The Portal games were revolutionary not only for their puzzle-based, narrative-driven gameplay, but also for their unique physics engine, which let players open portals anywhere and conserve momentum and direction through them. They’re widely regarded as some of the best video games ever made, but even beyond that they have some extra features that aren’t talked about as much. Namely, there are a number of level editors and mods that allow the in-game components to be used to build things like logic gates and computers, and this project goes even further by building a working NES emulator, all within Portal 2.

The main limitation here is that Portal 2 can only support a certain number of in-game objects without crashing, far lower than what would be needed to directly emulate NES hardware. The creator of the project, [PortalRunner], instead turned to Squirrel, the Portal 2 scripting language, and set about porting an existing NES emulator called smolnes to this scripting language. This is easier said than done, as everything in the code needs to be converted eight bits and then all of the pointers in smolnes need to be converted to use arrays, since Squirrel doesn’t support pointers at all. As can be easily imagined, this led to a number of bugs that needed to be sorted out before the game would run at all.

For those interested in code golfing, porting, or cross-compatibility, this project is a master class not only in the intricacies of the Portal 2 scripting language but in the way the NES behaves as well, not to mention the coding skill needed to recognize unique behaviors of the C language and the Squirrel scripting language. But eventually [PortalRunner] is able to get Super Mario Bros. running in Portal 2, albeit with low resolution and frame rate. Since we heard you like games within games, someone else put DOOM inside DOOM so you can DOOM while you DOOM.

youtube.com/embed/PUTRvF7slYs?…

Thanks to [Mahdi] for the tip!

hackaday.com/2025/06/13/open-a…

How hard could it be to make a chicken coop door that can be configured to open and close automatically using a straightforward interface? That’s the question that [Jeff Sandberg] set out with, after three years of using a more basic off-the-shelf unit that offered no remote access nor a convenient user interface. The use case for [Jeff] was rather straightforward: the door would be open during the day and closed at night to keep the hens safely inside the coop.

The commercial solution offered an RTC-backed programmable interface as well as a light sensor, but the latter wasn’t always reliable in inclement weather and making simple changes to the programming when e.g. the hens had to stay inside a day due to work on the yard, was much more complicated than needed, plus had to be done on the spot. The new system would solve all these ills.

That said, the existing door mechanism was doing a fine job and could be kept. This just left making a new box with electronics to control it, starting with an ESP32C3 with the ESPHome firmware that is hooked into the local Home Assistant system, along with a motor to lift and lower the door and with magnetic contact sensors.

So far so easy. The hard part came with the installation, which involved trenching to the hen house for mains power, repairing the damage from this, and troubleshooting a power issue that turned out to be due to a dodgy power adapter. The payoff is that now the chicken coop is also part of the smart home and their owner never has to trudge through a soggy garden again to adjust the programming on a dim LC display with far too few buttons.

hackaday.com/2025/06/13/how-a-…

Today in old school nostalgia our tipster [Clint Jay] wrote in to let us know about this rotary dial.

If you’re a young whippersnapper you might never have seen a rotary dial. These things were commonly used on telephones back in the day, and they were notoriously slow to use. The way they work is that they generate a number of pulses corresponding to the number you want to dial in. One pulse for 1, two pulses for 2, and so on, up to nine pulses for 9, then ten pulses for 0.

We see circuits like this here at Hackaday from time to time. In fact, commonly we see them implemented as USB keyboards, such as in Rotary Dial Becomes USB Keyboard and Rotary Dialer Becomes Numeric Keypad.

One thing that makes this particular project different from the ones we’ve seen before is that it doesn’t require a microcontroller. That said, our hacker [Mousa] shows us how to interface this dial with an Arduino, along with sample code, if that’s something you’d like to do. The schematic for the project shows how to connect the rotary dial (salvaged from an old telephone) to both a 7-segment display and a collection of ten LEDs.

The project write-up includes links to the PCB design files. The guts of the project are a 4017 decade counter and a 4026 7-segment display adapter. Good, honest, old school digital logic.

youtube.com/embed/vfpyyLdcTk4?…

hackaday.com/2025/06/13/adapti…

Negli Stati Uniti, due membri del gruppo di criminali informatici ViLE, specializzato nell’ottenimento e nella vendita di informazioni personali, nonché nell’estorsione e nelle minacce alle vittime, sono stati condannati. L’episodio centrale del caso è stato l’hacking di un portale sicuro utilizzato per lo scambio di dati tra le forze dell’ordine federali e locali.

