the City’s Charter complied with the Colorado Home Rule Act.”

Among the other challenges anti-fracking citizens faced were the Colorado Oil and Gas Association’s (COGA) $66,974 investment in local media and claims that the “Bowling Green” charter amendment would kill jobs and raise energy costs buy over 80 percent.

The city itself enacted an ordinance that banned fracking. This was a way of dissuading voters from voting for the charter amendment, according to the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF),which helped craft the Community Bill of Rights, because the ordinance was subject to being rescinded by the Council after the election was over. Similar actions had recently succeeded in nearby Broadview Heights and Mansfield, OH, according to CELDF.

However, Lafayette voted to adopt the charter amendment, banning fracking.

One month later, COGA filed suit against the city in attempt to overturn the fracking ban.

Then, energy industry representatives began private meetings with Gov. John Hickenlooper. Eleven environmental groups formally requested to be present at any such meetings.

“Apparently, it is now simply business as usual to shut out the voice of the people when making decisions that effect us all,” said the president of Protect our Loveland, Sharon J. Carlisle. “We demand our rightful place in your smoke-filled, oil- and gas-filled rooms of secret wheelings and dealings.”

Gov. John Hickenlooper

Hickenlooper approved a Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s lawsuit with Longmont City in an attempt to overturn that city’s fracking ban last summer, but weeks later admitted fracking was something “no one wants in their backyard.”

Reacting to the COGA suit, Lafayete residents filed a class-action lawsuit against COGA, the state of Colorado and Hickenlooper. The lawsuit is the first of its kind. Although the particular focus of the suit is fracking, it insists on the right of local self governance for citizens, protected through a community bill of rights. The residents’ suit alleges that their right to self governance is guaranteed by the US Constitution, the COGA Act infringes that right, and Colorado officials are guilty of not enforcing the ban on fracking. The residents allege that the ban passed in November was not being enforced.

CELDF executive director, Thomas Linzey, Esq., said of the suit, “This class action lawsuit is merely the first of many by people

Thomas Linzey, Esq

across the United States whose constitutional rights to govern their own communities are routinely violated by state governments working in concert with the corporations that they ostensibly regulate.

“The people of Lafayette will not stand idly by as their rights are negotiated away by oil and gas corporations, their state government, and their own municipal government.”

Halliburton Dubai Headquarters

Halliburton Co. is incorporated in the US, where its headquarters is in Houston, TX., but its chairman and CEO, David Lesar, works and lives in Dubai, where Halliburton’s other headquarters is located.

The company took in $5 billion of profits for the past three fiscal years, and billions in the years before.

Halliburton has recently been the source of several controversies. In 2013, the company pled guilty on charges of destroying evidence relating to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, incurring a $200,000 statutory fine. In addition, Halliburton has been implicated in the creation of a toxic cloud that forced evacuations in Farmington, New Mexico in 2006, and it may also be implicated in spill in a 2009 Timor Sea off Australia and a 2010 improper cementing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Market Watch

CELDF

EcoWatch

The post One Little US Town Is Showing the World How a Small Community Can Stand Up to Big Oil and Gas and Stop Fracking appeared first on The Speaker.

California, which has the largest sex offender registry in the United States, has received the news from the California Sex Offender Management Board that their registry is not working. The board reported that the fast-growing registry included too many unnecessary people and that it did not help law enforcement or the public differentiate potentially risky offenders from those who would likely not reoffend.

The board reported that about 95 percent of solved sex crimes are committed by people who are not on the registry, and said that the registry was created, in part, on assumptions that have since been proved to be wrong. The board called for an overhaul of the registry.

The board recommended to the California legislature that only high-risk offenders, such as violent predators and kidnappers–that is, offenders whose offenses are also characterized by something other than sex–should be required to register for life.

The list currently has 100,000 offenders registered, and is growing. California requires lifetime registration of all sex offenders. The nature or circumstances of the offense are not usually relevant to registration.

When the board reported earlier this year, they had found that the registry included many offenders “who do not necessarily pose a risk to the community.” Nine hundred such registered offenders last offended more than 55 years ago.

The registry is also used for Megan’s Law, a tool of law enforcement used to notify the public about sex offenders. It offers the public a searchable website of what are considered the most serious registered sex offenders. However, around 80 percent of all of California’s 100,000 registered offenders are posted on the Megan’s Law website.

