Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

NSA

Overruling the Obama Administration a Federal Judge Allows Suit Against NSA Spying to Go Forward

Ronald Bailey | 7.9.2013 12:37 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
EyeofSauron
Shirtigo

A federal judge in San Francisco is permitting the case Jewel v. NSA filed on behalf of AT&T customers by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to go forward despite the objections of that the lawsuit runs afoul of the "state secrets privilege" according to Obama administration lawyers. As CNET reports:

A federal judge ruled today that a long-standing lawsuit alleging illegal surveillance by the National Security Agency may continue despite the Obama administration's objections.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco rejected the administration's claim that the lawsuit could not proceed because it might reveal "state secrets" and endanger national security.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed the lawsuit, called Jewel v. NSA, in 2008 to challenge a NSA's warrantless surveillance program that vacuumed up Americans' confidential electronic communications. It alleges (PDF) that the NSA "intentionally and willfully caused" or directed AT&T to permit access to its fiber links in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the U.S. Constitution.

"One small step for the case, one giant leap for the Constitutional rights of mankind," EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl wrote on Twitter this afternoon.

In its lawsuit the EFF asserts:

Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. It also includes declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence. 

Unfortunately, judicial precedents have allowed the government to enlarge the concept of "state secrets" such that almost any government activity can be declared a state secret. As CNET notes:

The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case, originally permitted the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets. It has since turned into a potent weapon the Bush and Obama administrations have used to target any lawsuits alleging illegal NSA surveillance.

In 1998, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals considered the state secret privilege in a case where former workers at the Air Force's classified Groom Lake, Nev., facility allegedly made hazardous waste violations. When requested by the workers' lawyers to turn over information, the Air Force refused.

The 9th Circuit upheld a summary judgment on behalf of the Air Force, saying that once the state secrets "privilege is properly invoked and the court is satisfied as to the danger of divulging state secrets, the privilege is absolute" and the case will generally be dismissed.

If you'd like to be especially depressed about the continuing rise of the national security surveillance state, see my Reason colleague J.D. Tuccille's excellent article, "The Surveillance State Isn't Coming - It's Already Here."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Snowden Featured in North Korean Propaganda Video

Ronald Bailey is science correspondent at Reason.

NSASurveillanceObama AdministrationEdward SnowdenElectronic Frontier FoundationFourth Amendment
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (104)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. anon   12 years ago

    Expect the judge to soon die in a fiery "car accident."

  2. sarcasmic   12 years ago

    Love the pic and alt-text. That's a winner for sure.

  3. Warty   12 years ago

    That picture is great. I want a poster version of it.

    1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

      Second. but with a bit better artistry.

    2. Episiarch   12 years ago

      Mt. Doom is on Liberty Island? Remo Williams must be warned!

      1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

        My understanding is that within the NPS a ranger being sent to Liberty Island is like being sent to Alaska fro the DoD or Siberia for Russians.

        1. Agammamon   12 years ago

          Nah, its a really important job - under the statue of liberty is where they keep all those guns that *disappeared* off the official inventory lists. Just in case New York is invaded by aliens - they're our first line of defense.

          We are so fucked.

          1. Killazontherun   12 years ago

            UNATCO HQ. Being tossed in among all those collected, no wonder Gunther can't find his skullgun.

        2. Lord Humungus   12 years ago

          Daryl Hannah could always show up - you never know.

          1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

            way to look on the bright side metal face.

      2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

        Chuin is already on it.

        1. Episiarch   12 years ago

          ProL, you comment like pregnant yak.

          1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

            You type like a baboon with two clubbed hands.

          2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

            You drive like a monkey in heat.

          3. Warty   12 years ago

            You talk gayer than a sackful of chinamen.

            1. Scruffy Nerfherder   12 years ago

              LOL WUT?

              1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                It's from Destroyer #671.

    3. jesse.in.mb   12 years ago

      What, you didn't get the shirt?

  4. SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian)   12 years ago

    Fuck you, thats why?

  5. Emmerson Biggins   12 years ago

    I'm wearing that t-shirt right now. Sweet.

    1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

      I was wearing mine out the other day. I got confused looks, sneers of derision, or high fives. Guess I know who I'll be seeing in the re-education camps.

