Oregon has reversed a former liberal drug law, but not in time to avoid losing “a generation” of people to addiction.

In fact, the state’s decision to recriminalize drugs is just the first of many needed actions, says State House Republican leader Jeff Helfrich. The new law, reversing the 2020 decriminalization, took effect Sunday, according to the NY Post and Fox News.

The new law, HB 4002, introduces stricter penalties for selling drugs in public and classifies personal drug possession as a misdemeanor. Addiction and drug-related deaths surged after Oregon’s 2020 decriminalization, which was approved by 58% of voters.

Helfrich said on Fox this week: “You saw overdose deaths, you saw drug usage on the street, crime, homelessness all soared after Democrats put this policy in place. And they could have stopped it, but they didn’t.”

“Unfortunately, because we decriminalized it for those few years, we’ve lost a generation, I believe, of people because of these drugs. And you don’t get to have those times anymore,” he continued. 

“People can’t even go into public and take their kids to the park because they’re dealing with the death, they’re dealing with drug use, dealing with all those bad things that are happening. And this is just horrible policies.” 

Under the new law, individuals caught with small amounts of drugs like fentanyl, heroin, or meth can choose between facing possession charges or entering a treatment program, which requires completing a behavioral health program to avoid fines.

The report says that the new law will help police tackle widespread public drug use in parts of Oregon, says Portland police chief Bob Day. Offenders opting for treatment to avoid charges must meet strict criteria: no other charges, warrants, violent behavior, and be medically stable.

Despite the statewide implementation, Jeff Helfrich believes more action is needed to address the drug crisis.

“It’s unfortunate that you have these mega-donors around the nation that use Oregon as the petri dish and experiment to try to create this world of utopia, and you can’t do it. We need more Republicans [in] charge to fix this problem,” Helfrich concluded, according to the NY Post/Fox News report. 

In his first public statements since his arrest by France on Aug. 24 at Paris’ Le Bourget airport, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov blasted French authorities for detaining and charging him, but also admitted that Telegram is not perfect that he’ll work to clean up instances of criminals abusing the platform.

He argued in a post to Telegram that it wildly departs from norms for a government to go after a CEO personally, as opposed to the “established practice” of bringing legal against the company.

“Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach,” the billionaire tech entrepreneur wrote. 

“Building technology is hard enough as it is,” he continued. “No innovator will ever build new tools if they know they can be personally held responsible for potential abuse of those tools.”

“We’ve been committed to engaging with regulators to find the right balance [between privacy and security],” Durov continued. “Yes, we stand by our principles: our experience is shaped by our mission to protect our users in authoritarian regimes. But we’ve always been open to dialogue.”

Durav was detained by the National Anti-Fraud Office (ONAF), over the alleged facilitation of various crimes including terrorism, narcotics trafficking, child abuse, modey laundering and fraud. “On his platform, he allowed an incalculable number of offences and crimes to be committed, for which he did nothing to moderate or cooperate,” a source told TF1 TV.

It appears that Telegram has already begun quietly implementing changes in response to French and EU criticisms surrounding the case, especially related to the issue of chat moderation…

Telegram quietly updates FAQ, removing:

“All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them.” pic.twitter.com/ajWOOBAAB5

— db (@tier10k) September 6, 2024

“We hear voices saying that it’s not enough,” Durov said in his new post. “Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform. That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard.”

Coindesk has described the initial changes to the app/platform already made as ‘radical‘:

Telegram is radically altering its stance towards “illegal” use of its messaging days after CEO Pavel Durov was arrested in France for allegedly failing to police law-breaking content.

On Thursday night, the formerly freewheeling texting app extended its moderators’ reach to include private chats. For the first time, users in private chats can “flag illegal content” for review, Telegram wrote in a change on its FAQ page. An older version of the same page said Telegram treated private groups as off-limits.

