DOCSLIB.ORG

Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:81

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:81 1 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099 [email protected] 2 NICOLA T. HANNA, SBN 130694 [email protected] 3 ERIC D. VANDEVELDE, SBN –0699 [email protected] 4 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 6 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 7 THEODORE B. OLSON, SBN 38137 [email protected] 8 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 9 Washington, DC, 20036-5306 Telephone: 202.955.8500 10 Facsimile: 202.467.0539 11 MARC J. ZWILLINGER* [email protected] 12 JEFFFREY G. LANDIS* [email protected] 13 ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250 14 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 202.706.5202 15 Facsimile: 202.706.5298 *Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending 16 Attorneys for Apple Inc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 EASTERN DIVISION 20 IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH ED No. CM 16-10 (SP) 21 OF AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A APPLE INC’S MOTION TO VACATE 22 SEARCH WARRANT ON A BLACK ORDER COMPELLING APPLE INC. LEXUS IS300, CALIFORNIA TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH, 23 LICENSE PLATE 35KGD203 AND OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 24 COMPEL ASSISTANCE 25 Hearing: Date: March 22, 2016 26 Time: 1:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom 3 or 4 27 Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 47 Page ID #:82 1 Apple Inc. (“Apple”), by and through its counsel of record, hereby files this 2 Motion to Vacate the Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search, and 3 Opposition to the Government’s Motion to Compel Assistance. 4 This Motion and Opposition is based upon the attached memorandum of points 5 and authorities, the attached declarations of Nicola T. Hanna, Lisa Olle, and Erik 6 Neuenschwander and exhibits, the files and records in this case, and such further 7 evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 8 9 Dated: February 25, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 10 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 11 By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. 12 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. 13 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. 14 Nicola T. Hanna Eric D. Vandevelde 15 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 16 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 17 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 18 Theodore B. Olson 19 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 20 Washington, DC, 20036-5306 Telephone: 202.955.8500 21 Facsimile: 202.467.0539 22 Marc J. Zwillinger * 23 Jeffrey G. Landis * ZwillGen PLLC 24 1900 M Street N.W., Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20036 25 Telephone: 202.706.5202 Facsimile: 202.706.5298 26 *Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending 27 Attorneys for Apple Inc. 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 47 Page ID #:83 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 4 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 5 5 A. Apple’s Industry-Leading Device Security................................................. 5 6 B. The Government Abandoned Efforts To Obtain Legal Authority For Mandated Back Doors. ......................................................................... 6 7 C. Apple’s Substantial Assistance In The Government’s Investigation........ 10 8 D. The Government’s Ex Parte Application Under The All Writs Act, 9 And This Court’s Order ............................................................................ 11 10 E. The Resources And Effort Required To Develop The Software Demanded By The Government ............................................................... 13 11 III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 14 12 A. The All Writs Act Does Not Provide A Basis To Conscript Apple 13 To Create Software Enabling The Government To Hack Into iPhones. ..................................................................................................... 14 14 1. The All Writs Act Does Not Grant Authority To Compel 15 Assistance Where Congress Has Considered But Chosen Not To Confer Such Authority. ...................................................... 15 16 2. New York Telephone Co. And Its Progeny Confirm That 17 The All Writs Act Does Not Authorize Courts To Compel The Unprecedented And Unreasonably Burdensome 18 Conscription Of Apple That The Government Seeks. .................... 20 19 a. Apple’s Connection To The Underlying Case Is “Far Removed” And Too Attenuated To Compel Its 20 Assistance ............................................................................. 20 21 b. The Order Requested By The Government Would Impose An Unprecedented And Oppressive Burden On 22 Apple And Citizens Who Use The iPhone. .......................... 23 23 c. The Government Has Not Demonstrated Apple’s Assistance Was Necessary To Effectuating The 24 Warrant. ................................................................................ 29 25 3. Other Cases The Government Cites Do Not Support The Type Of Compelled Action Sought Here. ...................................... 30 26 B. The Order Would Violate The First Amendment And The Fifth 27 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. .......................................................... 32 28 1. The First Amendment Prohibits The Government From Compelling Apple To Create Code ................................................ 32 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP i Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 47 Page ID #:84 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 2 2. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause Prohibits The Page 3 Government From Compelling Apple To Create The Request Code .................................................................................. 34 4 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 35 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ii Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 47 Page ID #:85 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 Page(s) 2 Cases 3 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 4 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................... 32 5 Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. Inc. v. Elan Corp., 6 2013 WL 8744216 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013) ........................................................... 18 7 In the Matter of an Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Authorizing 8 Disclosure of Location Info. of a Specified Wireless Tel., 849 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D. Md. 2011) .......................................................................... 15 9 Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Authorizing an In-Progress Trace 10 of Wire Commc’ns over Tel. Facilities, 616 F.2d 1122 ......................... 21, 22, 27, 29 11 In re Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Directing a Provider of 12 Commc’n Servs. to Provide Tech. Assistance to Agents of the U.S. 13 Drug Enf’t Admin., 2015 WL 5233551 (D.P.R. Aug. 27, 2015) .............................................................. 27 14 In re Application of U.S. of Am. for an Order Directing X to Provide 15 Access to Videotapes (“Videotapes”), 16 2003 WL 22053105 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2003) ..................................................... 21, 27 17 Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC, 18 2013 WL 4784190 (D. Md. Sept. 5, 2013) ................................................................. 5 19 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) .................................................................................................. 19 20 21 Bernstein v. Dep’t of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ......................................................................... 32 22 Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 23 511 U.S. 164 (1994) .................................................................................................. 18 24 Clark v. Martinez, 25 543 U.S. 371 (2005) .................................................................................................. 18 26 Clinton v. Jones, 27 520 U.S. 681 (1997) .................................................................................................. 18 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP i Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 47 Page ID #:86 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 (Continued) Page(s) 2 Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 3 523 U.S. 833 (1998) .................................................................................................. 34 4 Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 5 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 34 6 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) .................................................................................................. 19 7 8 Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979) .................................................................................................. 33 9 Grannis v. Ordean, 10 234 U.S. 385 (1914) .................................................................................................. 11 11 Junger v. Daley, 12 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................... 32 13 Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 14 466 U.S. 789 (1984) .................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Rewriting J-School

