JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Lesson of Afghanistan
Brief #132 – Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney
With the U.S. military officially pulling out of Afghanistan, an almost 20-year conflict and the longest war in American history comes to an end, alongside a mandate from all those whose lives were lost and impacted to reflect upon what the war and its legacy meant.
A Guide to Air Travel in the Era of Covid
Brief #134 – Health & Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
Ever since the Covid pandemic started in early Jan 2020, airlines had lowered airfares, removed many of the cumbersome fees, and even started to provide snacks for economy passengers. And better still, the planes were less than 20% full, and often passengers had the entire row of seats to themselves. Cheap airfares across the country were readily available 24/7.
Supreme Court Inadvertently Supports Vigilante Justice In Texas Abortion Law Case
Brief #174 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On September 1, 2021 the United States Supreme Court issued its order in the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. The case began on July 13, 2021 when a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was brought on behalf of a number of abortion providers in the State of Texas. The plaintiffs were seeking to prevent enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) before it took effect on September 1, 2021.
The Frontlines of Gun Rights— Missouri’s “Second Amendment Preservation Act”
Brief #27 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
It is no secret that here in the United States, there is an invisible line dividing those who are in favor of more gun laws, and those who are opposed. Those who are opposed to gun reform and gun laws are usually staunch supporters of the Second Amendment (the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.”). Certain states feel that gun ownership outranks the safety of their citizens, and one of those states just so happens to be Missouri. This year, Missouri passed their “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” which essentially nullifies any federal gun laws. While the passage of such a law is no shock coming from a conservative state like Missouri, some of the implications behind the law are skirting on dangerous.
How Much Should You Walk for Good Health?
Brief #133 – Health and Gender Policy
By S. Bhimji
There is no question that walking is a good form of exercise. Not only is it free but it is safe. But how much walking is adequate for good health? Talk to ten fitness experts and one will most likely get 50 different answers. Today there are all types of gadgets that can monitor the number of steps you walk and the time it takes. Exercise fanatics have been tracking their steps for decades but a definitive daily goal has never been stated based on scientific evidence.
Why Universal Pre-K is So Important
Brief #59 – Education Policy
By Lynn Waldsmith
The evidence is overwhelming that children who attend preschool not only dramatically improve the quality of their own lives but the welfare of their communities. Yet, far too many kids aren’t able to attend because their parents simply can’t afford it. President Biden is hoping to change that by making universal pre-K a reality, if Congress passes the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan.
Monitoring of Virtual Workers: Is it Legal?
Brief #132 – Health & Gender Policy
By S. Bhimji
Because the Covid pandemic has not ended, millions of Americans still continue to work from home. And in many cases, their companies are supplying the computers and even paying for the home internet costs. But employees should not feel elated or special; the reason companies are providing the latest PCs to employees for virtual work from home is because they can be monitored.
Introducing A Fossil Fuel State’s Carbon-Pricing Plan
Brief #130 – Environment Policy
By Katelyn Lewis
Pennsylvania’s carbon-pricing plan cleared its final regulatory hurdle on September 1, making the Keystone State the first major fossil fuel state to adopt a cap-and-trade policy.
Reducing Persistent Child Poverty
Brief #124 – Economic Policy
By Rosalind Gottfried
Child poverty persists in the US at a much greater rate than in other comparable countries. Among the countries in The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the US is on a par with Mexico, Chile, Turkey, and Spain on the low end of expenditures to combat child poerty. In contrast, Finland, Denmark, Poland and Spain evidence the highest spending. In spite of having the highest GDP of any country, and one of the highest per capita incomes, the US spends 1% of its GDP on family benefits in contrast to the 3.5% spent by France. As a result, 14.4% of the country’s children live in poverty. This translates into 1 in 4 Black children; 1 in 5 Hispanic children; and one in 12 non-Hispanic white children.
US Catholic Bishops Make Communion a Political Issue
Brief #164 – Civil Rights Policy
US Catholic Bishops Make Communion a Political Issue
By S. Bhimji
June 19, 2021
Policy Summary
In 1973 the landmark Roe Vs Wade decision by the US Supreme Court legally protected the rights of pregnant women who choose to have an abortion without excessive government intrusion. This landmark ruling struck down many state and federal abortion laws but at the same time has created an ongoing national debate as to who should decide the legality of abortion and to what extent is abortion legal.
And this topic has also divided the democrats and republicans. Besides the politicians, democratic Americans are also more likely to state that abortion should be legal. But now the Catholic Bishops have voiced their sentiments over the issue and are about to clash with President Biden and many of his fellow democrats.
Just this past week, the Catholic Bishops sent a letter to their US Ministries that democrats who support abortion will be barred from the Holy Communion. The Democrats, fearing that they will not be able to enter ‘heaven’ are now calling on the Catholic bishops to stop the “Weaponization of the Holy Communion.” The Democrats say the church should not be targeting democrats who support abortion and they are acting like hypocrites.
The democrats have countered by drafting a ‘long letter’ or ‘statement of principles’ to admonish Bishops who are considering withdrawing communion services from politicians who support legalized abortion. The democrats state, “We solemnly urge you to not move forward and deny this holiest of all sacraments, the source and the summit of the whole work of the gospel, over one issue.”
Analysis
The new Communion document still needs approval from at least 2/3rd of bishops and has to adopt a language so that it does not scrutinize one individual but a group. The Bishops have become upset over the recent comments by President Biden and fellow Democrats who support abortion policies.
The Democrats state that they are being unfairly targeted over one issue whereas the republicans who support the death penalty which is also against the church’s pro-life teachings have had a free pass.
The catholic Democrats insist that the sacrament of the holy communion is sanctified and vital to the practice of catholicism and exploiting of the Eucharist to denounce democrats who support safe and legal abortion is outlandish.
What is even more alarming is that the Catholic church has never threatened the holy communion of any other politicians who have supported the separation of migrant children from their parents, denying illegal immigrants access to healthcare in the USA, or limiting food to the asylum seekers.
