Billy Graham Dies, Newsweek Implodes, Sexual Harassment Scandal Hits USDA: A.M. Links

|

  • Everett Collection/Newscom

    The "Russian troll farm" indictment is wild.

  • The iconic and controversial evangelical preacher Billy Graham has died, at age 99.
  • New excuse to avoid cleaning: it causes cancer?
  • Newsweek is claiming that Al Franken's downfall was orchestrated by Roger Stone and Russian bots. Meanwhile, Newsweek reporters are publishing damning exposes of their own publication.
  • We've reached the era of "best practices" manuals for stage kissing.
  • During an Agriculture Department soiree last week, employee Rosetta Davis "unexpectedly took to the stage and alleged to her colleagues in emotional and specific terms how she was sexually harassed on the job," including a supervisor who allegedly offered her a promotion in exchange for sex. Now she's been placed on leave.
  • "Red flag laws" that would make it easier for authorities to seize someone's gun are gaining popularity.
  • "In Nashville, they said, it is easier to buy an assault rifle than it is to make a living as an exotic dancer."
  • The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) starts today.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

Advertisement

NEXT: Can the Trump Administration Ban Bump Stocks?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The iconic and controversial evangelical preacher Billy Graham has died, at age 99.

    Someone was living right apparently.

      1. All the evil seem to live forever

        1. Seventh son of a seventh soooooooon!

    1. Hello.

      Apparently he avoided cleaning his house with Lysol wipes.

      1. Fun fact: a century ago, Lysol was marketed as a feminine hygiene product.

        1. All I can think is … wouldn’t that burn?

          1. Fifty shades of clean

          2. And Listerine was floor cleaner.

    2. “controversial”
      Compared to most preachers, Graham was about as controversial as a ham sandwich. Sure Jew’s, Muslim’s and Vegan’s won’t eat one, but it’s not something shocking and controversial.

  2. Newsweek is claiming that Al Franken’s downfall was orchestrated by Roger Stone and Russian bots.

    Russia and Stone colluded to start the #MeToo juggernaut?

    1. Russian trolls kept putting all those boobs in his hands.

    2. It’s a sad day when Al Franken gropes Roger Stone.

      1. I think that’s a hilarious day.

  3. We’ve reached the era of “best practices” manuals for stage kissing.

    You can only expect them to suffer so much for their art.

    1. Daniel Day-Lewis got out at the right time.

      1. How do these best practices apply to Sam Elliott and his awesomestache?

        1. Sam Elliott’s stache is so tremendous, it kisses a lady a full minute before he does.

  4. “Red flag laws” that would make it easier for authorities to seize someone’s gun are gaining popularity.

    “He likes owning guns? RED FLAG.”

    1. You say this won’t help? I CALL BS.

  5. “In Nashville, they said, it is easier to buy an assault rifle than it is to make a living as an exotic dancer.”

    Maybe for SOME people.

    1. Why isn’t this a ringing condemnation of the stupid crap you have to go through to be an exotic dancer? Fingerprints and a background check? Do we really need wanna-be exotic dancers to be barred from working, because of their special crime, they may not be moral enough to be an exotic dancer? Are we worried that they might be bundling off the children that visit their strip clubs into unmarked vans, and the only way we might be able to track them down is the fingerprints we have in some file at the FBI?

      1. Well, if it was legal, how could all the cops justify tax payer dollars for all the drinks and lap dances when ‘undercover’?

      2. +1 anti-massacree movement

        1. “I wanna kill. I mean, I wanna kill.

    2. That’s certainly true for me

      1. Chippendale’s never called back, huh.

  6. “In Nashville, they said, it is easier to buy an assault rifle than it is to make a living as an exotic dancer.”

    Which argument would we be making here?

    1. I would have to purchase many assault rifles and obtain many lapdances in order to make a determination.

      1. I think you’d have to give many lapdances to make this comparison.

        1. Not if i’m conducting interviews, fool!

  7. The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) starts today, with a lineup that features controversial characters like Marine Le Pen, Sheriff David Clarke, and Pamela Geller.