Durov has still maintained his stance that the formal charges against him are meritless. Others have argued that the case would be akin to prosecuting Google executives for any and all criminal or abusive communications or postings. In many cases tech companies are left seeking to moderate potentially criminal and offensive content – but which is like seeking a needle in a haystack.

And all of this is raising questions of encrypted communications and the lengths European governments in particular might go to try stamp out its use among the citizenry:

The listed charges include “complicity” in crimes ranging from possessing and distributing child sexual abuse material to selling narcotics and money laundering. Durov is also being investigated for refusing to comply with requests to enable “interceptions” from law enforcement and for importing and providing an encryption tool without declaring it. (While encrypted messaging is legal in France, anyone importing the tech has to register with the government.)

He’s also accused of “criminal association with a view to committing a crime” punishable by more than five years in prison.

France uses arcane cyber law to charge Pavel Durov: it forces any company offering cryptology tools to notify France’s ANSSI cybersecurity agency and keep “a description of the technical characteristics of the cryptology tool” as well as the source code 👇https://t.co/dcOaIsbdIq

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 5, 2024

There are reports saying that EU regulators will seek to enforce the strictest content moderation possible on Telegram. This has raised the alarm over vital questions of free speech from other major social media platform owners, especially Elon Musk.

Last week Durov was released from custody, with travel limitations imposed by a French judge, after posting €5 million, or about $5.5 million, for bail. He is barred from leaving France, and his movements are being monitored.

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal case has postponed his sentencing for the second time. According to Reuters, the new sentencing date has been pushed to November 26, after the presidential election on November 5.

Trump’s lawyers asked Judge Juan M. Merchan, who oversaw Trump’s seven-week trial earlier this year, to postpone the September 18 sentencing. They argued there wouldn’t be enough time for the defense to appeal Merchan’s upcoming ruling on Trump’s request to overturn the conviction, citing the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision on presidential immunity.

Judge Juan Merchan wrote in the court filing:

“This matter is one that stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation’s history, and this Court has presided over it since its inception – from arraignment to jury verdict and a plenitude of motions and other matters in-between. Were this Court to decide, after careful consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump, that this case should proceed, it will be faced with one of the most critical and difficult decisions a trial court judge faces – the sentencing of a defendant found guilty of crimes by a unanimous jury of his peers.

“The adjournment request has now been decided in the same way this Court has decided every other issue that has arisen since the origination of this case, applying the facts and the law after carefully considering the issues and respective arguments of the parties to ensure that the integrity of the proceeding, is protected, justice is served, and the independence of this judiciary kept firmly intact.” 

In May, Trump was convicted by a unanimous jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors said Trump signed off on the scheme to hide reimbursements to a lawyer who wired a $130,000 “hush money” payment to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump pleaded not guilty and denied the encounter. 

The charges carry a maximum sentence of four years in jail. Most legal observers expect Trump to avoid jail time, given the alternatives to incarceration, including probation. 

Trump’s original sentencing was set for July 11, but it was delayed after he filed a motion to overturn his conviction, citing a landmark Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. 

Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove’s request for a postponement argued it would be inappropriate to sentence the former president this month since early voting in the presidential election has already begun.

“By adjourning the sentencing until after that election … the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings,” they wrote.

🚨Its official – Trump won’t be sentenced in NY until after the election

If he wins, no jail time for his political persecution

If he loses, he’ll likely spend the rest of his life in jail as a political prisoner

These are the stakes pic.twitter.com/ztzt6e7mlT

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) September 6, 2024

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told The Hill that there should be no sentencing at all in the case and that, “as mandated by the United States Supreme Court,” Trump’s hush money case and other legal matters should be dismissed.

Prosecutors did not oppose the delay, leaving the decision to the judge. They noted, “The People respectfully defer to the Court on the appropriate post- trial schedule.” 

*Developing…  

Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

It’s been more than three weeks since a named tropical storm or hurricane has developed in the Atlantic, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) as of Sept. 5.

While five low pressure disturbances have been spotted in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, there is little chance that this streak will come to an end in the next few days.