The democrats have acknowledged that the most fundamental catholic teachings have helped many disadvantaged people including advocating for universal healthcare and fighting poverty amongst children. But they state that there has to be a separation of the state and church when it comes to certain policies.
Overall, there is no perfect political party and the Catholic church has to condone the sinners as well as the pure. In the words of Pope Francis who remarked, “the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. The blanket refutation of the Holy Eucharist to certain democrats can gravely harm the Holy Spirit and deny the individual from living the life of a true Christian.”
However, even if the Bishops do decide to deny the Eucharist, it will not be a universal policy. The ultimate decision to deny democrats Holy Communion will rest with the individual bishop.
President Biden is only the 2nd Catholic elected POTUS, after JFK. While nothing is for sure, it is possible that he could become the first US President to be denied Holy Communion.
Engagement Resources
After Debate On Biden’s Abortion Views, Bishops Vote to Rethink Communion Rules
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/18/1007794929/catholic-bishops-abortion-biden-communion
Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Bidenhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57531070
Nearly 60 House Democrats call on Catholic bishops to stop targeting pro-abortion pols in Communion dispute
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/60-house-catholic-democrats-bishops-communion
It’s Time to Start Taking UFOs Seriously
Brief # 50 – Technology
It’s Time to Start Taking UFOs Seriously
By Scout Burchill
June 17, 2021
Policy Summary
By the end of this month a long-anticipated report will be released by the U.S. Intelligence community on UFOs. A once fringe, conspiracy-laden topic, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs as they are called by the Pentagon, have infiltrated the Washington establishment as of late and captured the fascination of the wider public. In preparation for the unclassified report due out later this month, members of the House Intelligence Committee received a classified briefing last week.
The report is not expected to make many firm conclusions on the existence of alien technology or life forms; however it will be a major victory for UFO enthusiasts and advocates of government accountability and transparency. Already some pretty shocking details have emerged. The classic weather balloon theory has been debunked in a number of cases and the validity of numerous videos capturing inexplicable UFOs has been confirmed. The general impression is that UFOs are definitely real and that the Pentagon simply cannot explain many of these phenomena.
As a topic that has been flying under the radar for a number of years, U.S. Resist News cannot independently confirm the existence of alien technology or extraterrestrial beings, but it can relate to you the incredible story of how UFOs began to be taken seriously by the Washington establishment and explain why this story really matters.
Analysis
For decades UFOs were widely perceived to be the obsession of conspiracy-rattled individuals and eccentric loonies. Culturally, fascination with UFOs peaked at times of deep distrust in our institutions and the military-industrial complex. Most of the information leaked to the public about UFOs came from military veterans, particularly from the Air Force and Navy, who reported seeing strange objects themselves while on duty. However, formal admissions and comments never quite made it to the mainstream without a sarcastic smirk and a wink, despite a well documented history of government cover ups and secrecy.
The modern history of UFO disclosures is entirely different thanks to former Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and his deep fascination with UFOs. The origins of the report due later this month trace their origins back to 2007 when Reid became Senate Majority Leader in Congress. Reid was determined to get answers from the Pentagon, and so he reached out to Hawaiian Senator Daniel Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, who himself had a long-standing personal interest in UFOs after reportedly spotting one as a pilot in World War 2. Together, they placed a secret $22 million appropriation in the nearly $600 billion 2008 Defense Department budget called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which compelled the Pentagon to study UFO related phenomena. Reid received considerable push back from the intelligence community, but used his position as the most powerful Senator in congress to demand an investigation.
In 2010, a man by the name of Lue Elizondo was promoted to head the AATIP. At the time, Elizondo had absolutely no opinions about UFOs or the existence of alien lifeforms. Under his direction, the program began studying national security implications of UFO encounters. Whatever Elizondo learned as head of the AATIP changed his opinion about UFOs in a dramatic way. His requests to brief the Secretary of Defense on what he found in the Pentagon files were routinely rejected, leading him to believe his program was being suppressed. Growing increasingly frustrated, he decided to resign from his position, but not before briefing journalist Leslie Keene on the nature and existence of the AATIP. This meeting led to the first articles published in the New York Times and Politico back in December of 2017 about the Pentagon’s mysterious UFO program. As an interesting aside, Elizondo left the AATIP to work with Blink 182 frontman and fellow UFO enthusiast Tom DeLonge at a business DeLonge co-founded that aims to explore the outer edges of science and technology.
Since 2017, persistent bottom-up pressure from the public, congress and activists have forced the Pentagon to begrudgingly acknowledge the existence of things it probably never wanted to see the light of day. Those 2017 articles, coupled with the growing curiosity of the public and lawmakers, forced Washington to take UFOs seriously and hold the Pentagon to account. Late last year, former president Donald Trump authorized a $2.3 trillion appropriations package that included a provision requiring the secretary of defense and director of national intelligence to draft the unclassified report on UFOs expected later this month. Just a few weeks ago 60 Minutes devoted an entire segment to UFOs, interviewing Lue Elizondo as well as a number of former military pilots who encountered unidentifiable phenomena. In other words, UFOs have gone mainstream and the social stigma associated with them is slowly fading.
While some skeptics claim that this UFO frenzy is merely an elaborate ploy for the Defense Department to secure more funding, particularly for the newly established Space Force, the evidence just does not bear this out. Russian interference, Chinese aggression and threats of terrorism would be far easier topics to fundraise and lobby on and would require a lot less manufacturing of consent. Furthermore, the Biden Administration has already proposed a massive $754 billion Defense budget for 2022.
Instead, the modern history of UFO disclosure, which began in earnest back in 2007 with Harry Reid, is actually a much more hopeful story of public accountability. This is an important point to remember, even as the report will most certainly lack the juicy details so many people desire. Who knows, perhaps we could use a little bit of help from beyond to restore some public trust in our institutions and inspire a healthy dose of humility. After all, there are plenty of things that we simply do not know and cannot explain. Isn’t that simultaneously awesome and terrifying?