    Rewriting J-School

    SPRING 2014 VOL. 68 NO. 2 Rewriting J-School Can educators connect the classroom to the newsroom? RAY WHITEHOUSE/MEDILL RAY Medill journalism students put their multimedia skills to work covering the 2012 presidential election Cover text from the 2001 (top) and 2014 (bottom) editions of “The Elements of Journalism.” An excerpt from the new edition, page 48 NIEMAN REPORTS EDITORIAL OFFICES Please address all subscription correspondence to: One Francis Avenue, Cambridge, The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University MA 02138-2098, 617-496-6308, One Francis Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138-2098 [email protected] and change of address information to: www.niemanreports.org P.O. Box 4951, Manchester, NH 03108 Copyright 2014 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. ISSN Number 0028-9817 PUBLISHER EDITOR Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts and additional entries Postmaster: Send address changes to Ann Marie Lipinski James Geary Nieman Reports P.O. Box 4951, SUBSCRIPTIONS/BUSINESS Manchester, NH 03108 SENIOR EDITOR RESEARCHER/REPORTER 617-496-6299, [email protected] Jan Gardner Jonathan Seitz Nieman Reports (USPS #430-650) Subscription $25 a year, $40 for two years; is published in March, June, September add $10 per year for foreign airmail. and December by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard DESIGN EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Single copies $7.50. University, One Francis Avenue, Stacy Sweat Designs Isabel Campbell-Gross Back copies are available from the Nieman office. Cambridge, MA 02138-2098 Rebecca Mazur Jessie Schanzle SPRING 2014 VOL. 68 NO. 2 COVER 24 Rewrite Journalism education has come to the same ominous inflection point that journalism itself has reached—and the stakes are just as high.
  • Courting Abolition Deborah W

    Courting Abolition Deborah W

    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2016 Courting Abolition Deborah W. Denno Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah W. Denno, Courting Abolition, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1827 (2016-2017) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/857 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEWS COURTING ABOLITION COURTING DEATH: THE SUPREME COURT AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. By Carol S. Steiker and Jordan M. Steiker. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2016. Pp. 390. $29.95. Reviewed by Deborah W Denno* INTRODUCTION The American death penalty is a shadow of what it once was. In 2016, states conducted fewer executions than they had in twenty-five years,1 and juries delivered the lowest number of new death sentences since 1972,2 the year the Supreme Court invalidated then-existing death penalty statutes.3 Only five of the thirty-one death penalty states even carried out an execution - the smallest number since 19834 - and two of those five states (Georgia and Texas) performed eighty percent of all executions,5 thus indicating that actively executing states are now outliers. In addition, approximately forty percent of Americans now oppose the death penalty, the highest rate in over four decades.
  • Mass Internment Camp Implementation, Abuses

