'It is continually addicted to lying'

The post cannot be found on SpaceX's verified account.

There are a lot of similarities between Bruce and Barron.

'How on Earth is it appropriate?'

Polly Jean Harvey is one of Britain’s most prolific singer-songwriters. Her career began in 1988 when she joined a band called Automatic Dlamini, whose frontman, John Parish, is one of her long-term collaborators. She and two other musicians recorded the earliest PJ Harvey releases as a trio before they disbanded in 1993, after which she carried on as a solo artist. Since 1995, she has released nine albums featuring collaborations with various artists. Harvey has received the Mercury Music Prize twice, the first in 2000 for Stories of the City, Stories From the Sea, and the second in 2011 for The post Top 10 PJ Harvey Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

The Spencer Davis Group is a British rock band formed in Birmingham in 1963. The original lineup consisted of Spencer Davis (guitar, vocals), Steve Winwood (vocals, organ, guitar), Muff Winwood (bass), and Pete York (drums). The band achieved success in the mid-1960s with hits like “Keep On Running,” “Somebody Help Me,” “Gimme Some Lovin’,” and “I’m a Man.” The band released eight studio albums: Their First LP (1965), The Second Album (1966), Autumn ’66 (1966), With Their New Face On (1968), Funky (1970), Gluggo (1973), Living in a Back Street (1974), and Vibrate (1986). They are known for their energetic The post Complete List Of The Spencer Davis Group Albums And Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

A reservoir in Utah has been transformed from a pea-soupy mess of harmful algal blooms into a clear blue body of pristine water perfect for migratory birds and boaters. The hero behind the transformation is an extraordinary company called BlueGreen Water Tech which has invented an environmentally friendly algicide that causes mass cell death among […] The post New Tool to Mitigate Algal Blooms Is Making Breakthrough Results in Utah, Scientists Say appeared first on Good News Network.