Engagement Resources
Paradigm Research Group: The only Registered Lobbyist in Washington Dedicated to UFO Disclosure
https://paradigmresearchgroup.org/
Sources:
The Definitive New Yorker Piece
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously
2017 Reporting
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111/
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/16/16785122/ufos-harry-reid-pentagon-defense-blink-182
NYT Reporting on Upcoming UFO Report
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/ufos-report.html
Acknowledgments to Saagar Enjeti’s coverage at Breaking Points and The Hill Rising
Global Perspectives: India’s Draconian New Digital Media Laws and the Responsibilities of U.S. Tech Companies
Brief # 49 – Technology
Global Perspectives:
India’s Draconian New Digital Media Laws and the Responsibilities of U.S. Tech Companies
By Scout Burchill
June 17, 2021
Policy Summary
In late May, the Indian government enacted sweeping new laws to regulate social media companies and digital platforms. The laws will require digital content providers, from Twitter and Facebook to Netflix and independent news organizations, to remove content that government authorities find objectionable within 36 hours of being flagged. This includes anything that threatens “the interests of the sovereignty of India,” and other vague signifiers such as morality, decency and incitement.
Tech companies must also appoint local representatives, called grievance officers, within the country to cooperate with government orders and respond to user complaints. Nicknamed the “hostage-taking law” by free expression advocates, this requirement can put employees in a dangerous position in which they are subjected to threats and even detainment and prosecution if they refuse to comply with government requests or hand over users’ personal information.
Another provision of the law requires companies to provide information about users to the Indian government, including from encrypted messaging applications like Whatsapp. This provision forces applications to keep track of the “first originator” of a message, even if it is widely shared or forwarded, so that authorities can track down the sources of speech they find objectionable. Whatsapp is currently waging a legal battle in Indian courts over this regulation.
Championing these new laws as “progressive” and “liberal,” government officials and allies argue that these new regulations are necessary in order to “curb misuse,” “combat fake news,” and make tech companies more “responsible and accountable.” These talking points clearly attempt to couch these draconian new measures in the language of a surging global tech backlash that is emerging within governments and societies around the world, and particularly in the United States and Europe.
Analysis
These new internet regulations are sure to produce a chilling effect on India’s democracy and are in lock step with the slow erosion of democratic rights in India and across the globe. India had already become an unrivaled world leader in internet shutdowns, particularly targeting the Kashmir region, which experienced the longest internet shutdown in any democracy ever two years ago. Still, these new laws pose a unique threat to global tech governance. As the largest democracy in the world and a massive market for tech companies, the consequences of these new regulations will ripple far and wide, educating and emboldening other would-be digital authoritarian states to take similar aggressive measures in order to crack down on dissent, target enemies and control civil society.
While these new regulations have been floating around for some time now, recent events have greatly exacerbated tensions between social media companies and the Modi government. In the past year alone, the protests of farmers against new agricultural laws and the government’s mismanagement of the pandemic has turned social media platforms into spaces where opposition voices have been outspoken and able to organize. Through social media, the farmer’s protest captured the attention of the world, gaining the support of celebrities like Rihanna and activists like Greta Thunberg. Social media also served as an important tool during the worst months of the pandemic, helping organizers track down critical medical supplies and allocate them to those most in need. The Modi government has not taken these challenges to its authority lightly. Tensions reached an all time high late last month when Indian police raided Twitter’s offices after the company labeled a member of the ruling party’s false allegations against an opposition party as manipulated media.
No platform better illustrates social media’s fall from grace in India than Twitter. In 2014, Modi announced his election victory first on Twitter, writing “India has won.” The Modi government was quick to integrate social media into its governing practices through various initiatives that lent a sense of immediacy and responsiveness to the new government’s interactions with citizens. Twitter also became weaponized by pro-government forces for much more nefarious purposes, co-opting it as a platform for trolling, manipulation and targeted harassment. Similar to the government sponsored troll armies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the Modi government built up its own cyber troops to coordinate trending topics, manufacture narratives, mobilize supporters and engage in targeted harassment campaigns against dissidents and journalists. However, Twitter, cutting both ways, was also harnessed by activists and others to voice opposition, expose corruption and state violence, air controversies and societal problems, and organize.
By 2018, Twitter had become an incredibly polarized and contested space even as its user base in India continued to grow. Jack Dorsey’s visit to India around the same time was the stuff of PR spokespeople’s nightmares. Dorsey met with Modi in a sweatshirt and sneakers, crossing his legs in a manner traditionally regarded as disrespectful, and later when meeting with feminist activists he was photographed holding a sign that read, “smash the brahmanical patriarchy,” a shot at both the entrenched patriarchial system as well as the caste system in India.
The controversies that engulfed Dorsey’s visit capture quite well the precarious position Twitter and other U.S. based tech companies find themselves in in foreign markets where democracy is on the decline. Eager to make everyone happy, they end up infuriating everyone instead. While activists demand that these companies stop amplifying misinformation, manipulation and violent threats, governments are increasingly pressuring them to work in service of their power by complying with more censorship requests, take down orders, and inquiries into private and personal information.
The truth is, tech companies want it both ways, too. They want access to massive markets all over the world, but they also don’t want to become censors and informants or political actors. Over the past few years this dynamic has played out time and time again, in which Twitter or some other platform refuses to comply with government orders, receives plaudits for their principled stance, holds out for a bit, but then ultimately caves to government pressure and profit losses. Recent reporting has revealed considerable infighting within Facebook over the company’s willingness to censor and suppress on behalf of foreign governments. This poses a difficult dilemma for both U.S. tech companies and potential models of good global tech governance.
As a preface to this issue, it’s important to dispel any illusions about the nature of these companies. They are first and foremost corporations and will unfailingly act in accordance with their corporate interests. However, as U.S. entities, often subsidized by taxpayer dollars and the U.S. government, perhaps we should start asking whether they should be held to higher standards of practice around the world. There are some obvious caveats to this question. The notion that U.S. companies should or could operate as principled actors and promoters of democratic values around the world is a naive one, especially given their track records abroad. Furthermore, defying democratically elected governments, even if they are acting undemocratically, is a serious infringement of a nation’s sovereignty. Despite the fact that U.S. corporate interests have not always been so stellar at respecting the sovereignty of other nations, openly defying democratically elected governments would be counter-productive, to say the least.