    Mass Internment Camp Implementation, Abuses

    CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 2020 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 2020 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 40–674 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Co-chair Chair JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TOM COTTON, Arkansas THOMAS SUOZZI, New York STEVE DAINES, Montana TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TODD YOUNG, Indiana BEN MCADAMS, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon BRIAN MAST, Florida GARY PETERS, Michigan VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS To Be Appointed JONATHAN STIVERS, Staff Director PETER MATTIS, Deputy Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page Section I. Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1 a. Statement From the Chairs ......................................................................... 1 b. Overview ....................................................................................................... 3 c. Key
  • The Saga of Longfin Corp. Reveals the Danger of Trading Halts Imposed by Self-Regulating Exchanges

    The Saga of Longfin Corp. Reveals the Danger of Trading Halts Imposed by Self-Regulating Exchanges

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 72 Issue 2 Article 6 2-2021 “You Have to Understand”: The Saga of Longfin Corp. Reveals the Danger of Trading Halts Imposed by Self-Regulating Exchanges Thomas Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas Davis, “You Have to Understand”: The Saga of Longfin Corp. Reveals the Danger of Trading Halts Imposed by Self-Regulating Exchanges, 72 HASTINGS L.J. 687 (2021). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol72/iss2/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “You Have to Understand”: The Saga of Longfin Corp. Reveals the Danger of Trading Halts Imposed by Self-Regulating Exchanges THOMAS DAVIS†† Late 2017 marked, perhaps, the peak of Bitcoin frenzy. A number of specious, if not outright fraudulent issuers took advantage of this craze by publicly listing their stock while touting some connection to blockchain technology. One of these issuers, Longfin Corp., exploded to a $6 billion market cap despite being little more than an empty shell promoted by alleged fraudsters. Short sellers who investigated Longfin were seemingly correct about the company being worthless, but a lengthy trading halt instituted by Nasdaq caused many of these short sellers to suffer considerable losses instead of cashing out on what would otherwise be hugely profitable short positions.
  • Buzzfeed Have Responded to Request for Comment

    Buzzfeed Have Responded to Request for Comment

    Buzzfeed Have Responded To Request For Comment Chariot depredate his earings alkalifies materially or incumbently after Shadow precondition and chatted indigently, unsupervised and catalytical. If agnate or exogamic Gustav usually steepen his whimsies unpeopled endemic or litigating inaptly and eastwards, how unvisitable is Buddy? Incomparable Hassan bestraddle physiologically and benevolently, she gazetting her limpidness emblematized effeminately. Who often got the platform and to have comment for his request to come to dinner sometime Tony Robbins accused of sexual misconduct in Buzzfeed. We'll point to comment Carr responded a familiar house for those hunch the media who cover Mueller's. There an automatic downgrade, florida to win in. This benefit was produced by Injustice Watch in collaboration with Buzzfeed which is. You can we do not necessarily evidence of the request for some stars see cdc. Surprise Buzzfeed Links Bogus Net Neutrality Comments. And have sex more intimate connection in people's lives to respond cannot be. BuzzFeed pulled this same gimmick last licence with Dr Luke asking the. Amazon suspends Parler after Google and Apple also take. Six Black Photojournalists Are Suing BuzzFeed for Publishing. PR people get a germ of emails from journalists asking for comment all day. Kleiner perkins and national wildlife filed an ostrich do we would depend on a crush, they only chance is suing amazon canceled its habits. BuzzFeed regrets running a pirated stream of 'Monty Python. Bank of China did people respond to requests for comment. Timed and imprecise comment from the President the commitment goes on. Do more aggressively on vice president then showed him the buzzfeed have responded to request for comment requests that none, photographs or work! For both Mega Millions and Powerball have grown into the hundreds of millions.

  • Moderating Content Moderation: a Framework for Nonpartisanship in Online Governance