ViLE operava secondo uno schema collaudato: otteneva dati personali – inclusi numeri di previdenza sociale, patenti di guida e indirizzi – per poi ricattare i proprietari di queste informazioni.

L’arsenale dei partecipanti includeva non solo false richieste legali ai social network, documenti d’identità falsi e operatori di supporto ingannati, ma anche corruzione di dipendenti aziendali e utilizzo di database riservati. Il gruppo estorceva denaro per la cancellazione di informazioni da siti pubblici gestiti direttamente.

L’episodio chiave ha riguardato la violazione di un portale internet ritenuto appartenente alla Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), come confermato dal giornalista Brian Krebs.

Il sistema conteneva dati provenienti da 16 database federali, inclusi rapporti su sequestri di droga e denaro contante. Gli hacker hanno utilizzato le credenziali rubate dei dipendenti per accedere. Una volta ottenuto l’accesso, hanno scaricato e iniziato a utilizzare dati sensibili a fini di estorsione.

L'articolo ViLE, il gruppo che estorceva denaro dopo aver bucato i database federali USA proviene da il blog della sicurezza informatica.

Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

It’s the 80th day that Rümeysa Öztürk is facing deportation by the United States government for writing an op-ed it didn’t like. Meanwhile, aggression from law enforcement at protests in California have landed journalists in the hospital. Read on for more press freedom news.

Journalists under attack in LA

Our U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has been hard at work documenting the growing list of attacks on journalists — from shootings with crowd-control munitions to detainments to unlawful searches.

It’s a situation that is likely to get worse and spread to other cities, with local law enforcement emboldened by the administration’s rhetoric and federal agents being haphazardly thrown into situations they’re not trained to handle.

We worked with partner organizations in California to send letters to the Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles law enforcement agencies, the Marines and National Guard informing them of their obligations under the First Amendment, and in the case of the local authorities, California law.

Of course, strongly worded letters are not nearly enough for situations like these, and there’s plenty more work to do. But in the meantime, we’re not going to stay silent. Read the letters here, here and here.

Superstar lawyers join our effort to stop Paramount settlement

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, we’ve got a legal all-star team behind our effort to stop Paramount Global from capitulating to President Donald Trump by settling his frivolous lawsuit over an edited “60 Minutes” interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Abbe Lowell, a highly respected litigator who has handled countless high-profile cases, Norman Eisen, a former ambassador to the Czech Republic and White House ethics advisor and their respective teams sent a formal demand letter to Paramount’s directors on our behalf outlining our plans to file a shareholder derivative suit if Paramount tanks its reputation and furthers America’s democratic backslide by caving.

This is an expensive endeavor, and we don’t get a dime if we win — whatever we recover from rogue Paramount directors and officers goes back to Paramount. Read more here and support us if you can.

FPF takes State Department to court over Öztürk secrecy

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) is taking the government to court over its refusal to disclose information about the arrest of Tufts graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk for exercising her constitutionally protected right to coauthor an op-ed the government didn’t like.

FPF, represented by Loevy and Loevy, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department in the District Court for the District of Columbia to force the release of two documents that will shed light on the government’s targeting of Öztürk. Read more here.

Documenting 10 years of Trump’s anti-press social media tirades

61,989. That’s how many social media posts by President Donald Trump over the past decade Tracker journalist Stephanie Sugars has single-handedly reviewed (at least as of yesterday).

Monday will mark 10 years since Trump famously descended a golden escalator at New York City’s Trump Tower in 2015 and launched his first winning bid for the Oval Office. The Tracker is marking the occasion by launching its Trump Anti-Press Social Media Tracker, a comprehensive database of Trump’s attacks on the press on Truth Social, X and elsewhere.

Read former Voice of America press freedom reporter Liam Scott’s article about Sugars and the database here.

What we’re reading

Supreme Court press corps asks chief justice to livestream court’s opinions (NPR). There’s simply no good reason for the Supreme Court to refuse to livestream its opinion announcements.

Woman arrested after interview by St. Paul journalist (Monitor). Federal authorities must promptly explain both their basis for arresting Isabel Lopez and how they knew where and when she’d be talking to reporters. Surveilling journalists is unacceptable.