One possible, and admittedly idealistic, solution would be to establish a code of conduct that U.S. tech companies must abide by when policing speech online. Rather than bowing to local laws that suppress speech and invade privacy, perhaps social media companies should be compelled to abide by international standards of human rights and free expression wherever they operate. This would mean these companies would have to become a lot more transparent about the decisions they make and own up to the fact that they will be cut out of certain markets entirely. Unfortunately, as calls for more censorship, content moderation and tracking prevail in the United States, this may become an increasingly untenable position for the U.S to champion on the world stage.
Furthermore, the danger of this approach would be that governments refuse to allow these open, free spaces to operate in their country, resulting in fewer places where people can voice their opinions or dissatisfactions. The worldwide internet would become even more balkanized and fractured and in many places may even become a space completely controlled by government decrees. The moral upside, however, would be that U.S. companies would not be complicit in the oppression and censorship of people abroad. A pretty principled stance if there was any.
As a side note, any argument making the case that if American companies don’t censor and suppress, then a worse actor will, should be rejected outright. This notoriously disingenuous argument is almost always used to justify moral failings and corporate greed.
Another, perhaps more democratic and consensus based approach, would be to develop a multilateral framework of global digital rights and ethics. Democratic nations should lead the charge in formulating a model of global governance for online content moderation that ensures the internet remains an open and free place. They could promote this vision through international organizations and partnerships. Far be it from the United States or any other country to dictate what another society finds offensive, but companies and digital service providers should not be made complicit in perpetuating state violence, oppressing civil societies, and violating basic human rights and dignities. Far easier said than done, this would require America to wrestle with its own demons and rediscover its faith in free speech and open societies.
Engagement Resources
Article 19
Access Now
NGOs Fighting for Freedom of Expression Globally
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/non-governmental-organizations/
Resources:
India’s New Laws – Western Press
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/technology/india-internet-censorship.html
https://time.com/5946092/india-internet-rules-impact/
India’s New Laws – Indian Press
Story of Twitter in India
https://restofworld.org/2021/how-india-fell-in-then-out-of-love-with-twitter/
“Hostage-taking” Law
https://restofworld.org/2021/social-media-laws-twitter-facebook/
India Internet Shutdowns
Infighting at Facebook over Censorship
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/technology/india-israel-facebook-employees.html
Police Raid of Twitter Offices
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech and Conflict At The ACLU
Brief #164 – Civil Rights Policy
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech And Conflict At The ACLU
By Rodney A. Maggay
June 12, 2021
Policy Summary
On June 7, 2021 the New York Times published an article that illustrated conflicting priorities in the ongoing free speech vs. hate speech debate.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” On the other hand “hate speech” has no precise definition. The United Nations acknowledges no legal definition but characterizes hate speech as any “communication…that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or group on the basis of who they are….” The United Nations also acknowledges that what can be considered “hateful” is often hotly disputed.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a national (with local affiliates) and non – partisan organization comprised of 500,000 members who continue to fight government abuse and who strive to vigorously defend individual freedoms such as speech and religion, the right to due process and many more civil liberties.
In the New York Times article by Michael Powell, he lays out how this debate has created a divide among the staffers who have brought cases on behalf of the clients the ACLU represents. On one side are those who have advocated that the free speech protections of the First Amendment should not apply to far – right hate groups and should not be defended by the ACLU. On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue that the ACLU should defend all speech even if the speech spouts hate and is viewed as offensive to marginalized groups. These competing positions have led to accusations that the ACLU is no longer interested in defending free speech as a positive legal concept but only in defending free speech cases that align with liberal and progressive values and causes. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Mr. Powell’s article regarding the internal divisions at the ACLU resembles a similar evolving view of free speech and the First Amendment among Americans in the twenty – first century. For the most part during the first one hundred years of its existence, the ACLU strived to defend the concept of free speech even if that meant defending the free speech of individuals, organizations and groups whose message was often viewed as repugnant and offensive. The current internal strife at the ACLU should not be considered a situation unique only to the ACLU but one that modern day American society is grappling with too in regards to how the First Amendment’s protections of free speech should be utilized.
While progressive and liberal policy proposals are the current best hope to transform America into a positive and more accepting modern society, free speech must not be tied to specific policy proposals or only to policies that are currently popular. The value of free speech is strongest when it applies to every citizen, every citizen knows it applies to everyone else and is applied in an even – handed manner that does not discriminate based on the subject matter of the speech. The ACLU demonstrated that it could defend all types of free speech with their prior defense of Nazis, white supremacists and other groups with hateful messages. The goal back then was not supporting or endorsing a specific message or viewpoint but ensuring that the right of free speech remained available to all regardless of message and that free speech was not merely available for just a select few.
Hate speech has complicated that. And, as described by Mr. Powell in his article it has caused a conflict among ACLU staff as to whether they can continue defending clients who spout messages of hate. But, the distinction being taken by ACLU staff and likely among most of modern society is not the best position to take. If the intent is to strengthen, encourage and transform free speech into a workable tool for the social media age the First Amendment must remain content neutral so that everyone knows that their message will not be censored because of its subject matter. What may seem to be a difficult viewpoint decades ago could turn out to be the accepted position today (e.g. Civil Rights Movement).
Also, a conundrum is who decides what is hate speech and what is not. There are segments of society who would be quick to label Black Lives Matter and their message a hate group. Legitimate speech communications and activities (such as the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) Movement) in favor of the Palestinians in the Middle East could also be labeled hate speech when it could simply be a discussion on the merits of U.S. foreign policy in the region. Since the U.N. has not definitively defined hate speech in a legal context and the U.S. Supreme Court has never created a category of hate speech and never determined whether it is protected speech, a distinction between free speech and hate speech may be premature. Other factors can be taken into consideration such as the immediacy of violent conduct and satire. American law currently permits speech that advocates incitement of lawless action unless the incitement is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and lawless action is likely to occur. When measured against this legal standard, most hate speech would not be banned. And it would appear that it could not be banned on social media platforms unless a social media post would incite violence “immediately” and it appears violence is “likely.” President Trump’s rally prior to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot might appear to satisfy this legal standard to hold the President accountable but even then it would be a close call. This helps to illustrate why it would be hard to pin down hate speech in terms of being banned because of its content and in formulating rules for social media platforms.
