Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As my readers know, I am a staunch defender of free speech, which I believe is the essential cornerstone of our Democratic Republic. Without the ability to speak our minds, on any topic, freedom is impossible. Recent assaults on free speech have focused on the cancel culture, in which certain words or ideas have been used as a basis for firing professors, denigrating political opponents, and ostracizing citizens who espouse a contrary view to the current majority ideas. This is odious to any advocate of free speech. I grew up in the Sixties, when the shoe was on the other foot, and it was ugly then. But, in the current political climate, it is not possible to ignore the similar tendency to try to silence those who have different views. One of the reasons I hate politics is that it becomes a vehicle to demonize those who are different. We forget that our country was founded by those who were different, and who were cast aside by similar methods. But, the restriction on free speech must be moderated by existential threats, such as foreign espionage which threatens the society. When speech becomes violent, then the society has an obligation to curb the violence. When FISA was passed in 1977, it was aimed at a real threat. But, like all statutes, times change, and the secrecy of the FISA court became a shield for some bad actors. In 2004, the “Lone Wolf” provision modified the definition of “foreign power” so that no connection to a foreign government was required to get a surveillance warrant on a bad actor. Of course, this allowed the government to surveil individuals anywhere, and the warrants, while supposedly subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements, were still issued in secret. The balance between freedom and slavery can sometimes be difficult to find; but, in secret, it is impossible to measure. Who gets to decide what a foreign agent is? Who gets to decide whether we are a country based on free speech, or a society in which speaking your mind can become a social crime, or a crime of ideas?