Hurricane Ernesto earned its name on Aug. 12, and the NHC issued its last advisory about the storm on Aug. 20, which, by that day, was moving over the north Atlantic more than 400 miles east-northeast of Newfoundland, Canada.

This marks a three-week gap between tropical cyclones reaching a level of strength and organized convection that warrants a name, and two weeks since a tropical cyclone advisory was issued.

Each of the five low pressure disturbances have a small possibility of becoming a tropical storm within the next week.

“Overall, the tropics (Atlantic basin) are starting to awaken from the slumber we have had for the last few weeks,” Stan Goldenberg, a meteorologist for the Hurricane Research Division at NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, told The Epoch Times in an email.

He added that there could be several factors as to why they are not seeing more development now, such as the current state of a usually storm-producing phenomenon called the Madden-Julian Oscillation, and enduring dryness in the air.

“We are still seeing a lot of dry air inhibiting activity, but that normally starts to clear out about this time so it is expected to change soon,” he said.

Possible Storm Developments

Only two disturbances appear to be having an immediate impact on land. Disturbance 1 is currently affecting the northwest Gulf Coast around Texas and Louisiana with a 10 percent chance of further development in the next seven days.

“Although development is unlikely, heavy rainfall is expected across portions of the northern Gulf Coast during the next day or so,” the NHC stated.

Meanwhile, Disturbance 4 was expected to reach Belize and the Yucatan Peninsula by Aug. 6, and is described as disorganized shower and thunderstorm activity.

The most probable disturbance to develop was spotted in the northwest Atlantic ocean between North Carolina and Bermuda. The NHC labeled this storm L99 and gave it a 30 percent chance of developing in the next 48 hours, reporting better-organized showers and thunderstorms and near-gale force winds (39 to 54 mph).

“This system could acquire some tropical or subtropical characteristics over the next day or two while it moves generally north-northeastward, remaining offshore of the northeastern United States,” the NHC stated. “Once the low moves over cooler waters by early Saturday, further development is not expected.”

The potential for storm development is also tracked by the NOAA Climate Prediction Center’s Global Tropical Hazards Outlook, which is updated every Tuesday. But that, too, appears to suggest that the relative calm will continue.

Dan Harnos, a meteorologist for NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, told The Epoch Times in an email that the outlook suggests a greater than 40 percent chance that a hurricane will develop between Sept. 11 and 17 in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, “with lower probabilities of formation across the tropical Atlantic the following week.

“Also on the horizon is the potential forecast shift to La Niña conditions forecast during September-October-November, which have been shown to lengthen the duration of prior Atlantic hurricane seasons.”

Named Storms

Tropical Storms and Hurricanes in the Atlantic—which includes the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico—are given names in alphabetical order throughout the season. This means that as of Sept. 5, only five named storms were recorded and only three of those five reached hurricane status. This included Hurricane Beryl, which became the earliest-forming Category 5 hurricane on record.

For comparison, in 2023, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reported seven named storms within the two-week period between Aug. 20 and Sept. 5: Tropical Storm Gert, Tropical Storm Emily, Hurricane Franklin, Tropical Storm Harold, Hurricane Idalia, Tropical Storm Jose, and Tropical Storm Katia.

Tropical Storms Gert, Emily, Jose, and Katia never made landfall.

“I do think it’s surprising for the tropics to be relatively quiet as we approach the historical peak of the season, which is just a few days away,” Erica Grow Cei, a National Weather Service spokesperson and meteorologist, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“But that’s just statistics! The atmospheric conditions mentioned by Dr. Harnos are preventing any of the waves originating off the coast of Africa from developing further. So meteorologically, it makes sense.”

The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 through Nov. 30, and NOAA has said there’s a 90 percent chance that 2024 will have higher than normal activity and a 10 percent chance that activity will be near normal.