      1. Brett L   12 years ago

        All of the above. That's why its such a great shirt.

  6. DesigNate   12 years ago

    Well done Ron.

  7. np   12 years ago

    Today's ruling (PDF) is anything but a final decision. White asked for "further briefing" from both sides on the constitutional arguments. And EFF will still need to demonstrate it can litigate without "impermissible damage to ongoing national security efforts," White said.

    It tooks 5 years to get here, maybe it'll take another 5 years to determine that.

  8. Res Publica Americana   12 years ago

    *Miracle happens and SCOTUS declares domestic surveillance unconstitutional.*

    Barack Obama: "The courts have announced their ruling. Now let them enforce it."

    Either way, we're probably fucked.

    1. Sevo   12 years ago

      "Barack Obama: "The courts have announced their ruling. Now let them enforce it.""

      Exactly:
      'I don't like part of this law so it doesn't apply to some of my friends. The royal scepter, please!'

      1. Libertymike   12 years ago

        The royal scepter is no match for the staff of liberty.

        1. pan fried wylie   12 years ago

          The dps is the same, but the staff of liberty's attack speed is 4.2sec compared to the royal scepter's 1.6sec.

          1. Libertymike   12 years ago

            What if my 8 year old nephew asks me how can the dps damage be the same with such a discrepancy in attack speed?

            1. Agammamon   12 years ago

              One does a more damage but attacks slower than the other. Good against single high armor opponents but not against swarms of low armor mobs.

            2. pan fried wylie   12 years ago

              Tell your nephew that he's a noob, give him a wedgie, then run away laughing maniacally.

    2. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

      No, I don't think he could pull that off. We need a good constitutional crisis, so it would be great if he tried. At least, I hope it would be.

  9. David C   12 years ago

    My favorite fact about the state secrets privilege is that the 1953 case for which it was invented didn't turn out to involve any actual state secrets, years later when it was finally declassified. Just facts that might have embarrassed government officials.

    In fact, I don't know of any cases it's been invoked for (that have since been declassified) that *have* turned out to actually involve state secrets as opposed to state privilege-of-not-being-embarrassed.

    It confuses and alarms me that judges still take it seriously. Though this judge seems to have actually inquired about the secrets involved, instead of taking the administration at its word. A positive development.

    1. Agammamon   12 years ago

      They take it so seriously that when the case was revisited in 2003, the court found no fraud in the government's original claim - because the documents, read in their historical context, could have revealed secret information about the equipment being tested on the plane and, on a broader reading, the claim of privilege referred to both the mission and the workings of the B-29.

    2. sarcasmic   12 years ago

      Embarrassing facts about public officials are a matter of national security. Public officials must be trusted. That trust might be compromised if embarrassing facts about them were to emerge. It's the same principle at work when police are never found to be at fault when they murder citizens. Public trust would be undermined if they were found to be at fault. Can't have that.

    3. tarran   12 years ago

      Yep

      A far better thing would be a system where if the govt invokes the states secrets privilege the court treats it as if the evidence were inadvertantly destroyed and react as it would for any instance where a party destroyed evidence.

      Hell the courts already have a system for litigation involving trade secrets. It's quite doable without giving the govt a keep out of jail for free card.

      1. Libertymike   12 years ago

        How about judges actually doing their job?

        There is no textual support for the state secrets doctrine to be found in either the Declaration of Independence or the federal constitution.

        Further, there is no grant of power given to the judicial branch to either conceive of, or buy, the state secrets doctrine.

        Moreover, its the survival of the values undergirding the secession from the british empire which must be protected; not the state.

        1. tarran   12 years ago

          I completely agree. There being no statute defining it, the courts had no business manufacturing it; it's a travesty of common law for a judge to decree unilaterally that a party can hide evidence.

        2. sarcasmic   12 years ago

          Oh, how naive. The job of judges is to protect the political class from uppity citizens who can afford expensive attorneys. They throw us a bone once in a while, but their core function is to come up with justifications for things that cannot be justified.

      2. Agammamon   12 years ago

        I'm thinking of a system where, when the government cries 'state secret', the courts says 'sure, but that just means we'll exclude the evidence you are trying to protect. What, you don't have any evidence *except* the top secret stuff - well I guess you'll just have to decide what's more important - national security or putting this guy in jail.