Lindsey Graham thinks it should be illegal to identify ICE agents (Techdirt). It’s bad enough to ban identifying ICE agents, but notice how Graham slips in “other federal law enforcement officers involved in covert operations.” It’s part of a pro-secret police movement. And it’s bipartisan. Ask the taxpayers of LA.

Condemning SFPD’s detention of Daily Cal staffers and suppression of student journalism (The Daily Californian). Detaining journalists, even for a minute, prevents them from covering events of public concern, and violates their rights. The San Francisco Police Department and other police departments around the country need a crash course on the First Amendment.

DeSantis administration blasted for ‘chilling’ Florida press with cease and desist letter (Naples Daily News). Florida Gov. Ron Desantis is baselessly accusing the press of “coercing” people to say negative things about his wife’s initiatives. We assure you that no one is coercing us to say that Ron DeSantis is an anti-speech, wannabe authoritarian.

Small-town newspapers are dying because no one wants to run them (Columbia Journalism Review). Succession planning doesn’t usually make the list when people talk about the challenges facing the press, but Liam Scott explores the consequences of local newspaper publishers dying and retiring with no one there to take over.

freedom.press/issues/journalis…

When a wrist mounted keyboard floated past in the Hackaday feed, a mental image surfaced, perhaps something like a Blackberry keyboard mounted on a wrist cuff, maybe with some kind of display. It’s impressive indeed then to open the link and see [AdamLeBlanc]’s Schist01. It’s a wrist mounted keyboard, but with its bracket curving in front of the had to support a custom ergonomic chording keyboard, it’s definitely a break from the norm.

The wrist mount has clearly taken a lot of thought, and despite looking something like the arm of a Star Trek Borg, appears comfortable. It’s extremely adjustable, and can be demounted into several different parts. Meanwhile the keyboard itself has been formed to his hand by a trial and error process involving keycaps and a clay model. there’s even a thumb-operable touchpad.

We like this peripheral a lot, for the huge attention to detail that has gone into its design, for its boldness, and because we can’t help seeing ourselves using it as the input device for a futuristic head-mounted display. For now though we don’t have any futuristic silver clothing in the wardrobe, so that will have to wait. If you’d like to see more, there’s a video.

youtube.com/embed/Eklg7CKs57A?…

Thanks [Shotgun Moose] for the tip.

hackaday.com/2025/06/13/taking…

The following was a letter submitted by an anonymous Pirate supporter using the pseudonym “Forward Thoughts”, sharing critiques of the gap between the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and how they are often undermined in practice. This article is apart of the project “Message in a Bottle”, allowing supporters of the US Pirate Party to submit editorial articles to the United States Pirate Party website.

Not many people are educated on this matter, but there’s a difference between rights and freedoms. Rights are legal protection of entitlements in regards to ethical, social, or legal principles bestowed to a populace. Freedoms are the capability to believe, act, or think without inordinate deprivation focusing on freewill and autonomy.

Let’s talk about our good old rights. Made in your township, county, state, and in the case of our constitutional amends Washington D.C. Constitutional amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, are an example of rights you have.

Back in 1789 the US Constitution was conjured up to succeed the precursor to the Bill of Rights, which was called the Articles of Confederation. Difference between the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution was made for all states to abide by within the Union, emphasising on a sturdy centralized government while the Articles of Confederation was to confer autonomy to the states with an emphasis of there being amicable relations between the states.

Here in the USA we have constitutional amendments that are supposed to protect us against a tyrannical government. These rights include, but are not limited to, freedom of speech, fair trial, privacy, and right to bear arms (firearms).

Before America gained its independence from the British crown while under its colonial rule, our founding fathers included a statement in the Declaration of Independence that said “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Here’s something to think about: if these truths are self-evident, why do we need it written on a piece of paper by lawmakers in an ever ideological-shifting Congress subject to interpretation by Judges who again, shift from one ideology to another when they get impeached, pass away while in office, or retire?

Right to a fair and impartial trial is granted under the 6th amendment. Moreover, it entitles you the right to a speedy and jury trial.

Just because you have the right to a fair trial doesn’t mean you have the liberty to a fair trial. In other words, your rights are enshrined into law on a piece of paper in theory but not in practice.

