U.S. soldiers board an Army Chinook transport helicopter after it brought fresh soldiers and supplies to the Korengal Outpost October 27, 2008. ; Credit: John Moore/Getty Images

A recent proposal by a former contractor to privatize the war in Afghanistan has raised eyebrows along with questions about what the future of U.S. involvement in the country looks like.

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain has released his own strategy for handling Afghanistan, focusing on a mix of troops and diplomacy. The two plans come at a time when many wonder if the old plan of training the Afghan army and then withdrawing troops is still working, and whether it’s time to try something new and, in the case of privatizing the war, maybe unprecedented.

The privatization plan comes from former U.S. Navy Seal and Blackwater security firm founder Erik Prince, who wants to send in 5,500 private contractors, mostly former Special Operations, and a private air force. These contractors would assumedly replace the 8,400 U.S. troops currently there. President Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, are said to be open to the plan, but others like national security adviser H.R. McMaster have concerns. McCain’s plan, meanwhile, looks to flood the Pentagon with resources and try to come to an agreement with the Afghan government on a long-term U.S. presence. Trainers and advisers would be assigned at battalion level for more support for troops, but all this help would be contingent on Afghanistan making anti-corruption benchmarks.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll look at the two competing plans, discuss the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, and debate what the role of contractors should be in the ongoing conflict.

Guests: 

Aaron O’Connell, associate professor of history at the University of Texas in Austin; former director of defense policy and strategy on President Obama's National Security Council (2016-17); he is the editor of “Our Latest Longest War: Losing Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan”

Ronald Neumann, American diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to Afghanistan (2005–2007), Bahrain (2001–2004) and Algeria (1994–1997), president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, an organization of former senior diplomats that aim to strengthen American diplomacy

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A finger is posed next to the Snapchat app logo on an iPad on August 3, 2016 in London, England.; Credit: Carl Court/Getty Images

Snapchat’s latest earnings report doesn’t look good.

According to CNN, Snap Inc., the social media platform’s parent company is steadily losing sales, while it’s user base isn’t where the company had hoped. Snapchat’s most recent quarterly losses reached $443 million, which is four times as much of a loss as this time last year. In the night following news of Snapchat’s loss, the company’s stock fell as much as 25 percent. And with the debate about whether the tech company should have gone public earlier this year, the news leaves many wondering if an IPO was such a good move.

Facebook had previously sought to buy Snapchat, but was turned down by the company in late 2013. Now, some say that may not have been the best choice. Facebook has gone on to make its own version of Snapchat, and passed that on to Instagram, which the social media giant also owns. Instagram Stories, the platform’s version of Snapchat, reached 250 million daily users in June, an increase from April’s reported 200 million.

So what is driving people away from Snapchat? How did going public affect the company? And what does age have to do with how people choose their social media?

Guests:

Josh Constine, editor-at-large for TechCrunch and author of the article, “8 ways to fix Snapchat”; he tweets @JoshConstine

Caitlin Plummer, AirTalk apprentice news clerk and resident Snapchat user

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

This picture taken on August 9, 2017 and released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on August 10, 2017 shows a rally in support of North Korea's stance against the US, on Kim Il-Sung square in Pyongyang.
; Credit: STR/AFP/Getty Images

On Friday, Trump directed a new threat to Kim Jong Un on Twitter, saying the U.S. military solutions are “locked and loaded.”

But despite this public war of words, North Korea and the U.S., the AP reports, have been engaging in private talks even as tensions continue to escalate between the Pyongyang nation and current administration. While it was known that the two countries were in discussion to secure the release of an American university student, it wasn’t publicly shared that back-channel discussions had continued between the two nations.

For several months, diplomats Joseph Yun, the U.S. envoy for North Korea policy, and Pak Song Il, a senior North Korean diplomat at the country's U.N. mission, according to CNBC, had continued discussions over other American detainees in North Korea and on today’s deteriorating relationship between the long-time adversaries.

Share with us, do you think U.S. and North Korea relations will recover after the recent threats given by both countries? How will these back-channel discussions quell current tensions amid public sparrings over nuclear attacks?