In 2011, the California Sex Offender registry was audited. The audit found that the government department responsible for the state’s prison and parole system, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, had been illegally abusing the sex offender registry by forwarding all offenders for examination as possible sexually violent predators rather than using discretion. That is, anyone convicted of any sexual offense was forwarded to be considered for classification as a violent offender and so registered. The law did not permit this.

Not only that, since 2005, the audit found that although 59 percent of released sex offenders violated parole, only 1 percent committed a new offense. That one percent represented 134 convicts. Of those 134, only one committed a new sex offense.

California State Auditor

SFGate

On The Media

NPR

Pop Sugar

Freakonomics

The post Nation’s Largest Sex Offender Registry Finds Sex Offender Registry Does Not Work appeared first on The Speaker.

The DC Appeals Court sided with Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg Friday in a case over several pages on Facebook, such as “Third Palestinian Intifada,” which called for Muslims to rise up and kill Jews. The ruling was based on the protections given to all Americans using the internet under a section of a 1996 law.

Three years ago, Klayman saw the Facebook page “Third Palestinian Intifada,” of which there were 360,000 members, as well as three similar, smaller pages, and complained to Facebook because the pages called for Muslims to rise up and kill Jews. After receiving a letter from Israel’s Minister for Public Diplomacy as well as from Klayman, Facebook removed the pages, but not fast enough, according to Klayman, who filed suit against Facebook and Zuckerberg. Klayman alleged that the delay of “many days” constituted intentional assulat and negligence.

Mark Zuckerberg

The district court which heard the suit found for Facebook and Zuckerberg on the basis of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (1996), Section 230. Klayman appealed the decision, and Friday the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the decision of the district court.

“In enacting the Communications Decency Act,” wrote the court in its decision, “Congress found that the Internet and related computer services ‘represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources,’ and ‘offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for

intellectual activity.”

The court concluded that Facebook and Zuckerberg–internet providers under Section 230–could not be held responsible for any content on their site(s), no matter how egregious it may seem to another user. “Facebook is not responsible for the actions, content, information, or data of third parties,” the court found.

“Congress accordingly made it the ‘policy of the United States’ to ‘promote the continued development of the Internet,’” the court continued, “and ‘to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation[.]‘”

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996. It was in part an effort by the US Congress to regulate internet pornography, but in 1997 the US Supreme Court unanimously struck the “community standards” provision of the CDA in Reno v. ACLU because the provisions violated the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech.

Another part of the CDA, however, has been strengthened by court decisions over the years. Section 230 protects operators of internet services–such as Facebook–from being construed as publishers. Section 230 protects social media sites, ISPs and users by making them not liable for words posted on their sites by other people (except  regarding federal criminal liability and intellectual property). The section reads, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Providers are even protected if they fail to take action after receiving notifications that harmful or offensive content exists on their sites.

Section 230 is considered a main protection of free speech online. Last year, after 47 state attorneys general signed a letter to Congress requesting the civil immunity in Section 230 be removed, the ACLU wrote, “Section 230 is directly responsible for the free, messy, uncensored, and often brilliant culture of online speech. By prohibiting most state civil or criminal liability for something somebody else writes or posts, it created the single most important legal protection that exists for websites, bloggers, and other internet users… If Section 230 is stripped of its protections, it wouldn’t take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web.”

CADC

ACLU

The post Facebook Beats Conservative Lawyer in Lawsuit Over Facebook Page Encouraging Muslims to Kill Jews appeared first on The Speaker.

Bill HR4490, which has passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, would make Voice of America (VOA) officially a designated “public diplomacy” service, as well make additional changes in US international news communications–as a reaction against the alleged media manipulations of “countries like Russia.”

VOA would be mandated to “provide a sharper focus on explaining the United States, US government policies, and international news that affects the United States. The VOA’s role would be “public diplomacy” as well as providing objective, comprehensive news coverage. There is also a new VOA director provision that sets out the responsibilities–as well as the qualification requirements–of that position, and sets the VOA director under the supervision of the USICA CEO.

Currently, the tax-funded VOA has a mission expressed in the VOA Charter, which was created in 1960 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976. The Charter, which states that “to be effective, [VOA] must win the attention and respect of listeners,” and sets out three principles: 1) serving as a consistently reliable and authoritative news source which is “accurate, objective and comprehensive;” 2) represent America in a balanced and comprehensive way;” and 3) will present US policies clearly and effectively, as well as responsible discussions and opinion on the policies. The VOA Charter is not included in the bill, but “elements are integrated into the bill’s new VOA principles,” according to the report. The bill alters the mission of VOA by explicitly stating that VOA has a role in supporting American “public diplomacy” and government policies.