        1. David C   12 years ago

          As I understand it, that *is* how the state secrets privilege works. Except that it's not invoked in criminal cases, it's invoked in lawsuits against the government that are relying on the normal discovery process to force the government to produce evidence of its own wrongdoing or error. The court says, "sorry, plaintiff, it sure looks like the government shafted you good, but I can't force them to turn over any evidence of it because it's a state secret, so you're out of luck."

  10. Tim   12 years ago

    THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON! AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

  11. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    More like Judge Traitor.

  12. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

    AAAANNND We're OFF! It's skinny white guy ahead by a nose...

    Snowden to Venezuela.

    1. A Serious Man   12 years ago

      He better bring some Russian toilet paper with him.

      1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

        The flight plan will be interesting. It is going to be hard to avoid all of Europe and North America when flying from Moscow unless he flies to Vladivostok first then to South America, over Nicaragua and then to Venezuela.

        1. Clich? Bandit   12 years ago

          and being over that much remote ocean where the Pacific Fleet likes to bob about is a recipe for "we don't know what happened, the plane just disappeared off the radar" type incident.

          1. A Serious Man   12 years ago

            If he's really afraid of the US government diverting his plane over international airspace he could fly to Vladivostock and hop on a freighter to South America.

            The US Navy isn't going to randomly stop ships on the high sea to search for one person.

            1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

              The law on freedom of the seas is a lot more robust than for flying, I bet. So he should take a ship.

              1. Agammamon   12 years ago

                The law of the freedom of the seas is what allows American ships to stop random vessels in the Gulf all the time.

                The technical recourse to having your ships boarded is to shoot at the boarders but no-one seems to want to start a shooting war with us, so . . .

                1. A Serious Man   12 years ago

                  I can't believe that even Obama would be so stupid to cause an international incident by brazenly boarding a ship under the flag of another sovereign nation.

                  A Panamanian freighter is not the same thing as an Iranian fishing boat.

                  1. tarran   12 years ago

                    Who is going to stop him?

                  2. Agammamon   12 years ago

                    We do it all the time. Coast Guard patrolling for drug runners and both the US Navy and Coast Guard patrolling the Gulf looking for ships trying to break one of our embargoes.

                    1. Agammamon   12 years ago

                      We board freighters in the GUlf. Damn near every US Navy ship has a small group of people picked out of the crew and given training for boarding and seizure.

                    2. Agammamon   12 years ago

                      Not even peaceful, 'let me see your menifests to ensure your not doing something we don't like' boardings.

                      I mean no-shit, heave to and prepare to be boarded or shot at boarding. Coupled with a team that goes onboard, armed, and 'secure' (read gathers into one place, locks up, and/or handcuffs them, under armed guard) while the rifle through the ship's manifest and physically search the vessel.

                    3. A Serious Man   12 years ago

                      I don't dispute that the Navy and Coast Guard do it to catch drug runners and other smugglers of contraband, but we are talking about a high-profile political case.

                      It would definitely create an international backlash if they violated another nation's sovereignty to catch one man who committed no crime other than embarrassing a bully. It would definitely have repercussions.

                    4. Agammamon   12 years ago

                      Hasn't so far.

                    5. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

                      Are we forgetting that a head of state's airplane was diverted trying to catch Snowden?? Does anyone here actually think that a civilian aircraft or ship wouldn't be diverted, searched, shot down for non-compliance?

            2. BakedPenguin   12 years ago

              I thought of this, but does Russia want him on their "soil," even for a moment?

              1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

                Okay, maybe not a ship then. Unless he goes in disguise. I suggest something open, like a guy impersonating him.

  13. Mongo   12 years ago

    A design fellow who used to contract with the government at the Walker Art Center has apparently designed a font incapable of being surveilled by the NSA:

    http://blogs.citypages.com/dre.....llance.php

    1. Agammamon   12 years ago

      Unfortunately that only works for *optical* scanning. Electronic scanning is still going to see the code for each letter and will know what its supposed to be.

      1. Bam!   12 years ago

        It wouldn't even work for optical scanning. You can give OCR algorithms the raw font file, have it learn that specific font, and then it'll be able to read it as good as a human.