What do epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and the National Rifle Association have in common? More than is first apparent. Both advocate for views unpopular with left-wing politicians, a “herd immunity” approach to COVID-19 in the doctor’s case and gun ownership in the NRA’s.  Because of their views, both had their dealings with third parties curtailed by government threats. Both responded by filing cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day. And both asked the high court to hold that the government’s ability to speak doesn’t vest it with power to suppress disfavored views. On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided one of those cases, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, less than two months after it was argued. In a surprise to many, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the unanimous opinion ruling in the NRA’s favor. Although the case involved the Second Amendment’s most visible advocates, the case at its core was about the Constitution’s First Amendment protections. And while interesting in its own right, one can’t help but look through the decision for clues forecasting the high court’s still-pending ruling in Dr. Kulldorff’s case, Murthy v. Missouri.   In 2017, Maria Vullo, head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, launched investigations into insurers that did business with the National Rifle Association. Certain NRA-endorsed insurance programs had violated New York state law, but after the 2018 mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, Vullo and then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo leveraged public outrage with the threat of regulatory penalties to get insurers to cut all business ties with the NRA. In private meetings, Vullo stated that her department would cease investigating infractions—many unrelated to the NRA —if the insurers cut ties with the gun rights advocacy organization. Several insurers promptly agreed to end relationships and not enter new ones with the NRA.  The NRA sued, alleging that the Department of Financial Services coerced the insurers because of its pro-gun advocacy. That, the NRA alleged, was censorship and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.  Although the trial court let the case proceed, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the NRA’s claims, reasoning that Vullo’s exchanges with insurers were legitimate regulatory activity and permissible government speech. The Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit with a resounding 9-0 vote. Writing for the court, Sotomayor explained that officials such as Vullo could criticize the National Rifle Association and penalize legitimate infractions, but they could not wield the threat of investigations to penalize the NRA for disfavored speech. The principle is not new, dating back at least to the high court’s 1963 decision in Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan, but its application depends on several factors—the official’s authority, tone, reference to consequences, the recipient’s response—none of which are dispositive.   The 2nd Circuit’s error was assessing each of the NRA’s allegations in isolation, rather than taking a comprehensive view of the pressure Vullo exerted on the insurers. The Supreme Court had no difficulty finding that the NRA’s complaint as a whole alleged threats amounting to unlawful coercion, retaliation, or both. Vullo not only communicated her dislike of the NRA to the insurers she regulates, she also made clear that her department would pursue a host of unrelated investigations against them unless they ceased to do any business with the gun rights organization. And as an agency head, she had the authority to make the threats a reality. That holding is a win for the NRA and broad First Amendment protections. But it is far from clear that the decision here portends a similar outcome in the Murthy case. Although similar in substance, the NRA’s case reached the Supreme Court in an earlier procedural posture where courts must credit a plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations. The Murthy plaintiffs, by contrast, have had the benefit of fact discovery and therefore have the heavier burden of offering evidence that proves their allegations.  In the NRA’s case, a deputy U.S. solicitor general argued that the 2nd Circuit was wrong to find no coercion. Her office argued that same day in Murthy that when White House officials spent months berating Facebook’s and Twitter’s content moderators about supposed disinformation, those officials were merely attempting to persuade. It would not be surprising for the Supreme Court to find that those officials don’t have the same direct authority to punish social media companies that Vullo plainly had over insurance companies. The Murthy plaintiffs also face a difficulty that the National Rifle Association doesn’t: ongoing injury. The NRA has an ongoing injury because the organization’s former insurers refuse to resume business dealings. Meanwhile, counsel for the Murthy plaintiffs had difficulty convincing the justices during oral argument that his clients are or will be the subject of future censorship.  Still, there are some hopeful signs. In her opinion, Sotomayor affirmed that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”  Sotomayor acknowledged concerns present in both cases when the government attacks disfavored speech through a third party: This approach, she wrote, “allows government officials to be more effective in their speech-suppression efforts because intermediaries will often be less invested in the speaker’s message and thus less likely to risk the regulator’s ire.”  And although political accountability can check certain forms of government coercion, Sotomayor wrote, when the “government official makes coercive threats in a private meeting behind closed doors, the ‘ballot box’ is an especially poor check on that official’s authority.” Give credit where it’s due: Sotomayor’s diagnosis is sound. Let’s hope that when the Supreme Court grapples with those issues in Murthy v. Missouri, the diagnosis remains the same and the treatment will not be withheld.    The post Guns, Germs, and Speech: Unanimous Supreme Court Sides With NRA in First Amendment Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Dr. Aaron Edwards, a Christian lecturer, was dismissed from Cliff College, a Methodist institution in Derbyshire, England, after posting his religious views on homosexuality on social media, leading to student complaints about feeling “unsafe.” An employment tribunal heard the details of the case, where Dr. Edwards, who had worked at the college for seven years, defended his stance and actions. In February 2023, Dr. Edwards posted on social media: “Homosexuality is invading the Church. Evangelicals no longer see the severity of this b/c they’re busy apologising for their apparently barbaric homophobia, whether or not it’s true. This is a ‘Gospel issue’, by the way. If sin is no longer sin, we no longer need a Saviour.” Another post followed, asserting, “The acceptance of homosexuality as ‘not sinful’ is an invasion upon the Church, doctrinally. This is not controversial. The acceptance is controversial. Most of the global Church would agree. It is not homophobic to declare homosexuality sinful.” These posts triggered complaints from three female students, who claimed they felt “unsafe.” Despite this, Dr. Edwards maintained that his views were consistent with those he had shared in various academic and religious contexts, including blogs, podcasts, and sermons. He argued that the college was aware of his views long before the controversy arose. Following an investigation, Dr. Edwards was accused of homophobia and bringing the college “into disrepute,” leading to his suspension and subsequent dismissal in March 2023. He is now pursuing a legal claim against Cliff College for harassment, discrimination, and unfair dismissal, seeking damages, compensation, and reinstatement. During the tribunal, Dr. Edwards emphasized that his tweet was made amidst a significant debate within the Church of England regarding same-sex blessings. He expressed that he intended to uphold what he believes to be the truth in a society where such views are increasingly challenged. The tweet garnered significant attention but Dr. Edwards stood by his statements, asserting that they were academically defensible and aligned with his professional and religious convictions. Dr. Edwards criticized the college for its lack of support during the backlash, highlighting that no students had previously expressed concerns about his views during his tenure. He described the college’s response on Twitter as a public betrayal without prior consultation. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Tribunal Hears Case of Dismissed Christian Lecturer’s Homosexuality Remarks appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Canada’s Bill C-26, currently making its way through the country’s parliament, includes “secretive” provisions that can be used to break encryption, researchers are warning. As far as its sponsors are concerned, Bill C-26 is cyber security legislation intended to amend the Telecommunications Act and other related acts. But the way the Telecommunications Act will be amended is by allowing the government to force companies operating in that industry to include backdoors in networks protected by encryption, a pair of University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab researchers suggest. In case the government decides its surveillance needs require altering “the 5G encryption standards that protect mobile communications” – then this can also be done, should C-26 become law. This raises several important questions, such as whether the bill’s purpose might be precisely to undermine encryption, considering that the government decided not to include amendments in the text that would prevent this. Another worrying aspect is that given the already lacking level of security in the telecommunications space, the government would be expected to try to fix the existing problems, rather than create new ones, the researchers note. The amendment that could have rectified this situation was proposed last year by the Citizen Lab, while civil society and industry leaders and experts also participated in parliamentary hearings concerning C-26 to recommend restricting what are said to be the draft’s broad powers to prevent “technical changes from being used to compromise the ‘confidentiality, integrity, or availability’ of telecommunication services.” However, these warnings fell on deaf ears, with the bill now progressing through parliament without the recommended changes, and despite MPs stating that facilitating and broadening mass surveillance in Canada was not the motive behind C-26. But, Citizen Lab researchers are warning, that the result will be the government giving itself the power to be the only entity to decide “when, and on what conditions, Canadians deserve security for their most confidential communications – personal, business, religious, or otherwise.” As is the case with any undermining of encryption, the door to people’s online communications that the authorities want to unlock only for themselves, in reality, becomes open to everybody – other governments, hackers, criminals of various descriptions. And when experts warn that weakened encryption makes everybody on the internet much less secure, they mean those government officials who push for this type of change, too. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Ottawa’s Hidden Agenda: Bill C-26 Aims for Secret Surveillance Backdoors appeared first on Reclaim The Net.