Speech cannot be regulated by its subject matter because that will only lead to a narrowing of the concept of free speech. If that happens then that might give others pause about speaking out on current unpopular policies. In Mr. Powell’s article at the very end he relates a story where black civic leaders in New York City applauded a white ACLU lawyer who defended the Ku Klux Klan’s (KKK) right to march in New York City. The black civic leaders reasoned that if the government could block the rights of the KKK to march then that same government power could be turned around and used to prevent African – American leaders from exercising their own free speech rights. It is not about supporting repugnant ideas but about ensuring that free speech rights apply to all. This is the original mission of the ACLU and one they should not waver from even in these challenging times. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
United Nations Plan of Action on Hate Speech – summary of how hate speech is being researched and approached by the United Nations.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Defending Speech We Hate – summary of how the ACLU has defended “speech we hate” with list of cases.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact: Rod@USResistnews.org.
Obamacare Lives for Another Day
Brief #110 – Health and Gender Policy
ObamaCare Lives for Another Day
By S. Bhimji
June 19, 2021
Policy Summary
Healthcare is the one topic that concerns all Americans, irrespective of their political affiliation. For the past 40 years, the privileged Americans with private medical insurance have received first-rate healthcare from the top medical institutions in the country. For the poor or employed, it has been Medicaid, which is a lower-tiered insurance coverage policy with many restrictions.
Just twenty years ago, health care expenditure accounted for nearly 16.5% of the GDP and the US was spending more money on healthcare than any other industrialized country. Yet despite the enormous amounts of money, Americans still have a slightly lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality rates than other countries, which spend a lot less money.
To overcome the disparity in healthcare access, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) was signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. Obamacare is the most comprehensive reform of the U.S. healthcare system in the last 50 years.
The ACA has now made healthcare a right for all Americans and has transformed the lives of people with no health insurance. More importantly, the ACA has mandated that the majority of Americans must now have health insurance if they can afford it. Besides expanding the pool of people with insurance, the ACA also subsidizes private healthcare insurance plans, has raised revenues by introducing several new taxes, and has reorganized spending of government money on healthcare.
The core function of the ACA has been to expand healthcare coverage for the previously 40-60 million Americans who had no prior health insurance plan
So one would think that Obamacare is a good thing for Americans?
Analysis
For the past decade, the Republicans have tried numerous times to dismantle Obamacare by claiming it was the reason for high unemployment since employers could not afford to provide mandatory healthcare for all their employees. In addition, they claimed that the premiums were exorbitantly high and unaffordable by most Americans.
Ex-President Trump had vowed to get rid of Obamacare citing it was not effective. Finally yesterday the US Supreme Court rejected this last effort by the Republicans to dismantle ACA. The 7-2 ruling was the third time the US Supreme Court has rebuffed the Republican opposition to Obamacare, but what is more painful for the GOP was that the decision was made by a bench dominated by conservative justices of whom three were appointed by ex-President Trump.
What this means is that Republicans need to look beyond the legal system if they want to change the nation’s healthcare system.
So what happens now?
Despite the continued opposition by Republicans, it appears that at least for now Obamacare is safe. The one key feature that has helped Democrats grasp on to Obamacare is that it continues to deliver healthcare to more than 30 million poor Americans, which ensures that every single person has some type of healthcare.
After hearing the US Supreme Court decision President Biden remarked, “The Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. It’s not as sacred or popular as Medicare or Medicaid, but it’s here to stay.”
Overall, most Americans have gained from Obamacare either due to the expansion of Medicaid for the poor or federal subsidies that help offset costs for many others.
Public opinion polls over the past few years reveal that nearly 54% of Americans are happy with Obamacare, with less than 35% showing signs of disapproval. For republicans, it looks like they will now have to look for another ‘whipping boy’ if they plan to offset public opinion about the Democrats. Republicans need to start focusing on healthcare issues that Americans care about and promoting innovations rather than remain fixated on repealing Obamacare.
Engagement Resources
ACA. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act/
What is the Affordable Care Act? https://www.hhs.gov/answers/affordable-care-act/what-is-the-affordable-care-act/index.html
New, lower costs are here! Find health coverage now. https://www.healthcare.gov/
Review of the Biden–Putin Summit
Brief # 117 – Foreign Policy
Review of the Biden–Putin Summit
By Abran C
June 18, 2021
Policy Summary
Presidents Joe Biden and Putin’s meeting on June 16th came after months of tensions, cyberattacks, and both leaders acknowledging that relations between the two nations are at a historic low point. Not much was expected from this meeting and as thought not much was gained. The two met in Geneva, Switzerland after Bidens G7 meeting with U.S. allies in his first overseas diplomatic mission. The two did not dine together as Biden had done with the British Queen. Nor did they have a joint press conference as is common after diplomatic meetings. Biden’s affirmed goal going into the talks was not to reset relations in the way former President Obama had sought to, nor was it to take Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies as former President Trump did. Rather, Bidens goal was to establish a “predictable and rational” relationship with Putin.
Analysis
The meeting made very modest steps forward in cooling tensions. Both countries have agreed to return ambassadors that were recalled to their respective nations to restore basic barebones diplomacy and contact that was lost as tensions grew. The two leaders also came to an agreement to hold talks to update and solidify the NEW START arms treaty. Otherwise the meeting proved unfruitful and left the two standing firmly in the same positions they held when they began. They reached no agreements on the issues of human rights, cyber-attacks, or war in Crimea. Putin denied interference in elections, disavowed responsibility for cyber-attacks, brushed off concerns raised about the safety of Alexei Navalny, and was unwavering in his defense of Russia’s action in Ukraine, though he agreed to pursue diplomacy through the 2015 Minsk peace deal.