For instance, 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp said the police can lie to you in an interrogation. That’s right, deception is not grounds for nullification of evidence in a criminal trial.

1986 U.S. Supreme Court case Lockhart v. McCree excludes objectors to the death penalty on juries in capital punishment cases.

1965 U.S. Supreme Court case Singer v. United States mandated jury trials in federal court unless given permission for a bench trial by the government.

2021 U.S. Supreme Court case Jones v. Mississippi rendered a finding of “permanent incorrigibility” in cases of sentencing minors to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole unnecessary.

1991 U.S. Supreme Court case Harmelin v. Michigan clarified that mandatory minimum sentences, even when excluding extenuating circumstances, don’t violate the 8th amendment.

1984 Pulley v. Harris determined courts aren’t required to compare death penalty eligible cases to that of other similar cases before meting out capital punishment to defendants.

Jurors in jury trials are mentally subjected to a litany of social, racial, ethnic, and mental biases clouding their judgement to deliver an impartial decision on deciding if a defendant or defendants are guilty or not guilty.

Anyone who understands the legal system knows it’s customary, a rite of passage if you will, to know about everyone’s Miranda rights stemming from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona case that ruled evidence obtained, i.e. statements, without advising suspects of their rights cannot be used against them at a criminal trial.

Why would you need to be protected against self-incrimination? Surely it’s to prevent the government from coercing a confession out of the accused.

It’s not just made for that, it also stands in as a consolation for police officers who are trained in interrogation using what’s called the “Reid technique” ensuring the defendant makes a false confession.

Not only is that used as a statement of admittance at trial, the defendant may also get charged with perjury.

Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine if a cop uses deceptive tactics on a suspect on the street and/or the interrogation room they won’t lie on the witness stand during proceedings of a trial?

Prosecutors have unfettered powers for what charges can be brought up against a defendant, even if the charges don’t make sense to be brought up on to a defendant to begin with. A legal precedent in the court system.

Moreover, they’re allocated a well-endowed budget. More so than the defendant, thus tilting the legal playing field in their favor for the so-called “public” to win.

Lastly, prosecutors use this morally (though not legally) coercive strategy where they’ll overcharge a defendant on crimes in order for them to plead guilty to fewer and/or lesser criminal charges.

Judges tend to be vindictive. It’s not supposed to be this way, yet it is.

What I mean by vindictive is if you don’t plead guilty to a crime, you’re most likely gonna be “made an example out of” and sentenced to the maximum sentence allowed by statute.

In some cases, even flat-out pleading guilty can make Judges sentence you out of spite with zero consideration for severity of the crime or focus on rehabilitation, simply because no one can stop them from acting on feelings of lawfully despotism.

Cruel and usual punishment is protected under the 8th amendment. Ever wonder why we have the death penalty legal in the federal justice system and in some states across the USA?

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, four years later in 1976 we saw it reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia.

What amendment was this decided under you may ask? The one protecting us against cruel and unusual punishment.

Compare this to other developed nations around the world, you’ll see they don’t have the death penalty, thus highlighting capital punishment as unusual.

1987 U.S. Supreme Court case Singer v. United States found capital punishment is fair game even if the defendant didn’t intend to cause a death in a felony murder case.

1987 U.S. Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp disregards racial statistics on capital punishments.

2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Ewing v. California paved the way for the Golden State’s draconian 3-strikes law.

2006 U.S. Supreme Court case Oregon v. Guzek disregarded permitting defendants from submitting innocent-based evidence during a sentencing phase of trial.

2019 U.S. Supreme Court case Madison v. Alabama greenlights executions of those who didn’t remember committing a murder, i.e. dementia.

Protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, as well as protecting your right to have due process in the legal system, is protected under the 5th amendment.

In a sense, you’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Due process is futile when you have a bail system permitting courts to charge defendants bail to be released back into the community well before they’ve even been convicted of a crime of the nature brought forth against them by the state while awaiting their sentence.

Get this: courts have held that police can force you to unlock your cellphone if it has biometric (fingerprint and face scan) security.

2011 U.S. Supreme Court case Bobby v. Dixon contradicts Miranda v. Arizona in the way that police don’t have to tell you of your rights when you’re not in police custody.