VOA was created in 1942 as part of the Office of War Information and with a mission of countering Nazi and Japanese propaganda. VOA became part of the State Department during the Cold War, and then became part of the US Information Agency, countering Communist propaganda in East Germany and other Soviet-backed states. VOA has been overseen by the BBG since 1999.

Related:

Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes

New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies

Sources:

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

The post US Bill To Make VOA Officially a “Public Diplomacy” Service appeared first on The Speaker.

Bill HR4490, which has already passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, and is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this summer, would create a new “federal news network,” called Freedom News Network, which would subsume other US international news agencies.

Under a section of the bill headed “Creation of the Federal News Network,” the bill is explained to provide for the creation of the Freedom News Network (FNN), consolidating the grantee broadcasters Radio Free Europe/Radio Libety (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) into one “surrogate” grantee broadcaster. The brands would remain unchanged, thus maintaining “audience name recognition.”

The board for the FNN would be composed of new individuals appointed by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House of Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

The FNN would also expand its programming “into regions where no current individual surrogate broadcaster currently operates,” such as sub-Saharan Africa.

The FNN’s mission is provided by the new bill: “[sharpening] the legislative vision of the proper focus for surrogate programming, directing the new grantee to promote democracy, civil society, free media, political freedom, and uncensored flows of information”

Related:

Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

Share and Enjoy

The post New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies appeared first on The Speaker.

A new bill has passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support. The USICA bill, if it passes into law–it is expected to be taken up by the full House as early as this summer and the Senate is working on a similar bill–will abolish the current USIB Act, and the current bipartisan board in charge of international communications for US media, as well as the IBB, will be replaced with a new CEO vested with the authorities currently entrusted to the groups.

The bill was explained for members and committees of Congress in a report published recently by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which was written by Matthew Weed. Representative Ed Royce (R-CA), who is chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the legislation was essential in the face of negative and inaccurate information increasingly disseminated about the United States abroad, referring to “countries like Russia” and their information campaigns.

The United States International Communications Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4490) was introduced April 28 by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward Royce with co-sponsors, and the Committee voted in favor of the bill April 30.

The bill states that the BBG “operates poorly under a flawed structure, that the BBG’s internal operations and personnel
decision making have deficiencies, and that U.S. international broadcasters lack clearly defined missions.” The flaw of the “international broadcasters” leads, the bill finds, to “duplicative services and a lack of focus on the ‘public diplomacy’ and ‘surrogate’ missions of the broadcasters.”

The bill has several central provisions. One provision is the creation of a US International Communications Agency (USICA). If the bill is enacted, the current USIB Act would be repealed in its entirety (although HR4490 includes several provisions similar to those in USIB), and effectively abolish the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). A new agency–USICA–would be established.

There would also be a new board, which would presumably mirror the BBG’s structure. But the USICA Board would only have an advisory role in the new agency. The authority over communications–which is now vested in the bipartisan BBG board of nine governors–would instead be vested in a new USICA Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO would also have the authorities currently vested in the IBB. The board would retain the power to appoint and remove the CEO.

The current system under the BBG is a presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed board, with the Secretary of State serving as the ninth member ex officio. The BBG oversees the IBB, VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB and Radio/TV Marti), Radio Free Europe/Radio Libety (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN).

The bill also provides that US international broadcasting “is alligned with ‘broad’ US foreign policy interests, and reduce overlap in broadcast services.” The bill will do this by requiring the USICA and a new grantee surrogate “Freedom News Network” (FNN) to meet regularly and “coordinate with the US Department of State to share relevant information.”

The USICA would answer and report to Congress, including on matters such as “the size of the workforce, the structure of the organization, contracting methods and practices, and language services performance.”

Modern US international broadcasting is said to have begun during World War II. Since 1994 (United States International Broadcasting Act; USIB Act), all US international communications have been handled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) within the United States Information Agency (USIA). Members of Congress have frequently expressed interest in oversight over the BBG and its individual broadcasters, according to the congressional report. In 1998, Congress passed legislation establishing the BBG as an independent entity within the executive branch at the same time that it incorporated USIA’s functions into the State Department.

Bill HR4490 and the wider issue of increased congressional power over US broadcasting is expected to receive increased congressional attention during the second session of the 114th Congress, which began January 3.