    That’s quite the lineup.

    1. They invited the wrong LePen. You don’t want grandma. You want Marion Le Pen who is an epic babe. If lusting after French fascists is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

      1. For those of us of a “certain age”, Marine is something of a hottie as well. Being just a year older than my own daughter, I would have to consider her off limits. That is, unless she was actually interested in me:)

        Geezers like me have to be realistic. If there is anything more pathetic in this world it is an old man who thinks that every pretty young thing who smiles at him wants him to grab her by her pussy.

    2. CPAC must be run by a bunch of loons, who thought it is a good idea to get wierdos from across the world to headline this event? Seems more like a freakshow than a serious event.

      1. It has never been a serious event. It has always been a bunch of professional activists partying on other people’s money in a weekend fart smelling contest.

        1. Did you get banned from CPAC too???

          1. I was never invited. I just noticed the irony that the worse things got under Obama, the bigger CPAC seemed to get and the happier they all seemed to be. it is almost like the whole thing was a sham and they wanted to lose and continue to make promises they would never have to keep or something.

            1. Yeah, but no matter how nutty things got under Obama, no one on the “mainstream right” ever endorsed assassination and no one ever pulled their children out of school in protest of a visit from Michelle Obama.

              Sorry, but no matter how much I dislike Trump (Though I dislike Hillary more) I am afraid that the level of absolute insanity over him is, well, unprecedented. And that is a hell of a statement considering all of the scoundrels and scallywags who have occupied the office before.

      2. Seems more like a freakshow than a serious event.
        Serious enough for Trump to speak there multiple times since 2011.

    3. I’d say it is embarrassing, but… nah, they’re a good fit for CPAC.

  8. …with a lineup that features controversial characters like Marine Le Pen, Sheriff David Clarke, and Pamela Geller.

    Sure, any group looks bad when you list its members.

  9. Now she’s been placed on leave.

    No one wants a party pooper on the payroll.

  10. http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..plans.html

    Trump allowing people to buy healthcare policies of their choice. Worst Nazi ever!!

    1. Everything that Trump does to make things better for Americans make him more popular and the lefties know this.

      Election 2018 will be really bad for Democrats and then Trump getting reelected in 2020 will probably result in a lefty Jonestown type situation.

      1. By allowing people to buy policies that don’t meet the mandated requirements of Obamacare, Trump is damn near effectively repealing the whole thing. I guess he has a pen and a phone too.

        1. Its amazing what can happen when you dial another number on that phone and write something different on that paper.

          1. It’s as if you believe people might make different choices than other people.

      2. Nope. Democrats re-take the House (possibly not the Senate, though) in November’s #BlueWave, and a Democrat wins the 2020 presidential election.

        1. I needed a good joke today.

        2. Hopefully the Janus ruling will come in time to destroy the pipeline that feeds taxpayer dollars into Democrats’ pockets via their public-sector unions. Sorry 🙂

        3. Yes. SO many people are going to be enraged by their low-cost insurance premiums, that they will vote for whoever can possibly make it change. I can totally see how that happens.

          There might be a #BlueWave, but this sure as hell won;t be the reason.

        4. I fully expect the dems to make ground in 2018. It’s common for the president’s party to lose in the first midterm.

          Of course I expect dems to make it sound like a great victory, instead of the usual occurring cycle.

          1. They might make up some ground, but I do not think they will retake the House and will likely lose ground in the Senate. Whatever happens, it will be portrayed as a great victory and a repudiation of Trump. When the reality that Trump isn’t going to be impeached, will serve out his term and stand at least a 50 50 chance of serving another sinks in, there will be much whaling, gnashing of teeth and lamentation of women.

          2. That is why election 2018 will hurt so bad for the Democrats.

            They cannot even gain ground in a usual occurring cycle.

            1. If they fail to make the midterm flip, that will hurt.

      3. I’ll put my money wherever you aren’t.

        1. Put your money on Democrats. All of it. Every single cent you have.

          That way when they lose, you will have to hock your computer/cell phone and we will have one less lefty on Reason.