2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins spat in the face of Miranda v. Arizona by taking away your right to be silent.

What I’m trying to say is you need to explicitly verbalize your right to remain silent to invoke your right to remain silent.

When your partner chooses not to answer you about whether or not they want to have sex with you, that’s not consent towards intercourse. At that point it’d be sexual assault.

The 2nd amendment explicitly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Meanwhile, people who use recreational drugs of any kind are statutorily prohibited by federal law from owning a firearm.

Granted, there’s been a federal case recently ruling in favor of a defendant charged with gun ownership while simultaneously being a user of marijuana and overturning their conviction at the time of this article being published.

To add insult to injury, any felonies on your record regardless if non-violent or violent is an automatic disqualifier from owning a gun.

If Uncle Sam wasn’t bad enough with unlawfully regulating firearms you should take a look at a handful of states.

California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New York are among the top 10 states for gun control in increments of high capacity bans, guns at protests prohibited, interview with local police chief for discretionary approval, fully-auto and assault weapon bans, and mandatory waiting periods for firearm purchases.

Freedom of speech in the 1st amendment is meant to protect you against unlawful curtailment of your right to say disparaging things about the government.

In addition, it gives you the right to practice any religion you see fit and to peacefully assemble (think protests).

Too bad the U.S. Supreme Court decided it didn’t retroactively apply in these cases.

1941 U.S. Supreme Court case Cox v. New Hampshire ruled that local and state governments can pass laws mandating permits for large gatherings of protests.

1969 U.S. Supreme Court case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham gave way for townships and cities to deny permits to protest events if they deem it as a threat to public safety within their community.

2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Morse v. Frederick declared promoting illegal drug use was outside the protection of freedom of speech.

1988 U.S. Supreme Court Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier held that student speech in a school-sponsored newspaper can be censored by the faculty.

2025 U.S. Supreme Court case TikTok, Inc. v. Garland eroded TikTok’s ability to fall under the dominion of a foreign company under the guise of “national security”.

Imagine this: the 1st amendment doesn’t just protect people from freedom of speech, it protects unions, super PACs, and corporations.

2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC granted corporations, and super PACs (political action committees) and even unions the right to independently spend on politician and political issue-based campaigns.

Yes, you read that right! Super PACs, corporations, and unions have been recognized as being considered in the same category as people under the 1st amendment.

Right of privacy in the 4th amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizures without probable cause or a warrant.

However, you wouldn’t even think this for what I’m gonna explain to you.

1975 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce has established warrantless searches within 100 miles of the border.

1976 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Martinez-Fuerte gave border patrol the okay to set up checkpoints within the border zone to crack down on illegal immigration.

That same year, Heien v. North Carolina ruled an officer who mistakens the law when conducting a traffic stop doesn’t violate the 4th amendment.

2009 U.S. Supreme Court Herring v. United States said police can search you and your property illegally over a mistake.

2013 U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland v. King ruled that buccal swabs are permissible as if it were fingerprinting.

1990 U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz ruled that police sobriety checkpoints are legal.

1984 U.S. Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O. constructed a path for school administrators to search students on school property without a warrant.

In the exact same year, Oliver v. United States sprouted up a legal doctrine known as the “open-field doctrine” where searches done in a field not immediately surrounding a private quarters does not violate the 4th amendment.

Safford United School District v. Redding, while declaring the broad search done on a pupil who at the time was a girl was unconstitutional, school administrators were granted legal immunity from conducting illegal searches.

Slavery was abolished thanks to the passing of the 13th amendment.

Sadly, our judicial branch partially eroded this freedom via court cases.

1918 U.S. Supreme Court case Arver v. United States, otherwise known as Selective Draft Law Cases, finds the selective services, or the draft for times of war, to be a constitutional government program.

Upon thorough examination of the 13th amendment you’ll notice slavery is illegal except for instances where a victim has been subjected to incarceration.

Because that loophole was added into the final version of the amendment, prison labor is a lucrative business to corporations to have modern day slave labor produce their products at miniscule wages where they’re often sold at exorbitant prices on markets.

Your scope of freedoms are at the mercy of our 3 branches of government.

Moreover, they’re subject to scrutiny at the state level too.

Do we really need lawmakers wearing suits and ties to determine what’s good and bad for us?