    2. Killazontherun   12 years ago

      Hxxexxxxntxxvxzmsxxntq ldrrzfdxxsnxxx ad tnrbzmmzakd xntxxcn xxsghrx

      1. Killazontherun   12 years ago

        That is what you do if you want to make a document unscannable. The 'x's have three tense meanings based on circumstance. If the logarithm removes the x's to scan it, the meaning is destroyed as well in the process.

        1. Mongo   12 years ago

          I knew HampersandR peeps would be smarter than some artfag....

          1. Killazontherun   12 years ago

            I'd go a few steps further. If I had, say, a twenty thousand word document to hide, after I got the pattern of code and scan noise down in an unbroken sequence (I also broke up the sequence above so the squirrels would not have fits, and left a word wide open so you could break it), I'd take a four hundred thousand word novel, remove all the words but leave their length and pattern in tack, embed the code and scan noise inside of it, and use the novel as a common key for my compatriots to skin away the first layer of noise.

            When I was trying to convince some of my friends at the mother company to release Gears of War 2 for the PC (got shot down), these are the techniques I developed to beef up the size of data files so any piracy would require massive downloads; whereas legit Steam copies could be streamed skinny using the common key.

      2. Killazontherun   12 years ago

        You can break it by hand, of course, as I left the coding simple the key wide open, but it would still give a scan the fits.

  14. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    It's more likely than not wishful thinking on my part, but it almost seems as if some of the Total Security State may be crumbling.

    Time for Peter King to hold a press conference and disclose the terrorist shootdown of that Asiana plane.

    1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

      It's at least an opportunity.

      1. Libertymike   12 years ago

        Speaking of Peter King, what about his connections to, and defense of, the IRA?

        Go back and listen to what he said in the mid 1980s about the cause of Irish republicanism.

        1. Agammamon   12 years ago

          But its ok - the IRA were never 'terrorists' they were 'freedom fighters'.

  15. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

    The image reminds me of my favorite not-asked debate questions: "Tolkien's One Ring--do you wield it or toss it into a volcano?"

    1. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

      The answer of course, is to hold whoever asks the question upside down in a toilet bowl and then flush it.

    2. Killazontherun   12 years ago

      Well, it wouldn't make for a very fitting cockring given it fit a hobbit, now would it? Wait, they have big hands, maybe you wouldn't need to toss it after all.

    3. BakedPenguin   12 years ago

      It's funny, because the Ring is a great symbol for political power - it can only destroy and lead to negative results, but damn, don't people want it.

      1. Pro Libertate   12 years ago

        The Ring is definitely in DC.

  16. Lord Humungus   12 years ago

    OT: Would a Libertarian Military Be More Lethal?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....vid-french

    Military libertarians tend to know how savage our enemy is. Moreover, they have no hesitancy to use overwhelming force in defense of the nation. After all, national defense is a core function of government even in a more libertarian state. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, thoughtful military libertarians tend to advocate something we haven't really tried in our more than decade-long fight against Islamic jihad ? the relatively brief application of truly overwhelming destructive force against identified enemies.

    wut?

    1. Warty   12 years ago

      He seems to be claiming that an army that's been purged of its useless paper-pushers would be mor effective. Well, duh.

    2. BakedPenguin   12 years ago

      I understood that to be "go in, stick the enemies' heads on pikes, GTFO."

      1. Outlaw   12 years ago

        Correct.

        Our involvement in wars should be rare, and only when there's a congressional declaration of war, but when we are involved in one we should smash the shit out of the enemy and leave.

        The job of all successful militaries throughout history has been to kill people and destroy things.

        When you try to turn them into an international Extreme Makeover: Home Edition team shit gets stupid.

        1. Episiarch   12 years ago

          Charlie: Whoa! What are you doing dude?

          Dennis: What do you mean?

          Charlie: Why are you smashing stuff?

          Dennis: I'm smashing st?dude, it's important that we get rid of anything that will remind the Juarez family of their old country.

          Charlie: Oh!

          Dennis: Bro, they're Americans now, and Americans don't hold on to the past.

    3. sarcasmic   12 years ago

      Nuke 'em from orbit!

    4. SugarFree   12 years ago

      A truly libertarian military would be more concerned than the current one about not taking innocent lives (and not torturing the idea of "innocent" to justify "kill them all.") In this sense, it might be at odds with the idea of overwhelming force because it is rarely applied to only identified enemies.