NOAA predicted the 2024 season will have 17 to 24 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), with eight to 13 of them being hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher) and four to seven being major hurricanes, in its Aug. 4 report. A major hurricane is one that grows to a Category 3 or stronger with wind speeds of 111 mph or greater.

NOAA states that a typical Atlantic hurricane season produces 14 named storms, seven of which are hurricanes and three of which are major hurricanes.

To those living in hurricane-prone areas, Grow Cei said it only takes one tropical storm or hurricane to cause a catastrophe, and that the 2024 season is far from over.

“Enjoy this respite from a normally active period for the tropics, but make sure your supplies are ready in the event a new storm starts brewing,” she said.

Shares of Israeli autonomous driving company Mobileye Global plunged to a record low on Friday in New York after a Bloomberg report, citing sources, indicated Intel could be preparing to dump some of its stake in the software company on the public market or through a sale to a third party. This comes as the dumpster fire at Intel rages on as Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger prepares to pitch the chipmaker’s board of directors on a turnaround plan.

The chipmaker could offload some of its 88% holding in Mobileye on the public market or via a sale to a third party, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the information was private. Mobileye has a board meeting later this month in New York, where Intel’s plans will be considered, one of the people said. -BBG

Mobileye provides software and hardware for self-driving systems. Intel already dumped a $1.5 billion stake in Mobileye last year.

Shares of Mobileye are down nearly 73% on the year. Any selling by Intel in the public markets could crush shares even lower. As of Friday morning, Mobileye has a market cap of around $9.56 billion. About 14.5%, or approximately 13.4 million shares of the company’s float is short. 

In August, Mobileye slashed its annual revenue and profit forecasts due to dwindling demand for its driver-assistance chips in China. A slowdown in the global automotive market, including EVs, has translated into fewer orders for Mobileye’s chips. Also, a dismal economic recovery in China and weakening growth in the US have weighed on Mobileye. 

Last month, RBC Capital Markets analyst Tom noted, “The narrative on Mobileye is more tied to SuperVision than macro. Winning SuperVision is a huge aspect and that’s what the stock is trading on… More contracts were supposed to come in H2 and we’re already in August, so some investors might be getting a little impatient.” 

Also last month, Bloomberg reported Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs bankers were working with Intel to advise on several scenarios that could stop the market cap hemorrhaging, including a split of the chipmaker’s product design and manufacturing businesses.

A separate report from Reuters this week said Intel’s plan includes cost-cutting measures like selling businesses, such as the programmable chip unit Altera, which Intel can no longer support from its sliding profits. 

Gelsinger and senior executives are set to present a turnaround plan to the board of directors in mid-September. We expect more details to emerge around that time. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For the second year in a row, Harvard University is ranked dead last among universities and colleges on the annual survey of free speech on campuses by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

Harvard shares a score of 0.00 with Columbia University. They are followed by New York University, University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss free speech on campuses and note that public universities could prove the last line of defense for this right. It is not that faculty members are necessarily any more protective of free speech or intellectual diversity at these schools. However, they are directly subject to the First Amendment as state schools and thus can be taken to court more readily for denials of the right.

Conversely, at schools like Harvard, Columbia, Penn, and NYU, the faculty appears unconcerned about their dismal records on free speech. There is still a growing anti-free speech movement on our campuses. It is notable that these schools also have largely purged conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. A past survey found that over 75 percent of faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Another survey found that many departments do not have a single Republican.

I was disappointed that my alma mater University of Chicago has fallen from number 1 to 44, though it still gets a shout out from FIRE as being a consistently strong free speech environment. The concerning fall has occurred under with the presidency of Armand Paul Alivisatos. He replaced one of the greatest advocates of free speech in academia, the late Robert Zimmer.

My proudest moment came when Zimmer sent a famous letter to the class of 2020. The letter warned students that they will not be shielded from views that upset them or given “safe spaces” on campus.

In the letter, the university declared that “our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

It was a moment of clarity that is missing in today’s environment of speech codes, microaggressions, and cancel campaigns.

