Freedom of speech ranks chiefly among the civil rights protected by the First Amendment.The founders recognized that a free society must be allowed to grapple with conflicting ideas and viewpoints in order to flourish. Students have been taught the significance of free speech for centuries and American society has counted on educators to ensure the next generation of citizens are well equipped to handle opposing viewpoints. The great tradition of schools and universities being bastions of free speech and civil discourse has been ingrained in the American psyche and upheld by academics and administrators alike, until recently.

Free speech on college campuses has become a significant issue. From the riots at Berkeley over Milo Yiannopoulos, to the use of harassment of Charles Murray at Middlebury College, there have been cases of individuals being silenced to stop them from speaking their thoughts on various issues. However, one pressing issue has been administrative support to silence dissent and prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard. This flies in the face of actually learning, of which colleges are supposed to be a bastion.

On behalf of FreedomWorks’ activist community, I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or her to cosponsor the Email Privacy Act, H.R. 387, if they have not already done so. Introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder, the Email Privacy Act brings the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 into the 21st Century.

Recent information and a USA Today report indicates that the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) has been mining Americans’ travel records to profile individuals and intercept potential drug traffickers. Over the past decade, DEA teams acquired over $209 million in cash from at least 5200 travelers at 15 of the country’s busiest airports. The justification for these seizures is the same used for most other civil asset forfeiture scenarios: use of money in the form of cash is linked to drug trafficking.

In the majority opinion for the unanimous Court in Riley v. California (2014), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” This “go get a warrant” sentiment is echoed again and again in more recent cases involving cell phone privacy. By taking a closer look at how exactly a search warrant works, it becomes increasingly clear that this protection is needed now more than ever as we enter the digital age.

PROFILE: Mandrel Stuart