          1. Yep, may as well put your money on them, otherwise they will just take it.

        2. So you don’t have any money because you lost it all playing the futures market on Hillary being President. Good to know.

    2. Come on, everybody knows that fascism is not wanting the government to dictate economic decisions to people.

      1. Allowing people to buy affordable health insurance policies is totally what Putin wants. Russia is waging war on America Mickey and the President doesn’t care.

  11. “In Nashville, they said, it is easier to buy an assault rifle than it is to make a living as an exotic dancer.”

    ENB does the morning links like a boss. Guns and boobs in the same link. I can go to where Billy Graham is now.

    1. I would think how hard or easy it is to make a living as a stripper is a function of your looks. I am sure it is easier to buy an AK in Nashville than it is to make a living as a stripper if you weigh over 200 lbs or are over 50. I, however, doubt Nashville is unique.

      1. Well look at Mr. High Falutin over here; going to those fancy strip clubs with young, skinny, attractive strippers.

        1. I didn’t say they were attractive or really all that young. Just not too old and not really fat.

          1. Strip club purgatory.

        2. This is John we’re talking about. He prefers the 200+ pounders, he just doesn’t feel he should be responsible for supporting ALL of them.

          1. This is why we need a UBI. That way all hefty plus girls can strip, but no one will have to go through the shame of tipping them.

      2. That’s why the free market can’t be tolerated. Every stripper is entitled to being ogled and paid equivalently. It’s your sacred and soon to be mandated duty to sit there and drool and slip some cash into their whatever if you can find it.

        1. That is right. The free market just enforces thin and look privilege and ensures that ugly girls have to work for a living. And that is not fair.

      3. Honestly, I think making a single purchase is probably easier than working a job day in and day out, for basically any job and any single purchase.

        Like, buying a house is probably easier than making a full 20+ year long career as a stripper.

    2. On the autopsy table?

      1. He disappeared like Yoda and went straight to the pearly gates.

        1. The pearly gates of the morgue storage bin?

  12. The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) starts today, with a lineup that features controversial characters like Marine Le Pen, Sheriff David Clarke, and Pamela Geller.

    They might as well go ahead and break out the swastikas.

    1. So socialist Nazis are coming to the party?

      Butt, remember when the socialist Nazis killed millions of people but not as many as the Communists in the USSR and China?

      1. Shut up, moron, All you do is lie.

        1. There you are Butt.

          Have a good day moron. Try not to lie too much today.

        2. All you do is lie.

          Lies, lies, lies
          Lies, lies, lies
          Lies, lies, lies

          All you need is lies, all you need is lies
          All you need is lies, lies, lies is all you need

  13. Meanwhile, Newsweek [sic] reporters are publishing damning exposes of their own publication.

    And getting editors fired, I am told.

    1. Can’t wait for Reason to follow suit.

    2. More like Newsweak, amirite?

  14. This is the first time I have ever heard of Billy Graham described as ‘controversial’. I must be missing something.

    1. Look hard enough and you’ll find controversy about anything.

      1. True. I’m just amused by such a mainstream milktoast dude being described as ‘controversial’.

        Now if it was Louis Farrakhan…

        1. I have a copy of Farrakhan’s magazine in which he and Alex Jones interview each other. It fucking rules, it is so nuts.

          1. That sounds out of this world.

          2. “Here the Jews don’t like Farrakhan and so they call me ‘Hitler’. Well that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man”
            -Louis Farrakhan

            1. The media was right to distance themselves from Farrakhan after PC 1.0

    2. Nixon and Graham were recorded together amid a anti-Semitic slurs.

      Certainly compared to the other fundie-nut hucksters his “controversy” was mild.

      1. Never got caught with hookers, never convicted and sent to jail, never married Tammy Faye Baker, not Pat Robertson, no financial scandals that I can remember, not Robert Tilton (my personal favorite).

        You’re right. Pretty mild.