When Zimmer stepped down in 2021, there was a virtual panic in the free speech community. He was our champion and placed one of the premier academic institutions in the world on the side of free speech.

Notably, Barnard College (unlike the other schools at the bottom) has joined other schools in adopting the Chicago Principles. It released a statement committing itself to a new course. We will have to wait to see if faculty will honor such a commitment.

George Washington University, where I teach, is 161st out of 251 schools with a below average ranking.

What was surprising this year were the schools receiving a “warning” about anti-free speech policies.  They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University. FIRE found that all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.” The President of Hillsdale responded in this column.

If there will be substantial improvements in the anti-free speech environment in higher education in private colleges, they will only come from donors refusing to support these schools until they change their policies and culture. Administrators and faculty feel little pressure to reverse these trends. However, they will respond if their intolerance begins to threaten their own budgets and departments.

Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them.

In the meantime, public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. What is missing is greater diversity of viewpoints on faculties. I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools.

While some professors have argued that free speech and intellectual diversity are not essential to higher education, most of the public disagrees and has a right to expect a diverse and tolerant environment at state-supported schools.

In my book and past congressional testimony, I have also encouraged Congress to adopt ten basic prerequisites for federal funding for colleges and universities on free speech. If these schools want to continue to deny free speech to students and faculty, they should do so with their own funds and contributions from donors who share their anti-free speech agendas. Taxpayers should not be supporting schools which deny a right considered “indispensable” to our constitution and culture.

You can see the full rankings here.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Georgia has temporarily blocked the Biden administration from implementing its latest plan to bring widespread federal student loan cancellation for up to 30 million borrowers.

The 14-day restraining order was handed down Sept. 5, two days after a coalition of seven Republican-led states preemptively sued to stop the plan, claiming that the federal government is “unlawfully trying to mass cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of loans” and planning to do so by Sept. 7.

The plan in question, popularly known as “Plan B,” has been in the works since last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the initial effort by the Biden administration to offer a blanket cancellation of up to $400 billion in student loans. It has yet to be published, although borrowers were asked last month to confirm whether they want to opt-out.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, Plan B would primarily benefit those who owe more than they originally borrowed due to accrued interest. It would erase up to $20,000 beyond the principal balance, regardless of the borrower’s income. Some 23 million may even see their entire interest balances eliminated.

The Education Department could also forgive the debt of those who have been repaying for at least 20 or 25 years, those who qualify for loan forgiveness under other programs but haven’t applied, and those who attended schools that lost access to federal aid, suddenly closed, or left graduates financially worse off.

A fifth category of borrowers would get their debt forgiven based on certain “hardships” that persist after other benefits are exhausted, such as medical debt and expensive child care. The specifics are still under review.

The seven-state coalition, led by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, argued that the Education Department lacks the rule-making authority to cancel debt at such a large scale. It noted that the department’s income-driven loan repayment program, dubbed SAVE, is also halted while an appeals process over its legality plays out.

“This is the third time the Secretary has unlawfully tried to mass cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in loans,” their complaint read.

“Courts stopped him the first two times, when he tried to do so openly. So now he is trying to do so through cloak and dagger.”

Judge J. Randal Hall of the Southern District of Georgia sided with the states. His order paused Plan B pending a Sept. 18 hearing.

“Plaintiffs show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits given the rule’s lack of statutory authority,” the judge wrote.

Bailey welcomed the decision, calling it a “huge victory” for Americans who have already paid off their student loans or didn’t go to college at all.

“I paid for my education in blood, sweat, and tears in service to my country, so this fight is personal for me,” he said in a statement.

“We will continue to lead the way for working Americans who are being preyed upon by unelected federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C.”

The lawsuit is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, and Ohio.

The Education Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a shocking undercover sting, a top spokesman for the Department of Justice in New York was secretly filmed blasting Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing him of using the legal system as a political weapon to boost his own ambitions.

Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office, was captured on hidden camera calling Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump a “perversion of justice” and “nonsense” in a damning video released by conservative podcaster Steven Crowder’s “Mug Club.”