If we did, could we truly rely on them to grant us liberty for us to live out an average day-to-day life not impeding on the well-being and safety of another person?

Will corruption get in the way of how judges are influenced?

Can judges not allow ideologies to interfere with just decisions?

Is there a necessity for a centralized governmental power in regards to control over how free a person becomes before it encroaches on another person’s free will?

Should we have security and insurance to protect others while depriving freedoms to others?

Here’s a quote I came up with: “Societies managed by the inhabitants with direct action have the most freedom while societies managed by the lawmakers with police have the least freedom.”

uspirates.org/message-in-a-bot…

The weaponization of the federal government against its critics used to be a Republican Party talking point when President Joe Biden was in office. Now that President Donald Trump’s in charge, it’s become their playbook.

Journalists and nonprofits, including nonprofit newsrooms, are particularly vulnerable to governmental attacks. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, for instance, has turned the investigatory power of the agency against the press, while the Department of Justice is pursuing investigations into nonprofits connected to left-leaning causes.

We wanted to learn more about how federal agencies like the FCC, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice are abusing their authority to target First Amendment rights, so we hosted a discussion with FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez and Ezra Reese, an expert in nonprofit tax law and political law from the Elias Law Group.

As Commissioner Gomez said at the outset of the event, “The First Amendment is, of course, a pillar of American democracy, and consumer access to independent, unbiased news and public information is being threatened by the government itself.” Gomez is so concerned about the Trump administration’s attacks on freedom of speech that she’s launched a “First Amendment Tour” to speak out against what she calls a campaign of censorship and control.

youtube.com/embed/7MPn-OIbGqI?…

With respect to the FCC, in particular, Gomez explained, “Our licensing authority is being weaponized to curtail the freedom of the press, and these actions set a dangerous precedent that undermines the freedom of the press and the trust in the FCC’s role as an impartial regulator.” Carr has revived, launched, or threatened a slew of baseless “investigations” into broadcasters and public media based on their First Amendment-protected activities.

As a result, Gomez said, broadcasters are being chilled. “I have heard from broadcasters who told me that they are asking their reporters to be careful about how they are reporting about this administration because they are so afraid of being dragged before the FCC,” she said.

Nonprofit organizations, including nonprofit newsrooms, are also feeling the chilling effect of investigations by the Department of Justice intended to silence critics of the administration. Reese described the DOJ’s targeting of nonprofit organizations as “terrifying,” citing investigations of environmental groups and Democratic fundraising outlets. One particular threat to nonprofits is the possibility of being designated a “terrorist” organization based on routine protest activity, Reese said.

In many instances discussed by Gomez and Reese, officials have hijacked vague legal standards to use them in ways that would threaten the First Amendment. The FCC, for instance, has brought investigations under its “news distortion” policy or sought to use its statutory language instructing it to license the airwaves in the public interest to go after news outlets it disfavors because of their coverage.

Gomez was highly critical of these moves, explaining, “The idea that the FCC would take enforcement action or revoke a broadcast license based on editorial decisions is antithetical to the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censorship.” As she succinctly put it, “The administration is conflating the public interest with its interests.”

Similarly, vague standards in criminal statutes or the tax code could also be used against nonprofits, including nonprofit news outlets, Reese warned. “The current law is very permissive to the federal government, either the president or using other agencies like the secretary of state declaring organizations to be terrorist organizations,” Reese said. “The standards are very loose.”

IRS standards that nonprofits rely on to guide their activities while maintaining their nonprofit status are also often “cobbled together” using administrative rulings by the IRS known as revenue rulings. These rulings, Reese said, “could easily be reversed.” For journalism nonprofits, in particular, Reese flagged that the precedents are “ancient” and do not address social media or shorter-form online journalism. While nonprofit news outlets have significant protections under tax law, Reese warned, “Any nonprofit organization should have some idea of what they’re going to do if the IRS or somebody else comes after them.”

In addition to being prepared, both Gomez and Reese emphasized the importance of speaking out in support of First Amendment rights. Reese cited the “power in shining a light,” noting that both journalists and individuals can bring attention to attacks but also to the organizations that are doing the right thing and fighting back. Similarly, Gomez said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and we cannot allow this administration to trample all over the First Amendment in our democracy without speaking up.”