    MODERATING CONTENT MODERATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR NONPARTISANSHIP IN ONLINE GOVERNANCE EDWARD LEE* Internet platforms serve two important roles that often conflict. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other internet platforms facilitate the unfettered exchange of free speech by millions of people, yet they also moderate or restrict the speech according to their “community standards,” such as prohibitions against hate speech and advocating violence, to provide a safe environment for their users. These dual roles give internet platforms unparalleled power over online speech—even more so than most governments. Yet, unlike government actors, internet platforms are not subject to checks and balances that courts or agencies must follow, such as promulgating well-defined procedural rules and affording notice, due process, and appellate review to individuals. Internet platforms have devised their own policies and procedures for content moderation, but the platforms’ enforcement remains opaque—especially when compared to courts and agencies. Based on an independent survey of the community standards of the largest internet platforms, this Article shows that few internet platforms disclose the precise procedural steps and safeguards of their content moderation—perhaps hoping to avoid public scrutiny over those procedures. This lack of transparency has left internet platforms vulnerable to vocal accusations of having an “anti-conservative bias” in their content moderation, especially from politicians. Internet platforms deny such a bias, but their response has not mollified Republican lawmakers, who have proposed amending, if not repealing, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act * Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law; Founder, The Free Internet Project. Many thanks to helpful comments from Kathy Baker, Felice Batlan, Sungjoon Cho, Eric Goldman, Hal Krent, Nancy Marder, Blake Reid, Mark Rosen, Alex Boni-Saenz, Chris Schmidt, Stephanie Stern, Eugene Volokh, and participants of faculty workshops.
  • Australia's Insular Approach to Asylum Seekers

    Australia's Insular Approach to Asylum Seekers

    Table of Contents Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Abbreviations & Terminology ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 1. Legal Vehicles For Externalization Regimes Under International Law ............................................. 9 1.1. International Refugee Regime: The Principle of Non-Refoulement ................................................................ 10 1.2. Externalization Regimes: Safe Third Country Practices .................................................................................. 11 1.3. Externalization Regimes: Outsourcing Enforcement Operations ................................................................... 14 2. The European Union And Its Member States’ Efforts to Prevent Asylum Seekers From Reaching Their Borders ................................................................................. 17 2.1. Failure to Uphold Rights of Asylum Seekers Enshrined in EU Law ................................................................. 18 2.2. Refoulement at Sea: The EU and Italy’s Reliance on Libya to Prevent Asylum Seekers Arriving in Europe .......20 2.3. EU-Turkey Statement: Banishing Asylum Seekers
  • WHAT JOURNALISTS MUST DO NEXT Danielle Allen • Perry Bacon • Joshua Benton • Michael Calderone • Jeff Jarvis • Mark Jurkowitz Jill Lepore • Matt K

    WHAT JOURNALISTS MUST DO NEXT Danielle Allen • Perry Bacon • Joshua Benton • Michael Calderone • Jeff Jarvis • Mark Jurkowitz Jill Lepore • Matt K

    NIEMAN REPORTS WHAT JOURNALISTS MUST DO NEXT Danielle Allen • Perry Bacon • Joshua Benton • Michael Calderone • Jeff Jarvis • Mark Jurkowitz Jill Lepore • Matt K. Lewis • Ann Marie Lipinski • Diana Marcum • Nicco Mele • Michael Oreskes Evan Osnos • Ricardo Sandoval Palos • Wendi C. Thomas • Keven Ann Willey • Jeff Young Contributors The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University www.niemanreports.org Keith O’Brien (page 6) is a former reporter for The Boston Globe, a correspondent for National Public Radio, and author. He has written for The New York Times Magazine, Politico, and Slate, among other publications. Gabe Bullard (page 12) is the senior publisher producer, digital and strategy, for 1A, a new Ann Marie Lipinski public radio show launching in 2017 on editor stations across the country. A 2015 Nieman James Geary Fellow, he is the former deputy director of senior editor digital news at National Geographic. Jan Gardner editorial assistant Carla Power (page 20) is the author of the Eryn M. Carlson 2016 Pulitzer finalist “If the Oceans Were design Ink: An Unlikely Friendship and a Journey to Pentagram the Heart of the Quran,” about her studies Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency is being viewed by journalists and historians as an important time to reflect on the best way to move forward editorial offices with a traditional Islamic scholar. She is a One Francis Avenue, Cambridge, former correspondent for Newsweek. MA 02138-2098, 617-496-6308, Contents Fall 2016 / Vol. 70 / No. 4 [email protected] Naomi Darom (page 26), a 2016 Nieman Copyright 2016 by the President and Features Departments Fellows of Harvard College.
  • 2020 Annual Report Congressional-Executive Commission on China

    2020 Annual Report Congressional-Executive Commission on China

    CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 2020 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 2020 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 40–674 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Co-chair Chair JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TOM COTTON, Arkansas THOMAS SUOZZI, New York STEVE DAINES, Montana TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TODD YOUNG, Indiana BEN MCADAMS, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon BRIAN MAST, Florida GARY PETERS, Michigan VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS To Be Appointed JONATHAN STIVERS, Staff Director PETER MATTIS, Deputy Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page Section I. Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1 a. Statement From the Chairs ......................................................................... 1 b. Overview ....................................................................................................... 3 c. Key
  • A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence The