Both men described the talks are constructive, but with no illusions to immediate improvement. Biden, when asked about the meeting, described “This is not about trust, this is about self-interest and verification of self-interest,”. Putin similarly stated, “I think both sides manifested a determination to try and understand each other and try and converge our positions,”. The meeting set out to do just what President Biden had planned for, not a reset, not a show of unity, but an attempt to indicate where each leader stands and to draw a red line showing where the U.S. would work with Russia and what it would not tolerate.
Engagement Resources
U.S. Department of State: The United States Department of State (DOS), is an executive department of the U.S. federal government responsible for the nation’s foreign policy and international relations.
White House Briefing Room: The White House Briefing Room provides timely and accurate information about the President’s latest events and public statements. Here you will find photos, video, and transcripts, as well as proclamations, executive orders, and press releases.
U.S. Department of Defense: The United States Department of Defense is an executive branch department of the federal government charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government directly related to national security and the armed forces.
The Unemployment Disconnect in California
Brief # 120 – Economic Policy
The Unemployment Disconnect in California
By Patrick Dwire
June 16, 2021
Policy Summary
It’s not so much about unemployment benefits. It’s about women, health care, child care and home schooling.
As restaurants, hotels and entertainment venues begin to open up in California as the state officially re-opens with virtually no Covid restrictions, many of these employers are having trouble finding workers. Low-income workers are getting blamed for not jumping at these job openings, which seems to lead many Republican policy makers immediately to the conclusion that unemployment benefits must be too generous. This quickly reached conclusion is both an insult to these workers, who are mostly women, as well as narrow-minded and misinformed as to what these workers may need before they are ready to go back to work full-time.
The lack of enthusiasm by former waitresses and waiters, hotel room cleaners and hospitality workers to jump back into their previous, relatively insecure minimum wage jobs begs the question as to what many of these workers may have been doing over the last year in terms of re-training, on-line education, and re-networking other job opportunities.
California’s economy-wide “stay-at-home” shut-down order came on March 16, 2020. The total number of jobs lost to Californians beginning in March and April of last year has been estimated at 2.7 million jobs. The California state agency for unemployment insurance, the Employment Development Department (EDD) recently reported that as of May 22, 2021, the state regained 1.3 million of those jobs, or 48 per cent of the total number of jobs lost since last March.
Here’s the disconnect. How is it there’s only about half of the total number of jobs currently back at work in California than there were at the beginning of May, 2020, but the “official” unemployment rate is only 8.4 per cent? Why wouldn’t the unemployment rate be closer to 50 percent, considering that’s roughly the number of jobs that continue to be “lost” to the pandemic?
Analysis
The answer is, of course, the way “official” unemployment is measured- counting only those who certify they are, in fact, unemployed and looking for work. Considering only about half the number of jobs have been “restored” since the pandemic shutdown last March, and in light of 8.4 percent of the workforce actively applying for or receiving unemployment benefits, where did the remainder of those working a year ago, roughly 42 per cent or so of the 2019 workforce, go?
Did they find work, maybe part-time or off-the-books or otherwise get busy with some “independent contractor gig”? Or did they become part-time, unpaid substitute teachers and in-home health care providers for their children, partners or parents? Or did they simply stop looking for work entirely, becoming a member of a large and growing but difficult to define cohort referred to as “the discouraged workforce.”
With most day care centers still shuttered and many schools closed for the summer, it remains the case (and is slowly getting documented) that women took the brunt of child care and home schooling responsibilities at the expense of their own jobs and careers throughout the pandemic. It’s becoming increasingly clear that many women had to leave the workforce to provide the critically needed “bridges” across the wide gaps in social services that were ripped open by the pandemic – gaps that stretched across health care, child care and education systems. If not for this unpaid service, done mostly by women who left their regular jobs to provide it to their own and often their extended families, the toll of the pandemic would have been so much worse.
Shortage of child care and many kids still learning at home is acknowledged by the Biden administration as a primary reason millions of women left the workforce, and this will continue to be a major obstacle to economic recovery. This has been emphasized by Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, who stresses the importance of the president’s proposed American Families Plan that includes $225 billion for child care. “We need to make sure if we’re going to have a strong recovery — a strong, equitable recovery — we need to get women back into the workforce,” Walsh said.
This blurring of the lines between work and home, along with spikes in business-to-business e-commerce and on-line shopping are likely to continue as the economy rebuilds. While this work-from-your home-based computer economy seems to be working out okay for relatively well educated, highly skilled workers in essentially information/ computer-based analytic work, it only seems to be working out for about half the workforce. And it seems to favor men.
According to the Report on the Status of Women and Girls in California recently released by Mount Saint Mary University’, a solid majority of men, 57%, reported working from home had a positive impact on their career, compared to less than a third, 29%, of women. Just over a third of male parents, 34%, said they received a promotion over the course of the pandemic, compared to 9% of female parents.
As minimum-wage customer service jobs begin opening up again, perhaps a key lesson of the pandemic for many women is not to settle for the insecurity, the lack of benefits and the lack of career opportunity that characterized the jobs they were laid off from at the beginning of the pandemic. And as long as child care remains prohibitively expensive or aging adults continue to need care, or until they can finish some on-line educational training or certification- it may well be that it just doesn’t pay to go back to work. Rather than simply cut unemployment benefits, more enlightened employers and state policy makers will do well to find out what workers want and need before they return to work.
Engagement Resources
American Families Plan: NPR: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/991357190/white-house-proposes-massive-spending-on-children-and-families
National Women’s Law Center: https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/December-Jobs-Day.pdf
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/28/928253674/stuck-at-home-moms-the-pandemics-devastating-toll-on-women
Women in the Workplace Report/ Lean In and McKinsey & Company: https://womenintheworkplace.com/
Drought and Plans to Deal with Running Dry
Brief # 116 – Environmental Policy
Drought and Plans to Deal with Running Dry
By Todd J. Broadman
June 15, 2021
Policy Summary
A prolonged period with little or no precipitation combined with an extended period of abnormally high temperatures has created “extreme” drought conditions in much of the western half of the U. S. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has placed 41 counties under a state of drought emergency. In some areas of Oregon and California, scientists conclude the drought is the most severe it has been in centuries. In California, about 40 percent of all water use is agricultural, and in the Central Valley nearly 85 percent of all employment and revenues are from growing fruits, nuts and vegetables grown with irrigated water.