Guests:

Mike Dorning, White House editor for Bloomberg news

Sung-Yoon Lee, an expert on the Koreas, and a professor in Korean Studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Pedestrians walk past new apartment buildings in downtown Los Angeles, California on April 5, 2017. ; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

The lack of affordable housing in is maybe one of the biggest crises facing the state of California.

A package of bills making its way through the legislature promises to make it easier for low-income families in California to find and pay for four walls and a roof. But the question remains, with the gap between California’s growing population and the amount of homes being built to accommodate them, will the bills actually make a dent in the deficit?

There are three bills involved -- SB 2, 3 and 35. Senate Bill 2 would slap a $75 fee on real estate transactions to raise money for low-income housing. Senate Bill 3 would put a $3 billion housing bond on the 2018 ballot. Senate Bill 35 would cut regulations for cities who have fallen behind on goals for home building. But in an L.A. Times article looks at analyses from both state and housing groups, which suggest that the package of bills would likely do little to alleviate the problem. Currently, California would have to build 180,000 new homes a year to keep up with population growth. That’s happened just three times since 1989. Overall, the cost of financing homes for the 1.7 million Californians who shell out half of their income or more for rent is estimated to be about $15 billion, nearly equal to the cost of Medi-Cal.

Do you agree with pushing this package of bills if there’s concern about whether it will actually make a meaningful dent in the state’s affordable housing crisis? What do you see as the role of government in making more affordable housing when you’re looking at a gap that can’t really be covered? Will these bills actually help a meaningful number of people?

Guests:

Carol Galante, faculty director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley; she served as Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner at the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban Development under President Obama

Chris Thornberg, founding partner of Beacon Economics; his focus includes economic forecasting, employment and labor markets and economic policy

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

White nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the "alt-right" clash with counter-protesters as they enter Emancipation Park during the "Unite the Right" rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. ; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What started off as a protest by white nationalists in Charlottesville turned deadly Saturday, when a man drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters that left 1 dead and many injured.

On AirTalk today, Larry and our panel of guests will examine what caused the violence in Charlottesville over the weekend, and the social and political aftermath.

Guests: 

What happened in Charlottesville: 

Lauren Berg, staff reporter for The Daily Progress, the local newspaper in Charlottesville, Va.; she tweets @laurenbergk

Ben Schreckinger, staff writer for POLITICO Magazine who was in Charlottesville, Va. this weekend; he tweets @schreckreports

The political fallout of President's initial statement:

Lanhee Chen, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and former policy director for the Romney-Ryan 2012 presidential campaign; he tweets @lanheechen

Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist and founder and chief executive officer of Rodriguez Strategies; he is also a former senior Obama advisor in 2008; he tweets @RodStrategies

The Department of Justice investigation:

Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Law School and  former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under President Obama; he tweets @_justinlevitt_

What is white nationalism:

Brian Levin, professor of criminal justice and director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino; he tweets @proflevin

Evolving attitudes toward Confederate symbols:

William Deverell, professor of History at USC, director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West; he specializes in the Civil War and its connection to the American West

Joan Waugh, a UCLA professor of history, Civil War authority and co-author of the book “The American War: A History of the Civil War Era” (2015, Flip Learning) 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

US President Donald Trump holds up a "Trump Digs Coal" sign as he arrives to speak during a Make America Great Again Rally at Big Sandy Superstore Arena in Huntington, West Virginia, August 3, 2017.; Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

It’s no secret that environmentalists and the coal mining industry have long been at odds.

But more fuel has been added to the fire, so to speak, as the Trump Administration’s Interior Department has moved to lift a moratorium on coal leases in public lands. The temporary ban was enacted under the Obama Administration, which quickly drew opposition from major mining companies.

As reported by the New York Times, about 85 percent of coal mined from federal lands in the West is from the Powder River Basin. The basin, which includes lands in Wyoming and Montana, produces a small amount of exported coal. Trump has accused the Obama Administration of trying to stifle exports, a market which has become increasingly competitive in sales to power plants in Asia, particularly China. In the West, Vancouver has the most accessible export terminal, but more capacity is needed to stay competitive in the growing global market. And environmentalists have blocked any new developments for a terminal in the U.S.