Related:

New USICA Act Would Create a New US News Agency “Freedom News Agency,” Subsuming Other International News Agencies

HR4490

Congressional Research Service report

Federation of American Scientists

US Foreign Affairs

Share and Enjoy

The post Big Changes in US News Communications if Bill HR4490 Passes appeared first on The Speaker.

The petition to designate Russia a “state sponsor of terrorism” has passed the half way mark at the Obama Administration’s White House. The petition currently has 54,085 signatures, and needed only 45,915 signatures by May 23 to to qualify for reaching its goal of 100,000.

The petition, created April 23, reads,

“In its unannounced war against Ukraine, Russia relies on covert operations which fall squarely within the definition of ‘international terrorism’ under 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Specifically, armed operatives of Russia, acting under disguise, attempt to influence the policy of Ukrainian government by intimidation or coercion. They also try to affect the conduct of a government by assassinations and kidnapping, taking by force government buildings, police posts and military bases of Ukraine. This activity is being conducted on large scale and over prolonged time period, despite condemnation by the USA, G-7, NATO, EU and UN.

“Accordingly, Russia must be officially designated as ‘State sponsor of terrorism’, per http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm”

Code 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” as activities that occur outside of the US and “involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;” and “appear to be intended” “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;” “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or” “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.”

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331, “act of war” means “any act occurring in the course of” “declared war;” “armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or” “armed conflict between military forces of any origin.”

State sponsors of terrorism are, according to the US State Department, “countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” State sponsors of terrorism currently include Syria (added 1979), Cuba (1982), Iran (1984), Sudan (1993).

Nations designated “state sponsor of terrorism” are subject to three US laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. These laws restrict US foreign assistance, ban defense exports and sales and some other items, and provide financial and other restrictions. People and countries engaging in certain trade with a “state sponsor” are also implicated in sanctions and penalties.

Sources:

Petition at White House

US State Department

Findlaw

Share and Enjoy

The post Russia “State Sponsor of Terrorism” Petition to White House Passes Half Way Mark appeared first on The Speaker.

Arizona Senator Steve Yarbrough sponsored the bill that has now passed the Arizona state Senate as SB1062 in response to several trials in which people who had denied particular services requested for gay weddings had been sued under Arizona’s human rights laws, essentially forcing people in any business (other than private clubs and churches) to serve gay weddings even if their religious beliefs are contrary.  One such case was Elane Photography v. Willock (2013) (case and trial summary), in which a Christian photographer was sued for discrimination because she declined to photograph a gay wedding due to her religious convictions.

The Arizona bill was first drafted in January with the intention that it would protect religious rights (already protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments but ruled by Arizona’s high courts to be inferior to the protections written into the state’s anti-discrimination laws, which contain special protections for several named “protected groups,” including those who have sexual orientation toward the same-sex.

The bill amends the existing Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act to read:

A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSON SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both: In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.

E. A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: THAT THE PERSON’S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. THAT THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD. THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

F. THE PERSON ASSERTING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE UNDER SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION MAY OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs. E.

G. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

H. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE ACTION” MEANS ANY ACTION, EXCEPT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 41-1493.04, BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

The text of the bill contains several pieces of language that reflect the decisions of the New Mexico Supreme Court in its finding against Elane Photography last summer (August 2013).

In Section D., the bill allows assertion of religious rights “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.”  In Elane, the court ruled that Elane’s argument that the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) (under which Elane was charged with discrimination) violated the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA) was not a valid argument because the NMRFRA was not applicable in disputes where a government agency is not a party.

In Section F., the bill provides injunctive and declaratory relief, including attorney fees and costs, for people successfully asserting a claim under the bill (should it become an act).  In Elane, Elane Photography was sued for attorney fees to the amount of $6,637.94, payable to Vanessa Willock, the woman who propositioned Elane Photography to consider photographing her gay wedding.  Willock’s dealings with Elane only amounted to a few emails inquiring about service, and Willock found another, cheaper photographer for her wedding.  Elane, which was found guilty of discrimination, sought in its three trials (and seeks in its pending petition to the U.S. Supreme Court) a reversal of the award and a declaratory judgement that it had not discriminated, as well as a ruling that its rights had been violated.

By Day Blakely Donaldson

Sources:

Land and Sea Journal
AZ Central

Share and Enjoy

The post Arizona Senate Bill 1062 “Discrimination Bill” – What Is It? appeared first on The Speaker.