Much of the West depends upon water stored in reservoirs for agricultural and residential use. The largest reservoir in the U. S. is Lake Mead which was formed by the Hoover Dam built in the 1930s. The lake’s waters supply vast tracts of irrigated farm land along with 25 million people – including residents of Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson and Las Vegas. The water level in the lake has dropped to its lowest level ever: 1,072 feet above sea level. Overall, the reservoir has fallen 140 feet in the past 21 years.
The reservoirs are in turn fed by watersheds and mountain snowpacks. The trend we are witnessing is less snowpack and earlier melting due to increased temperatures. The extremely dry soils contribute as well by requiring more water to saturate them. The water supply sustaining southern California comes primarily from the Colorado River and the Northern California Sierra Nevada mountain range.
The effects of the drought conditions extend well beyond human needs for water. Fish populations are being devastated. A noteworthy example are juvenile Klamath River salmon that are dying of parasitic infections because of a lack of river flow downstream from dams. A senior water policy analyst with the Yurok Tribe in northern California, Michael Belchik, said “We are starting to talk about the ‘extinction’ word around here.” In an effort to save the species, over 140 trucks have been deployed to transport over 17,000,000 fish between 50 to 100 miles to their destination.
The extended drought is a major contributor to the killing of millions of trees as well. Drought weakens trees and when attacked by insects, particularly the Bark beetle, the stressed trees often succumb. In 2019, over 15 million trees died; in 2016 over 62 million trees died, the most devastating year on record. Drought is a clear sign and contributor to an out of balance biosphere. Drought creates ideal conditions for wildfires.
In a plea to President Biden for additional funding, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) joined Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (both D-Ore.), wrote to “provide relief to states that are struggling with the impact of extreme drought and wildfire this summer and uncompensated damage from past wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and storms.” On the heels of the unprecedented scale of the 2020 wildfires, 2021 may be even more destructive.
Alongside and adding to the country’s drought woes is a looming water infrastructure disaster; decades of neglect has exposed millions of Americans to water unsafe to use, untreated sewage, and bills that pay for water that never gets to its destination due to fractured pipes. Sponsored by Bernie Sanders, The Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (Water) Act, would allocate $38 billion to safeguard the increasingly sparse water that still flows through municipal pipes.
In what has become a confrontational decision, the federal Bureau of Reclamation announced that there would be no further release of water from the reserves in Oregon’s Klamath Basin for farmers downstream. With the severity of the water shortfall, the Bureau was obligated by law to channel the water to the Klamath river to assist salmon hatchlings – a species protected for Native American tribal groups, the Yurok tribe in particular. The decision sparked a militant response from a group of farmers and their supporters.
Analysis
Along with its vegetables, fruits, and nuts, California’s dairy production is the largest in the country and employs over 400,000 full-time and contract laborers. The drought will impact more than the raw supply of produce coming from the Central Valley and resulting grocery store prices; the entire economic supply chain is impacted. In the Klamath region to the north, lakes and marshland had been drained to create a vast farming economy based on growing alfalfa for dairy cows and potatoes for industrial food manufacturers (Frito-Lay chips).
While there are those like Gail Snyder, founder of Coalition for the Deschutes, who insist that “We need a cultural paradigm shift that leads to better stewardship by all of us,” there are militant groups led by Ammon Bundy and others who favor armed takeover of water resources under the banner of protecting their American rights.
In line with Bundy, members of the People’s Rights Network have pitched a large tent next to the headgates of the main canal on a Klamath river dam; they have openly disclosed their plan to “restore the flow of water, even at the price of a confrontation with the federal government.” As drought continues, water wars like this will erupt on an even larger scale. For them, the only endangered species are Americans and their rights, not the environment.
The state of Utah is also under a water emergency. Their new public relations push is #SlowThe Flow! and “survival watering” – to counter water-hungry lush landscapes. They are educating the public that grass, even if it appears dead, is resilient and can survive with as little as 1″ of water a month.
Engagement Resources
https://crsreports.congress.gov/ works exclusively for Congress, providing timely, objective, and authoritative research and analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate.
https://www.ducks.org/ is the world’s leader in wetlands and waterfowl conservation.
https://www.opb.org/ Oregon Public Broadcasting.
http://redgreenandblue.org/ brings together progressive and conservative voices in favor of clean energy and climate change action.
A Preview of the Biden–Putin Summit
Brief # 116 – Foreign Policy
A Preview of the Biden–Putin Summit
By Abran C
June 15, 2021
Policy Summary
Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin are having their first meeting on June 16 in Geneva, Switzerland. The two have a history that goes back a decade, their first meeting was in 2011 when Biden was the U.S. vice president and Putin Russia’s prime minister. They now sit as the head of their nuclear-armed states and are scheduled to meet in Biden’s first overseas trip since taking office and after the first face-to-face meetings between the leaders of the G7, which now excludes Russia.
President Biden has promised to strongly address the many grievances of the U.S. and NATO allies with Putin at the meeting. There are grievances with Russia that stretch from spreading false information online, to hacking U.S. institutions and companies and the potential of war with Ukraine. There are numerous issues for Biden to address, none of which will be easy to resolve.
> Russian Hackings
There have been multiple cyberattacks and cybersecurity breaches at US government agencies and private sector organizations. Most of the attacks are thought to be linked to criminal hacker organizations based in Russia. The most recent attack targeted JBS the world’s largest meatpacking company; this attack caused meat production facilities in both the U.S. and Australia to shut down damaging supply chains. A month prior saw an attack on Colonial Pipeline, the largest fuel pipeline in the United States, which caused a temporary shortage in fuel but widespread panic for fear of long-term scarcity, demonstrating the dangers of hacking supply chain companies. The largest cyberattack has been the now infamous SolarWinds incident in which hackers could spy on private companies and government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the Treasury Department by accessing software provided by the US company SolarWinds. Federal investigators and cybersecurity experts claim that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, was likely responsible for the attack. The attacks highlighted weaknesses in U.S. cyber networks and the dangers of Russia’s hacking capabilities.