The recordings, taken on July 31 and August 14, show Biase, who claimed to have known Bragg for 15 years, savaging the progressive prosecutor’s headline-grabbing case against Trump over hush money payments made to a porn star. Biase is seen talking to an unidentified woman in what appears to be a bar, voicing his belief that Bragg’s motivations were more about self-promotion than justice.

“He wants to be something … a mayor? I’m not sure what he wants to be, but I know he’s not happy just being the DA of New York County,” Biase is heard saying in the clip. “Before he decided to prosecute Trump, did you know who he was? You do now.”

Biase accused Bragg of manipulating charges against Trump to make them fit a narrative.

“This guy is probably going to try to lock him [Trump] up. And it’s going to be ugly…,” he warned, referring to Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case.

Biase also unleashed on state-level justice systems, calling them “the Wild West” compared to the more stringent rules at the federal level. He criticized another high-profile prosecution of Trump by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia, labeling it a “travesty of justice” and a “mockery of justice.”

Watch:

BREAKING: DOJ Chief of Public Affairs Admits Trump Indictments Are a Politically Motivated “Perversion of Justice”; Reveals Lawfare Involved in Making Former President a “Convicted Felon” Backfired on Democrats; Claims His Former Colleague Alvin Bragg’s Case is “Nonsense” And… pic.twitter.com/IQhR0ax2pw

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) September 5, 2024

Biase’s comments ignited a firestorm of controversy after Crowder shared the clips on social media. The DOJ spokesman, clearly caught off guard by the release of the secret recordings, scrambled to issue an apology.

“I was recently made aware of a video where I regretfully made some statements in a private and social setting that don’t reflect my views about two local and state prosecutions,” Biase said in a statement to The Post. “I said these things in an effort to please and impress someone I just met, who was secretly filming me. I’m deeply sorry to the local and state law enforcement officials working on these matters, who deserve more respect than I showed them.”

Just one day after 14-year-old Colt Gray allegedly went on a killing spree at his Georgia high school, state police have arrested his father and charged him with murder because he made an AR-15 available to his son. Police sources told NBC News that Colin Gray gave the rifle to his son as a gift — a move that came after the pair had been questioned by police investigating a tip about someone threatening to shoot up a school.

“These charges stem from Mr. Gray knowingly allowing his son Colt to possess a weapon,” Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) director Chris Hosey told reporters on Wednesday. Fifty-four-year-old Colin Gray has been hit with two counts of second-degree murder, four counts of involuntary manslaughter and eight counts of cruelty to children. Colt Gray is being held in a youth detention center on four murder charges so far, but will be tried as an adult. 

Police say that, around 10:20 am on Tuesday, Colt Gray used an AR-15 purchased by his father to kill two 14-year-old students and two teachers, and wound another seven students and two teachers. He surrendered immediately upon being confronted by police. The carnage took place at Apalachee High School in Winder, about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta. “The nine injured, I am very happy to say, will make a full recovery,” said Barrow County Sheriff on Thursday.  

The charges could represent the substantiation of an emerging trend in charging parents who enable their children to access firearms and then use them with horrific results. In an historic first earlier this year, the parents of a 2021 Michigan school-shooter were each convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for failing to secure a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol, while ignoring stark indications that their son’s mental health was spiraling downward. 

More than a year before the Georgia shooting, investigators in neighboring Jackson County were handed a tip from the FBI that led them to question Colt and Colin Gray. The FBI was notified by concerned citizens who’d seen someone on the Discord messaging platform bragging about intentions to go on a middle school shooting spree the next day, and posting photos of firearms. The poster’s username was a Russian translation of “Lanza,” the last name of the perpetrator of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut. 

When questioned in May 2023, Colt said he’d used Discord before but that his account had been hacked and he wouldn’t threaten a mass shooting. According to a transcript of the interview, investigator Daniel Miller said, “I gotta take you at your word and I hope you’re being honest with me.” 