Gomez and Reese are right. The Trump administration’s attacks on the press and nonprofits are meant to cement government control by silencing dissenting voices. That’s why here at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), we’ll continue to speak up against these abuses and encourage journalists and the public to do the same. Using our freedom of speech is our best and most powerful weapon for fighting back.

freedom.press/issues/federal-a…

Stavolta il post è lungo.
E' il brutto di lavorare a turni: il tempo per scrivere, se vuoi, si trova.

Ciò che sta accadendo tra #Israele ed #Iran ci porta sempre più vicino al punto di non ritorno.
Forse per questo mi sono dilungato.

Abbiate pazienza.

noblogo.org/transit/il-mondo-f…

Transit

2025-06-13 12:28:14

Il mondo finisce ad Oriente.

(168)

Nota: Lo so, non è da me farla così lunga, ma in un mondo che impazzisce forse un pochino di squilibrio ce lo metto anche io. La verità è che la #Pace è davvero impossibile. Almeno così sembra. Il che rende, fondamentalmente, questo uno sfogo. Ci vuole pazienza.

La notte tra il 12 e il 13 giugno 2025 ha visto l'ennesima escalation del conflitto mediorientale, quando #Israele ha lanciato un massiccio attacco aereo contro l' #Iran, mirato principalmente alle strutture nucleari e militari di Teheran. Le forze israeliane hanno colpito siti sensibili, distruggendo laboratori e centri di ricerca, nonché eliminando alcuni tra i principali comandanti delle Guardie della Rivoluzione, l'élite militare iraniana. Un colpo che ha scatenato una serie di reazioni internazionali. L'Iran, come prevedibile, ha replicato con una serie di droni che hanno tentato di colpire obiettivi strategici in Israele, gettando il paese in una nuova spirale di violenza.

Le parole di #DonaldTrump, che ha immediatamente espresso un sostegno incondizionato all'azione israeliana, hanno ulteriormente polarizzato il dibattito internazionale. Trump ha minacciato l'Iran con nuove offensive se non avesse accettato un accordo sul nucleare, aggiungendo così un ulteriore strato di complessità alla già tesa situazione geopolitica. L’appoggio degli Stati Uniti alla politica aggressiva di Israele sembra segnare il punto di non ritorno di un conflitto che ha radici profonde, alimentato da ideologie contrapposte e da interessi strategici divergenti.

Politicamente, l'attacco israeliano ha reso evidente l'intensificarsi della guerra a bassa intensità tra le potenze regionali. Israele, con la sua operazione “Leone Ascendente”, ha voluto chiarire una volta per tutte che non tollererà il programma nucleare iraniano, ritenuto una minaccia per la propria sicurezza nazionale. Questo attacco ha avuto l'effetto di indebolire momentaneamente l'Iran, uccidendo alcuni dei suoi strateghi più esperti e decimando parte delle sue capacità operative. Tuttavia, la risposta dell'Iran non si è fatta attendere: il lancio di droni ha avuto il chiaro intento di far capire a Israele che ogni azione avrà una controparte, anche se le capacità belliche di Teheran, pur impressionanti, non possono in alcun modo paragonarsi alla potenza di fuoco israeliana.

Le implicazioni politiche per il Medio Oriente sono incalcolabili. L'Iran ha immediatamente mobilitato le sue milizie alleate in Siria, Libano e Iraq, preparando il terreno per una possibile guerra per procura che potrebbe estendersi ben oltre i confini dei due paesi coinvolti. In questo scenario, la comunità internazionale rischia di assistere a una polarizzazione crescente, con i paesi arabi che, pur condannando l’aggressione israeliana, non sembrano disposti a schierarsi apertamente a favore di Teheran, temendo le ripercussioni di un allineamento troppo esplicito.

Moralmente, invece, l'attacco israeliano solleva interrogativi inquietanti sulla legittimità di un'azione preventiva, soprattutto quando si considera che l'Iran ha sempre sostenuto di non avere intenzioni belliche dirette contro Israele. Sebbene Israele possa giustificare il suo intervento come una misura di difesa preventiva, non si può ignorare la violazione della sovranità iraniana e il fatto che l’attacco possa generare un'ulteriore spirale di violenza e vendetta. La morte di alti ufficiali iraniani e scienziati nucleari potrebbe, inoltre, rafforzare la narrativa del martirio e alimentare il risentimento tra la popolazione iraniana, creando un ulteriore fossato tra l'Iran e l'Occidente.