While California isn’t regarded as “coal country,” the state, along with New Mexico, sued the Trump Administration earlier this year to reverse the rollback in royalties for coal mining companies. But all coal isn’t created equal. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), or what some call “clean coal,” is touted to capture up to 90 percent of carbon emissions. The technology can also be used as liquid fuel for planes and cement production. Even with the controversy surrounding the coal industry’s lack of jobs, traditional coal doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So what’s the future of the coal industry? Will Trump be able to revive coal? And what will that mean for the environment?

Correction: This post originally stated that 85 percent of coal comes from the West. The New York Times reported that 85 percent of coal mined from federal lands in the West is from the Powder River Basin. We regret the error.

Guests:

Mark Mills, physicist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute where his focus includes energy and energy technology, and a faculty fellow at Northwestern’s Engineering School; he tweets @MarkPMills

Daniel Schrag, geochemist and professor of geology, environmental science and engineering; he is also the director at Harvard University Center for the Environment and served on President Obama’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (2009 to 2016)

Ethan Elkind, director of the Climate Program at Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley; he also leads the Climate Change and Business Research Initiative on behalf of UC Berkeley and UCLA

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A homeless encampment located around the Santa Ana Civic Center in Orange County.; Credit: Jill Replogle/KPCC

Statistics demonstrating the dire state of homelessness in Los Angeles abound: the county homeless population climbed 23% over the last year; one in five local community college students are homeless, and a 5% rent increase will push 2,000 more people into homelessness.

Meanwhile, the city recently committed to hosting the 2028 Olympics, leading many to wonder what will happen to the city’s homeless population over the next decade. 

In light of this, Larry sits down with representatives from LA City and County and KPCC’s Rina Palta to discuss city and county perspectives on homelessness, including Measures H and HHH; the Trump administration’s role in funding affordable housing in LA; and the closing of the Antelope Valley homeless shelter.

Guests: 

Rina Palta, correspondent for KPCC, covering Southern California's social safety net; she tweets @KPCCrina911

Brenda Shockley, Deputy Mayor for Economic Opportunity in the City of Los Angeles

Phil Ansell, director of the Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Members of the Virginia National Guard wear body armor and carry riot shields while standing guard on the pedestrian mall following violence at the United the Right rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Northern California is bracing itself for a slew of rallies being planned on upcoming weekends that are shedding light on how much latitude cities have to take precautions against protests to prevent violence while not running afoul of the First Amendment and the tactics police use to find the right balance between keeping the peace and enforcing the law.

This weekend, protesters will gather and march on Google headquarters in nine cities, including on the company’s main campus in Mountain View, CA and in Venice here in Southern California. The supporters released their code of conduct for the so-called ‘March on Google’ following the weekend violence in Charlottesville, which condemns “violence, hatred and bigotry and all groups that espouse it, such as White Nationalists, KKK, Antifa and NeoNazis.” Organizers have distanced themselves from the so-called ‘alt-right,’ saying they are marching in support of the First Amendment and James Damore, the Google engineer whose now-infamous manifesto arguing against diversity in the workplace went viral and led to his firing.

The weekend after that, protesters with a group called ‘Patriot Prayer’ have permit to gather at Crissy Field in San Francisco. After a man plowed his car into a crowd of people during last weekend’s unrest in Charlottesville, some local officials are concerned about keeping the peace, especially if things between group members and counter-protesters get heated. Berkeley is also preparing for a rally on August 27th for a group called ‘No Marxism in America.’

How far can cities go in terms of measures to prevent violence at protests without infringing on free speech rights? What kinds of tactics do police officers employ in preparation for the rallies and during them?

Guests:

Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA

Bill Lansdowne, former chief of the San Diego Police Department, retired in 2014; he’s also been a police chief in San Jose and Richmond

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Anti-Donald Trump protesters demonstrate on Inauguration Day, Friday, Jan. 20, 2017.; Credit: Courtesy of Jonas Anderson

A tech firm based in Los Angeles is fighting back against the U.S. Department of Justice, which has demanded it turn over more than 1.3 million IP addresses for people who visited a website that was used to organize anti-Trump protests during his inauguration.