> Election interference
Though it was a contested claim at the time U.S. intelligence agencies and a bipartisan senate report released in 2020 detail how the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election favoring the presidency of Donald Trump over his rival Hillary Clinton. The Russian interference sought to stoke tensions and divide the voter base through spreading misinformation that encouraged divisive positions on thousands of fake social media accounts. They also succeeded in stealing emails from the DNC (Democratic National convention) and the Clinton campaign which were then released on WikiLeaks. The Russians took similar actions during the 2020 presidential election; the Russian IRA (Internet Research Agency) used fake social media accounts, impersonating Americans, and official campaigns on both sides to sway public opinion in support of Trump.
> Conflict in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine
In March 2014 Russian special forces occupied Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, Russia claimed to have been protecting Crimea’s access to the Black Sea. The attack came as a response to the overthrow of Putin’s ally Viktor Yanukovych by a Ukrainian electorate seeking closer ties to the EU. Russia also has been supporting pro-Russia militia in Eastern Ukraine who are seeking to susceed. The conflict in this region has gone on for almost a decade and ahs result in the loss of over 13,000 lives
> Poisoning of Alexei Navalny
Putin has a history of aggressively going after his opponents, the greatest threat to his power domestically, Alexei Navalny, who has held anti-Kremlin demonstrations and leads the opposition movement to Putin’s rule, was poisoned in August 2020. Navalny was taken to Germany for emergency medical treatment. After waking up from a coma he returned to Russia only to be detained and sentenced to prison. Navalny was poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok, the same poison used on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer now residing in the U.K. .
Analysis
Back in March when asked if he thought Putin was a killer President Biden responded with “I believe he is.” He recently walked back from his earlier comments instead saying Putin is “bright, tough,.. and a worthy adversary”. Both Biden and Putin have acknowledged that relations between the two nations are at a low point. It is unlikely the upcoming meeting will lead to any short or intermediate-term changes. Putin has proved a challenge for multiple U.S. presidents and has not let international pressure or sanctions hinder his ambitions.
Biden has assured the American public a robust response to Putin and has attempted to renew faith in the U.S. to our allies. He has reaffirmed his commitment to NATO after years of former President Trump being at odds with the NATO member states, even calling the alliance obsolete. In meeting with European leaders before he meets with Putin, President Biden has taken a step in the right direction when compared to his predecessor who took Putin at his word. In meetings with other leaders concerned about Russia, he is attempting to present a unified voice with the U.S. at the helm after four years of isolationism. Biden’s long experience in foreign affairs and relationship with Putin will need to come into play during this first meeting that will surely set the tone of relations with Russia for the rest of his presidency.
Engagement Resources
NBC News, Biden agrees U.S.- Russian relations are at a “low point” ahead of meeting with Putin,
Businessinsider, The US is readying sanctions against Russia over the SolarWinds cyber-attack..,
https://www.businessinsider.com/solarwinds-hack-explained-government-agencies-cyber-security-2020-12
Department of Homeland Security Sets Sights on Domestic Extremism Online
Brief # 17 – Social Justice
Department of Homeland Security Sets Sights on Domestic Extremism Online
By Erika Shannon
June 15, 2021
Policy Summary
The rise of the use of social media has also led to a rise in crimes that can be tied back to social media. We have seen murders on Facebook Live, events for extremist groups to gather and spread propaganda, as well as events planned such as the Capitol riots on January 6th, where lives were lost. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is aiming to fight domestic extremism and terrorism online with a new Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, or “CP3.” In a May 11th press release, they announced CP3 would replace the Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention. The new branch lies with the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and will attempt to develop the expertise that is needed to produce sound, timely intelligence to combat threats posed by domestic terrorism, as well as targeted violence. They will be working alongside state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners in order to increase information sharing to mitigate threats.
Analysis
The need for law enforcement to keep an eye on social media for threats of violence is nothing new; throughout the years, we have seen many acts of violence linked back to social media. Last year, we saw Facebook used in the planning of the botched kidnapping of Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. It is alleged that the group behind the plan used Facebook Messenger to discuss details regarding the kidnapping. The group, known as the Wolverine Watchmen, also used Facebook to recruit new members into their right-wing movement. This past election season, Facebook and Twitter were used to spread the “Stop the Steal” movement that eventually led to the January 6th Capitol riots. The far-right movement was able to recruit members, create groups, and plan the attacks via social media. While Facebook did make an attempt to ban any “Stop the Steal” groups after the Capitol riots, they were only partially successful, as the groups continued to pop up with different names.
There is hope that the DHS’s new Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships will be able to thwart future acts of domestic terrorism; however, there is always the question of whether or not our right to free speech and our privacy will be protected online. What many people don’t know is that law enforcement officers are legally able to examine, without warrants, what people say publicly on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. The new DHS plan to fight domestic terrorism is not expanding on the collecting of our personal information online. Their goal, rather, is to use social media for tips and leads, and to analyze trends. DHS will hopefully be able to monitor when there is a lot of talk of inciting violence on social media, and prevent that violence before it occurs.
While this appears to be a step in the right direction for our national security, there is always the possibility that domestic terrorists find ways to communicate around the watchful eye of law enforcement on social media. There has already been groups finding ways around Facebook’s ban of certain right-wing groups, and there are certainly other ways to plan events without being caught. There is hope that DHS will be able to gather the intelligence necessary to prevent future domestic terrorist attacks from being planned on social media. Only time will tell if the new CP3 will be successful in their efforts to combat threats to our country posed by extremist groups on places like Facebook and Twitter.
Engagement Resources
- To read the DHS press release on their new plan, click here.
- For more information on the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, click here.