The real problem that government has with the drug trade is that it's all untaxed revenue. Other than that, it's a good PR stalking horse. They really don't care what the riffraff does to themselves ... as long as all the taxes are paid (and bribes are a nice bonus).
I stopped following mainstream media news when it became obvious that they where very slanted (as opposed to "biased") and had no interest in fact checking - and this was long before the "internet" was actually a useful thing to most people (other than email). Once the internet developed sufficiently, I used it to do my own fact checking on what little news I would accept, and that only proved just how bad the mainstream sources were. Bias I expect; people writing the stories have their own feelings about it - this is being human. Allowing that bias to slant the story is a totally different matter.
Olympi.. errr .. "the big international sports event" ... season is always ad free here - I don't turn the TV or radio on. Seriously, they (NBC) should toe the line and comply with every single law, rule and regulation of every country in the world for this broadcast. In China, Russia and Korea, it won't be shown because it may contain subversive ideas. No spectators can be shown ("publicity rights", invasion of privacy), no athletes can be shown (IOC rules and publicity rights), the "ring symbol" cannot be depicted (copyright), no architecture can be shown (copyright) .. you get the idea. If they do that, they don't have to delay the show at all, nor cut anything out specifically for commercials (because there is nothing left to cut out). So, for the duration of the show time, it's just never ending commercials about .. anything BUT the Oly... "the big international sports event"
Except, we've seen over and over, law enforcement people don't to follow any rules - they have their "good faith exception", etc, which judges refuse to look at. So far as I understand it, neither the sender nor the receiver of this package should be prosecutable; the chain of custody for the package was broken and there is no way to establish that the evidence was not tampered with.
By not allowing "set-top competition", the cable industry is actually hastening the day of their own demise; as more people become dis-enchanted with the overbearing attitudes and price scamming, they will "cut the cord" and drop cable service that much sooner. Allowing a little competition to creep in could be spun (by the cable companies) as "giving people what they want" in a very positive PR campaign that could, potentially, allow them to survive longer (they're doomed anyway, it's a question of when).
Naruto saw people aiming cameras (at others or at themselves) probably thousands of time per day. He saw that, when this happened, people "smiled" and - whoever had the camera - pushed the button. This he saw and this he could do too. That, in no way, means that he understood that doing so would make a photograph. What you have is not an act of creativity, it's just "monkey see, monkey do". I don't believe that PETA cares if they win ... or loose (in court); they've already "won" with the incredible PR.
If the postponement is granted, just watch .. in a few weeks, there will be an announcment that, with additional research, based "in part" on the new vunerability, the FBI was able to determine that there is no useful data on the phone and, for this reason, they have no further interest in persuing their suit against Apple. This is a ploy to save face while backing out of a situation that exploded in their faces beyond their worst PR nightmares.
The don't need to get into the phone to find out "who he talked to" - that information is available from the service provider (which, I'm sure, they already have). This was a work phone; he also had a personal phone (which was distroyed); the odds of there being anything of any significance on this phone are pretty much zero. Any "serious" communication he'd had would have been on his personsal phone (which he controled), not on a work phone (which was not his).
As a side note, I stopped using "air travel" over a decade ago because of TSA. It's not that I'm a criminal or a terrorist, it's that the "terrorist risk" (very tiny) did not warrent the response (I.E. being treated as a criminal at the airport).
Remember what they were doing to Aaron Swartz .... This is what they DO. Catching actual criminals is too difficult for them, so they get anyone in a vaguely "grey" area (or, failing at that, simply make stuff up) and do a pile on with charges.
In my opinion, I think you should still link to them with a note that it refuses ad-blocking, just as you note articles that behind a paywall (I don't see a whole lot of difference), and then, perhaps, also list an alternate source? While I don't bother with an adblocker program or plugin, I do have most ad servers themselves blocked (redirected) in other ways. This does sometimes get captured as an ad-blocker; when that happens, I just go somewhere else.