Dreamhost, a company that hosts websites and sells domain names, made the DOJ request public on Monday, saying that it was vast overreach on the part of the feds. In addition to the IP addresses of people who visited, Dreamhost says the request also asks for emails between organizers and interested parties, any deleted files, and even subscriber information. There are also concerns about a potential violation of First Amendment free speech rights if fear of the government having private information about their identity would stop people from visiting the website.

Prosecutors for the feds have argued in court that the DOJ request is completely within the confines of the constitution. that the website was used to help organize a violent riot, referencing protests on Inauguration Day in January that led to property damage and six cops being injured, and that Dreamhost’s “it’s too broad” reasoning was not sufficient to reject the DOJ request.

Do you think the DOJ is within its rights to request this information or do you see it as an overreach? What, if any, free speech or privacy issues do you see arising?

We reached out to DreamHost, which declined to join us for an interview.

Guests:

Alan Butler, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Orin Kerr, professor of law at the George Washington University; he’ll be a professor at USC’s Gould School of Law in January

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Members of the delgations assemble before the start of the negotiations for the modernization of NAFTA, August 16, 2016, between the US, Canada and Mexico, in Washington, DC.; Credit: PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

Ambassadors from Canada and Mexico are in Washington D.C. to begin talks with the U.S. about renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

President Trump has called it an awful deal for the U.S. and talked about throwing it out altogether at one point, but has since dialed back his rhetoric and called for the agreement to be reshaped.

We’ll talk with reporters based in each of the three involved countries about what each is looking for, areas where there is room for compromise (or not) and how each country’s wishlist jives with the others.

Guests:

Megan Cassella, trade reporter for POLITICO; she tweets @mmcassella

Kate Linthicum, L.A. Times correspondent based in Mexico City; she tweets @katelinthicum

Theo Argitis, Ottawa Bureau Chief for Bloomberg News; he tweets @theoargitis

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and members of the "alt-right" march down East Market Street toward Emancipation Park during the "Unite the Right" rally August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In the aftermath of the Charlottesville monument protests, many white nationalists who participated in the rallies are getting some unwanted attention.

As reported by TechCrunch, the Twitter user @YesYoureRacist has a mission to identify protesters online, what’s commonly known as doxxing. That led to the firing of Cole White, who worked at a Berkeley hot dog restaurant, Top Dog. The employer put a statement on the restaurant’s door, saying that White’s actions were not supported by the business.

Sign on the door of Top Dog on Durant Ave confirms Cole White is no longer employed by the chain pic.twitter.com/ROwAed2NOl

— Harini Shyamsundar (@hshyamsundar) August 13, 2017

NY Daily News writer Shaun King also took to Twitter to identify white nationalist rally participants named as suspects in the assault of a counter protester. And there have been some misidentification issues with doxxing on social media. @YoureARacist issued an apology after falsely accusing YouTube personality Joey Salads of wearing a Nazi armband. So what are the ethics of doxing on Twitter and other social media platforms?

Guest:

Josh Constine, editor-at-large for TechCrunch; he tweets @JoshConstine 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The pedestal where a statue dedicated to Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson stood is shown August 16, 2017 in Baltimore, Maryland. ; Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters that the “alt-left” bears some responsibility for the violence at the white nationalist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia. But what, exactly, is the “alt-left?”

In the Atlantic’s September cover story, “The Rise of the Violent Left,” Peter Beinart traces the history of Antifa – antifascists or Anti-Fascist Action – from its roots in the militant left fighting European fascism in the 1920s to its reactionary revival due to Neo-Nazi movements in the 70s and 80s, to today’s revival of Antifa in response to the rise in white nationalism in America.

Beinart writes that Antifa is a disparate movement, but many of its subscribers are anarchists and the unifying ethos has to do with circumventing policy in favor of direct action, such as destroying corporate property, doxing Neo-Nazis and breaking up white nationalist gatherings, by violence, if necessary.

Where did Antifa come from? What is it today? And is it fair to equate it, as President Trump did Tuesday, to the alt-right?