Colin Gray told police he owned hunting weapons but kept them locked and inaccessible to his son, adding that “[Colt] knows the seriousness of weapons and what they can do, and how to use them and not use them.” He also told investigators that his separation from Colt’s mother had taken a toll on the then-13-year-old, and that he’d been subjected to bullying at school. 

An investigator said no arrest was in order due to “inconsistent information” about the Discord account, including indications it had been accessed in multiple Georgia cities and Buffalo, New York. School officials were cautioned to monitor Colt Gray.  “We did not drop the ball at all on this,” Jackson County Sheriff Janis Mangum tells Associated Press. “We did all we could do with what we had at the time.”

The shooter’s aunt, Annie Brown, told the Washington Post that Colt Gray “was begging for [mental health] help from everybody around him.” She also said she’d texted a relative last month, expressing her unease that Colt had access to firearms, and that Colt’s grandmother had asked a school counselor for help. “[He] starts with a therapist tomorrow,” the grandmother messaged one week before Tuesday’s bloodshed. 

Colt Gray’s mother, Marcee Gray, has a colorful 17-year criminal record across three counties that includes charges of domestic violence, methamphetamine possession, property damage, criminal trespass, driving under the influence, and a civil fraud claim associated with an alleged bad check she and her husband presented for a vehicle purchase. 

Michigan and Georgia’s criminal charges for parents leaving weapons unsecured and accessible to troubled kids should serve as a cautionary tale for those exercising their right of armed self-defense. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I previously wrote how a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free speech. Both candidates have shown pronounced anti-free speech values.

Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have posted a Harris interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech. I have long argued that Trump and the third-party candidates should make free speech a central issue in this campaign. That has not happened.

Kennedy was the only candidate who was substantially and regularly talking about free speech in this election. Yet, Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the chilling potential of a Harris-Walz Administration.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly “Orwellian.”

In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free speech inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not yield to demands for speech regulation.

What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech “has to stop” and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to “directly speak[] to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.”

Harris discussed her view that then-President Trump’s Twitter account should be shut down because the public had to be protected from harmful viewpoints.

“And when you’re talking about Donald Trump, he has 65 million Twitter followers, he has proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice – just ask Bob Mueller. You can look at the manifesto from the shooter in El Paso to know that what Donald Trump says on Twitter impacts peoples’ perceptions about what they should and should not do.”

Harris demanded that Trump’s account “should be taken down” and that there be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens:

“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power… They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”

Kamala will shut down X if she wins pic.twitter.com/sML999zQlB

— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) August 30, 2024

In other words, free speech should be set to the lowest common denominator of speech regulation to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.

Harris’s views have been echoed by many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton who (after Musk purchased Twitter) called upon European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).

Other Democratic leaders have praised Brazil for banning X after Musk balked at censoring conservatives at the demand of the socialist government. Brazil is where this anti-free speech movement is clearly heading and could prove a critical testing ground for national bans on sites which refuse to engage in comprehensive censorship. As Harris clearly states in the CNN interview, there cannot be “one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.” Rather, everyone must censor or face imminent government shutdowns.

The “joy” being sold by Harris includes the promise of the removal of viewpoints that many on the left feel are intolerable or triggering on social media.

Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer.  Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education.

Harris often speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver.

Trump and the third party candidates are clearly not forcing Harris to address her record on free speech. Yet, polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose censorship and favor free speech.

In my book, I propose various steps to restore free speech in America, including a law that would bar federal funds for censorship, including grants and other funding that target individuals and sites over the content of their views. The government can still speak in its own voice and it can still prosecute those who commit crimes on the Internet or engage in criminal conspiracies. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such legislation.

For free speech advocates, the 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800. One of the greatest villains in our history discussed in my book was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.

It was the only presidential election in our history where free speech was a central issue for voters. It should be again. While democracy is really not on the ballot this election, free speech is.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”