      This is a bit like saying that if the world was perfect, then everything would be perfect.

    5. Episiarch   12 years ago

      So a "libertarian military" that is aggressive and initiates attacks? Did he just create an oxymoron?

      1. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

        You're an oxymoron.

        1. Episiarch   12 years ago

          You're a towel!

    6. Agammamon   12 years ago

      Wait, for *every* military operation we've done, in the 20 years I was in, SOP has been to go in with overwhelming force and completely obliterate the opposing force in a lightning fast set of strikes. How many post-Vietnam armys have withstood a US invasion for more than 3 months?

      1. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

        Uh, are you deliberately glossing over the decades of post-war occupations or are you just forgetful?

        1. Agammamon   12 years ago

          The key phrase there is *post-war occupation*, ie after the war is over.

          We come in, smash their military with overwhelming force, and then spend the next 10 years picking sand out of our noses.

          My point was that we're already using overwhelming force, that still doesn't stop and has no effect on our post-war occupation.

          1. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

            The point of the article is that a libertarian military would do all of the smashing and none of the occupying/nation building.

            1. Agammamon   12 years ago

              You didn't expect me to read the *whole* article did you?

              I was only responding to the blurb the Ayatollah of Rockandrolla posted - which says that the author doesn't think we've tried overwhelming force before.

              1. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

                Well, I guess we can both be right, as long as I'm slightly more right than you.

                1. Lord Humungus   12 years ago

                  you're alright. We're alright.

      2. Invisible Finger   12 years ago

        Most of them. The problem is the US Military has a definition of "armies" that satisfies their collective ego rather than reality.

  17. The Late P Brooks   12 years ago

    After all, national defense is a core function of government even in a more libertarian state.

    A much more narrowly defined notion of "national defense" than what we currently have is also an essential part of a libertarian state.

  18. Anonymous Coward   12 years ago

    The state secrets privilege, outlined by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case, originally permitted the government to derail a lawsuit that might otherwise lead to the disclosure of military secrets. It has since turned into a potent weapon the Bush and Obama administrations have used to target any lawsuits alleging illegal NSA surveillance.

    Are you suggesting that bureaucrats and elected Presidents have abused a vague power granted to them by the courts? No! I cannot believe it! I will not believe it! These are our TOP MEN. They would never encroach on our rights!

  19. kinnath   12 years ago

    We desperately need our own tank-guy to stand up in front of the NSA and say no more.

    1. itsnotmeitsyou   12 years ago

      Aside from the obvious question of WHO... HOW? If we were facing a military opponent, publicly standing up to them is a powerful statement. Standing there, for all the world to see, as they gun you down or take you away is very tangible.

      When you're dealing with snooping and collection of data, where does one stand? Outside the NSA HQ? You'd be taken away and the only media attention (if any) would be "crazy guy arrested harassing government workers"

    2. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

      Something tells me our tank driver wouldn't stop for that.

      1. Aresen   12 years ago

        Just "Another Isolated Incident" for Balko to blog.

  20. Aresen   12 years ago

    "By my order and for the good of the state, the bearer has done what has been done." - Letter written by Cardinal Richelieu in Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers

    You can't top the classical villains. The NSA has learned from the masters.

  21. Stormy Dragon   12 years ago

    "The Official Secrets Act isn't there to protect secrets!"

    "It's not?"

    "No. It's to protect officials!"

    1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

      Dammit! Now my brain is flooding with 'Yes, Minister' quotes.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

This Court Case Could Normalize Vibes-Based Regulation

Veronique de Rugy | 6.19.2025 1:00 AM

VIDEO: Masked ICE Agents Arrest Afghan Ally Following Immigration Court Hearing

Beth Bailey | 6.18.2025 5:45 PM

SCOTUS Upholds Tennessee Law Banning Medical Transition for Transgender Kids

Emma Camp | 6.18.2025 5:01 PM

The F-35 Ages Worse Than the Planes It's Meant To Replace

Joe Lancaster | 6.18.2025 4:25 PM

Trump Argues That He Can Take Over a State's National Guard Whenever He Feels Like It

Jacob Sullum | 6.18.2025 4:05 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!