Guest:

Peter Beinart, contributing editor for The Atlantic where his recent story is “The Rise of the Violent Left;” he is also the senior columnist for Forward.com and an Associate Professor of Journalism and political science at the City University of New York; he tweets @PeterBeinart 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A protestor, who was marching on 5th Avenue against white supremacy and racism, is arrested by New York City Police (NYPD) officers, August 13, 2017 in New York City. ; Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The events of the last week – the violence during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville this weekend, the far-right planning rallies across the U.S. and the spotlight swiveling to Antifa, the militant left, which advocates fighting fascism with violence – are bubbling over into a larger conversation about the scope of the First Amendment.

Here it is, in full:

AMENDMENT 1.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The militant left, or Antifa, advocates the use of direct action, such as breaking up white nationalist rallies and violence, if necessary. In their view, white nationalist hate speech incites violence, which validates a violent response. But hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, just like any other speech.

So what are the legal limits of protesting hate speech? Is violence ever justifiable and in what situations? What are the strategic and legal approaches to fighting movements that protesters view as morally reprehensible?

Guests:

Jody Armour, professor of Law at the University of Southern California

Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

US President Donald Trump delivers remarks following a meeting on infrastructure at Trump Tower, August 15, 2017 in New York City.; Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

President Donald Trump took to the podium at Trump Tower Tuesday for an infrastructure presser that quickly took a turn into a heated back and forth on his Charlottesville comments.

Trump, who appeared to have prepared statements from his Saturday statement on Charlotteville close at hand for the conference, decided to go off-script instead and open the floor for questions. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, reporters asked questions about the president’s remarks on the Charlottesville protests, in which he failed to condemn white nationalists at Saturday’s rally.

Trump reiterated his initial statement about the incident, where he placed blame for the violence “on many sides,” and went on to say that counter protesters against the white nationalists in Charlottesville were also at fault. He went on to say that not all protesters of removing the General Robert E. Lee statue at the rally were white supremacists, and asked if historical connections to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should be erased because they were slave owners. The president also condemned the white nationalist who was charged with driving his car into a group of counter-protesters, which killed one woman.

So what is the fallout from Trump’s press conference? Will his base be supportive of his statements about Charlottesville? And how are Republicans and Democrats reacting?

Guests:

Noah Bierman, White House reporter for the Los Angeles Times; he’s been following the story; he tweets @Noahbierman

Charles Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books

Sean T. Walsh, Republican political analyst and partner at Wilson Walsh Consulting in San Francisco; he is a former adviser to California Governors Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger and a former White House staffer for Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush

Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist and founder and chief executive officer of Rodriguez Strategies; he is also a former senior Obama advisor in 2008; he tweets @RodStrategies

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

AirTalk host Larry Mantle at Across the Divide 2.; Credit: Bill Youngblood

In December, AirTalk convened a group of Southern Californians – four supporters of Donald Trump, four supporters of Hillary Clinton– to share their hopes, expectations and concerns before the start of the Trump presidency.

Seven months in, we bring them back together for a check-in.

30 minutes til second edition of @KPCC@Airtalk#acrossthedivide . Tune in: 89.3FM or https://t.co/Ga2cYSSlHNpic.twitter.com/COFGKShbAR

— AirTalk (@AirTalk) August 17, 2017

@kpcc's @airtalk is reaching #acrossthedivide to Clinton/Trump supporters on life after the election. Listen today at 10:30am PST pic.twitter.com/HG0g66mq4T

— AirTalk (@AirTalk) August 17, 2017

7 months in, @KPCC@Airtalk brings back our #acrossthedivide panel of Southern Californians to talk Trump presidency. Starts at 10:30am pic.twitter.com/FCwq5uOt1x

— AirTalk (@AirTalk) August 17, 2017

Tune in at 10:30am for @KPCC@AirTalk#acrossthedivide town hall. 8 Southern Californians regroup to talk Trump, immigration, media, more. pic.twitter.com/ei9lnlS7tr

— AirTalk (@AirTalk) August 17, 2017

In Dec, @AirTalk recorded our first #acrossthedivide (https://t.co/FmBrXPXf48). Today, we broadcast our follow-up. Tune in at 10:30am pic.twitter.com/KiKBC0haZB

— AirTalk (@AirTalk) August 17, 2017

Guests:

Trump supporters:

Ben Clymer, chief financial officer of the Body Shop & Collision Centers of Southern California; he lives in Riverside