Da un punto di vista etico, sorge anche la questione dell’equilibrio delle forze: mentre gli Stati Uniti e Israele vedono la sicurezza come una priorità assoluta, l'Iran non può fare a meno di difendere ciò che considera un diritto sovrano, ossia la propria capacità di autodefinirsi come potenza regionale. La domanda che sorge spontanea è quindi se la logica della deterrenza, che ha caratterizzato la guerra fredda, possa essere applicata efficacemente in un contesto così volatile e intrinsecamente pericoloso.

L'operazione ha accentuato le divisioni interne in Iran, dove il regime potrebbe trovarsi a fronteggiare un'ondata di proteste interne. La crisi economica che affligge Teheran, le sanzioni internazionali e il crescente malcontento popolare potrebbero minare ulteriormente la stabilità del governo. Tuttavia, un sentimento di orgoglio nazionale potrebbe temporaneamente consolidare il consenso interno contro l'invasore straniero, come spesso accade in contesti bellici.

In Europa, la situazione appare delicata. L'Unione Europea, da sempre promotrice di un approccio diplomatico e pacifico, si trova ora a dover navigare tra due fuochi: la necessità di mantenere relazioni economiche con l'Iran, e l'alleanza con Israele, che rappresenta uno dei suoi principali partner strategici. La Francia e la Germania hanno condannato l'escalation, chiedendo una de-escalation immediata, ma non sono riuscite a offrire una soluzione concreta. L'Italia, pur allineata in linea di principio con le posizioni europee, ha adottato un tono più cauto, sottolineando la necessità di una mediazione internazionale urgente per evitare che il conflitto degeneri in una guerra totale.

Il nostro stato si è trovato a giocare un ruolo delicato nel bilanciare il proprio supporto a Israele con l’esigenza di non alienarsi la cooperazione iraniana. Sebbene il governo italiano abbia espresso una condanna per l'aggressione israeliana, si è anche preoccupato delle implicazioni a lungo termine di una rottura totale tra l'Iran e l'Occidente. L'Italia, infatti, è da sempre favorevole a un approccio diplomatico per risolvere la crisi nucleare iraniana, e un’escalation militare potrebbe compromettere gli sforzi compiuti negli anni passati per stabilire un dialogo.

L’Unione Europea, nel suo insieme, ha rilasciato dichiarazioni ufficiali invocando una “de-escalation immediata”, ma la divisione tra i membri più favorevoli a un duro confronto (come la Polonia) e quelli più favorevoli a un negoziato (come l’Italia e la Spagna) è ormai palese. Il rischio è che l'Europa, incapace di adottare una linea unitaria, finisca per essere marginalizzata in un conflitto che potrebbe ridisegnare gli equilibri di potere nell'intera regione mediorientale.

L'attacco israeliano all'Iran ha profondamente scosso gli assetti geopolitici internazionali, mettendo in luce non solo le fragilità politiche e sociali dei protagonisti del conflitto, ma anche la difficoltà di una comunità internazionale a trovare un punto di mediazione efficace. Le conseguenze politiche, morali e sociali di questa nuova escalation sono ancora in divenire, ma una cosa è certa: l'Europa e l'Italia dovranno affrontare con urgenza la necessità di rinnovare i propri approcci diplomatici, se vogliono evitare che il conflitto si trasformi in una guerra su scala globale. La strada verso una stabilizzazione del Medio Oriente sembra sempre più incerta e tortuosa, e l'unica speranza risiede nel ritorno al dialogo e alla cooperazione internazionale.

#Blog #Iran #Israele #Medioriente #War #Guerra #Opinioni #Politica #Politics

Mastodon: @alda7069@mastodon.unoTelegram: t.me/transitblogFriendica: @danmatt@poliverso.orgBio Site (tutto in un posto solo, diamine): bio.site/danielemattioli

Gli scritti sono tutelati da “Creative Commons” (qui)

Tutte le opinioni qui riportate sono da considerarsi personali. Per eventuali problemi riscontrati con i testi, si prega di scrivere a: corubomatt@gmail.com

Transit

Il blog di Alessandra Corubolo & Daniele Mattioli. On line -in varie forme- dal 2005.

^Telegram