The Federalist: World War 1 was the beginning of America’s foolish foreign intervention habit
Also The Federalist: Amazon HQ will cost New Yorkers $61,000 per employee
TAC: Trump defends the indefensible in Yemen
Reason: UK anti-terrorism efforts are terrifying to anyone who favors free speech
FEE: Resisting the human impulse to make saints and witches Ed: I’ve always wondered what it is about us that compels us to either worship or burn others.
The Hill: Another decade lost to the global war on drugs
Techdirt: Court to law enforcement: You can’t seize a house for 15 hours before obtaining a warrant
Mises: Latin America has fewer guns, but more crime
VERONIQUE DE RUGY: A woman’s right to a free market
Antiwar.com: The case against Wikileaks is a crisis for the First Amendment. Ed: The First Amendment’s primary purpose is to protect speech criticizing the powerful. Non-controversial speech doesn’t require protection. It is the “controversial” criticism of every aspect of our rulers that requires robust protection, including Wikileaks. I’ve debated internally whether the First Amendment protections extends to instances of personal insults with the intent to provoke: example: walking up to someone’s wife and making lewd and vicious remarks about her. If you get knocked out, were your free speech rights violated? The First Amendment was consecrated at a time when duels were still fought over insults and slights, so I wonder how far the Founders believed the First Amendment truly extended. Disclaimer: I am not advocating for the return of the duel, and I am not advocating for physical violence.