Terrance Lang, a marketing executive who lives in Westchester

Mark Ma, a Chinese immigrant in the IT field who lives in Pomona

Francisco Rivera, a janitorial worker who lives in Huntington Park  

Clinton supporters:

Anabel Krishnann, a project manager in the tech industry who lives in Culver City

Eugene Hung, an Evangelical Christian in the website content development field who lives in Fullerton

Faisal Qazi, a neurologist who lives in Fullerton

Mia Shackelford, a business consultant in San Francisco and recent college graduate from Scripps College in Claremont

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Protesters use their banners to block the view of victims injured when a car plowed through a crowd of demonstrators marching through the downtown shopping district August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

After statement saying white supremacist violence isn’t free speech, are CA ACLU branches breaking rank?

The American Civil Liberties Union has been in the spotlight since the beginning of the Trump administration as the major legal organization pushing back against some of its more controversial policies, like the president’s travel ban. But their recent defense of white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia has many questioning their long-standing philosophy of advocating for First Amendment rights, even for hate groups.

On Thursday, three branches of the ACLU of California released a joint statement saying that while they support freedom of speech, “the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence.” Though it does not say so in as many words, some are viewing this as the California branches breaking step with the national branch. Others found the statement strange, saying that it’s obvious that violence isn’t speech and that assembly must be allowed regardless of the potential for violence or incitement.

#Breaking A statement from @ACLU_SoCal, @ACLU_NorCal& @sdACLU: White Supremacist Violence is not Free Speech https://t.co/qsI9q8wwx2pic.twitter.com/D0m3f4SDZY

— ACLU SoCal (@ACLU_SoCal) August 16, 2017

What do you think of the California ACLU branches’ statement? What about the national branch’s decision to go to court for the right of the white supremacists to protest? As a major legal organization that has helped shape much of modern First Amendment application, what is its role in this situation?

We reached out to the three ACLU California branches who issued the joint statement. The ACLU of Southern California was not available for the show today. We also reached out to the national branch of the ACLU, which did not respond in time for the airing of our segment but did send us this statement from ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero:

“We agree with every word in the statement from our colleagues in California. The First Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day. At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the First Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we'll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward.”

Guest:

Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In this photo illustration, The Google logo is projected onto a man on August 09, 2017 in London, England.; Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images

In the days since the violence in Charlottesville, major tech companies across the spectrum have been wading into the national discussion about how far free speech protections go when it comes to the kinds of hate speech that white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups use to promote their beliefs.

Monday, Domain name registrar GoDaddy de-listed the popular neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer. Google did the same after backlash when the site switched its registration there.

All of this raises the issue of whether, and if so how much, tech companies like Google, Facebook and GoDaddy should be policing the content on their sites. Some say it’s about time the companies start taking responsibility for offensive things that use their infrastructure as a platform to spread their message. Others worry about a slippery slope situation regarding free speech, and that the censorship could go too far.

Do you think these tech giants should be the gatekeepers in deciding what is offensive and what isn’t for their sites, or do you worry about the potential for going too far and running afoul of the First Amendment?

Guests:

Elizabeth Dwoskin, Silicon Valley correspondent for the Washington Post

Matthew Prince, CEO and co-founder of Cloudflare, a SF-based company that provides content delivery, internet security services and domain name server services; it recently announced it would stop servicing the neo-Nazi website ‘Daily Stormer’

Barry McDonald, professor of law at Pepperdine University

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

People clap after walking along Las Ramblas after a minute's silence following yesterday's terrorist attack, on August 18, 2017 in Barcelona, Spain. ; Credit: Carl Court/Getty Images

The Catalonian cities of Barcelona and Cambrils in Spain were targets of two new attacks where vehicles plowed into a crowded area.

As reported by the BBC, a white van zig-zagged through Barcelona’s famous Las Ramblas district Thursday afternoon, hitting as many pedestrians as possible before fleeing the scene. The suspect is still at-large and has been identified as 17-year-old Moussa Oukabir. Oukabir is believed by law enforcement to have used his older brother’s documents to rent the van that plowed through the crowd. Spanish police have described the incident as a terrorist attack, leaving 13 dead and more than 100 injured.