    A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence The

    A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence: The Permeance of ‘War on Terror’ Discourses in Civilian Spaces Teagan Hale May 2021 www.AmericanCTRI.org Abstract The purpose of this article is to use Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the rhetorical devices and narrative appeals used to justify violence perpetrated by far-right extremist groups in the United States. The author argues that far-right movements utilize the same discursive techniques wielded by previous administrations to justify use of force in the ‘War on Terror’ but transpose them within domestic political grievances to sanction violence against citizens with conflicting political ideologies. Those who disagree with them are labeled as domestic terrorists, thus showing how the politics of insecurity used within the War on Terror have returned home and influenced the justifications of violence for domestic groups combatting one another. This has transformed American cities into new counterterrorism battlespaces as factionalized civilians who fashion one another as domestic terrorists openly clash in public spaces throughout the United States. This argument will be illustrated by qualitatively assessing three themes – existential security concerns, being defenders of the state, and espousing eliminationist rhetoric towards terrorists – popularly used within presidential discourses in the War on Terror by the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations with the social media posts, written manifestos, statements, and other discursive acts by the perpetrators of far-right violence and those who support them. Discourses will be employed as communicative units of analysis that when dissected and modeled reveals the natural subjectivity of security. The arguments raised in this article serve to bolster the practicality of discursive theory in understanding social and political perceptions, specifically in how they are manifested into the real world and precipitate political violence as stated by those who commit it.
  • State's Responses As of 8.21.18

    State's Responses As of 8.21.18

    DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED: STATE AND LOCAL THREATS TO VOTING POST‐SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA V. HOLDER As of May 3, 2021 Introduction For nearly 50 years, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) required certain jurisdictions (including states, counties, cities, and towns) with a history of chronic racial discrimination in voting to submit all proposed voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) or a federal court in Washington, D.C. for pre- approval. This requirement is commonly known as “preclearance.” Section 5 preclearance served as our democracy’s discrimination checkpoint by halting discriminatory voting changes before they were implemented. It protected Black, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and Alaskan Native voters from racial discrimination in voting in the states and localities—mostly in the South—with a history of the most entrenched and adaptive forms of racial discrimination in voting. Section 5 placed the burden of proof, time, and expense1 on the covered state or locality to demonstrate that a proposed voting change was not discriminatory before that change went into effect and could harm vulnerable populations. Section 4(b) of the VRA, the coverage provision, authorized Congress to determine which jurisdictions should be “covered” and, thus, were required to seek preclearance. Preclearance applied to nine states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) and a number of counties, cities, and towns in six partially covered states (California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota). On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States immobilized the preclearance process in Shelby County, Alabama v.
  • Are Libraries Obsolete? ALSO by MARK Y

    Are Libraries Obsolete? ALSO by MARK Y

    Are Libraries Obsolete? ALSO BY MARK Y. H ERRING Fool’s Gold: Why the Internet Is No Substitute for a Library (McFarland, 2007) Are Libraries Obsolete? An Argument for Relevance in the Digital Age MARK Y. HERRING McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers Jefferson, North Carolina Nihil obstat quominus imprimatur ISBN 978-0-7864-7356-4 softcover : acid free paper ♾ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE © 2014 Mark Y. Herring. All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover images © Fuse/iStock/Thinkstock Manufactured in the United States of America McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640 www.mcfarlandpub.com For Carol Quos amor verus tenuit, tenebit.—Seneca This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgments 1 Part One 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Everything Is Still Not on the Internet 19 3. Searching the Web 30 4. Quality Control, or Lack Thereof 42 5. Rotting from Within? 57 6. En Masse: Mass Digitization 67 7. Copyrig ht 80 8. Ebooks Über Alles? 96 9. Depth and Ubiquity 111 Part Two 123 10. Reading and Literacy 126 11. Privacy 138 12. Piracy 150 Part Three 165 13. You Are Here 171 14. Are Libraries Obsolete After All? Two Scenarios 187 vii viii Table of Contents Epilogue: Reviving the Spirit of Andrew Carnegie 216 Chapter Notes 219 Selected Bibliography 246 Index 255 Preface and Acknowledgments The changes that have occurred in librarianship over the last decade and a half are more than all the combined changes that have occurred since Dewey.