In a related attack early the next morning, an Audi A3 was driven through a crowd of pedestrians, this time in Cambrils, a resort town 68 miles south-west of Barcelona. The car overturned and five people emerged, some wearing fake suicide belts. They were shot and killed by police. A woman who was hurt in the attack died later at the hospital. Five other people were injured, one of whom is a police officer. Victims of the attack included an American whose name has not yet been released, and there were at least 34 nationalities representing people who were either killed or injured during the two incidents.

ISIS has no evidence that it was behind what happened in Las Ramblas, but claimed it was behind the attack. Earlier today, a stabbing spree in Turku, Finland was also reported. Details are still emerging. According to CNN, at least one person was killed and seven others were hospitalized.

To find out more, Larry speaks to a reporter who is on the scene in Barcelona.

Guests:

Bahman Kalbasi, correspondent for the BBC reporting from Barcelona; he tweets @BahmanKalbasi

Brian Michael Jenkins, senior advisor to the president of the Rand Corporation and one of the nation's leading experts on terrorism and homeland security; he tweets @BrianMJenkins

Breaking news: Steve Bannon out at White House

Marc Fisher, senior editor for the Washington Post

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Proper eye protection is a must for anyone looking up at a solar eclipse; eclipse glasses are far darker than regular sunglasses.; Credit: Joseph Okpako/Getty Images

Over the next seventy-two hours, Angelenos will travel all over the country to cities and states in the once-in-a-lifetime solar eclipse’s path of totality. 

We’ll speak with them live on Monday as the eclipse peaks here in southern California. In the meantime, we talk with science writer John Dvorak, who has been following the eclipse's path for the last week, about what how people are preparing and what to expect from what is said to be a life-changing event. 

Guest: 

John Dvorak, a tech writer and author of numerous books, including his latest, “Mask of the Sun: The Science, History and Forgotten Lore of Eclipses” (Pegasus Books, 2017) 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

This photo combo shows the moon passing in front of the sun (top L to bottom R) during a total solar eclipse in the city of Ternate, in Indonesia's Maluku Islands, on March 9, 2016.; Credit: BAY ISMOYO/AFP/Getty Images

Nearly a century has passed since North America witnessed a total solar eclipse.

Not sure exactly how to define an eclipse? An eclipse, which lasts a handful of minutes, occurs when the sun, Earth and moon move in alignment with each other, according to NASA. In fact, that kind of rare celestial occurrence from coast to coast hasn’t been seen in the continental U.S. since 1918. But in California, the moon is expected to block around 70 percent during peak eclipse.

A total solar eclipse, where the moon will completely obscure the sun, will occur across a 70-mile-wide path across 14 states from Salem, Oregon to Charleston, South Carolina. In this path of totality, the sun’s corona will be visible to viewers.

Whether you’re an eclipse chaser or eclipse newbie, it’s worth noting to avoid looking directly at the sun unless you’re wearing solar eclipse glasses. And take a cue from Popular Science’s guide to photographing an eclipse. The next solar eclipse is scheduled to take place in 2024 and 2045.

Comment below to share your experience of watching the solar eclipse of the century.

Guests:

Sanden Totten, host of “Brains On!,” a science podcast for kids, and a science writer for “Bill Nye Saves The World," which airs on Netflix

Leo Duran, KPCC reporter and producer and Take Two, who is at the Griffith Observatory

Mike Roe, digital news producer for KPCC; he and his family are traveling to to the “Solar Port” at the Madras Municipal Airport Madras in Oregon

John Horn, host of KPCC's The Frame; he and his family are in Madras, Oregon

Alex Cohen, KPCC's Morning Edition host, who is at Kidspace Children's Museum in Pasadena

Alisha Roemeling, K-12 education reporter at The Register-Guard, a daily newspaper for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, Oregon; she’s been following the story and tweets @alisharoemeling

Angelica Carpenter, community news and sports reporter for the Blue Mountain Eagle, a weekly newspaper covering Grant County in Eastern Oregon; she’s been following the story

Rylan Boggs, reporter for the Blue Mountain Eagle, a weekly newspaper covering Grant County in Eastern Oregon; he tweets @RT_Boggs

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.