      2. Also was a close friend of MLK and pushed for integration long before it was fashionable. Started doing so in the early ’50s. Invited King to preach beside him in the middle ’50s. Paid King’s bail more than once after King was arrested during protests. Went toe-to-toe with the KKK by holding integrated services in Birmingham in the aftermath of the 16th Street Church bombing.

        Gosh, it’s almost like virtually every human being isn’t just a cartoon hero or devil, but instead leave nuanced legacies. Who knew?

        1. True. IIRC Graham pissed off some Southern conservatives by removing the ropes that segregated his crusade-goers.

          1. He sure pissed off some Southern Democrats alright. Those Democrats wanted to keep segregation and Jim Crowe going.

            1. Those Democrats are all dead now, but if they weren’t they’d all be Republicans today. Pull your head out of your ass, dude.

              1. Racists still infest the DNC ranks. They call it ‘identity politics’.

              2. Aw bevis. They are not all dead now. The Democratic Party is full of racists. The Democrats use blacks because the blacks cannot help themselves.

                Its why Democrats control lefty city planning. They want the black and brown votes but do not want those people living in their whitey neighborhoods.

                You need to extricate your head from your own ass dude. Hillary considered Byrd her mentor and she’s still alive. Bill Clinton signed the 1994 crime bill which is blamed for higher black incarceration rates for crimes but tougher sentencing on drugs hit black people harder.

                Bernie sander voted for that too. He’s still alive.

                RBG is a racist and she is still alive. She has helped further racist laws and government policy for decades.

              3. “”Those Democrats are all dead now, but if they weren’t they’d all be Republicans today””

                Maybe, but in fairness, those democrats were alive back when Graham was pissing them off.

              4. So FDR would be a Republican now and Hoover would be a Democrat?

              5. Those Democrats are all dead now, but if they weren’t they’d all be Republicans today. Pull your head out of your ass, dude.

                Hillary and Bill are still around, So is Gore.

                And I’m pretty sure they’re not Republicans.

          2. Yep. First reported instance of him doing so was in Tennessee in 1953. When the ushers resisted moving the ropes, he told them that if they didn’t the show could just go on without him.

            Left-wing race-baiting Twitter is full of tweets this morning calling Graham a racist. Doing so is astonishingly ignorant. Yet another demonstration – as if we needed it – of how filtering everything through one’s preset political filter causes one to be an abject dumbass.

          3. Hello, my friend, Palin’s Buttplug. I am warm a nice spot for you.

      3. “recorded together amid a anti-Semitic slurs”
        You make it sound like Graham was the one saying them. Clever.

    3. I bet he didn’t even support trans-bathrooms.

      1. Seeing as he was vocally in the “gay folk are going to hell” category, that seems likely.

        1. But who isn’t?

        2. Who, in the 1950s-60s-70s and pretty well into the eighties wasn’t vocally in the “gay folk are going to hell” category?

          Certainly well into the 1990s the general public consensus was that homosexuals were abnormal. The only controversy was over whether that abnormality should be tolerated or forbidden. Even in the toleration camp there was a range of opinion from total acceptance to “live and let live”/”don’t ask don’t tell” policies.

          And this was not a simple party issue in “the old days”. It is worth remembering that in 1964 the Johnson campaign exploited allegations of a couple of homosexual staffers in the GOP campaign against Goldwater.

          1. They are abnormal! Abnormally fabulous!

          2. Who, in the 1950s-60s-70s and pretty well into the eighties wasn’t vocally in the “gay folk are going to hell” category?

            The source of all evil — libertarians.

            1. Good point.

          3. Shit dude, who’s talking about the 50s?

            Dude was making public anti-gay statements this decade.

    4. Part of it is that he’s so old that most people alive won’t remember his early hey-day as maybe the most significant religious figure in the US. Leading to something of a 3 and a half great awakening of religious belief in the late 40s and 50s.

      1. He was a very significant religious figure in Europe as well.

    5. I must confess, that the use of the word ‘controversial’ mystifies me as well.

      Billy Graham drew crowds in the thousands and tens of thousands to his appearances in countries around the world and American presidents were not the only world leaders who courted him.

      1. Controversial is a fun label to use with media types. If anyone you agree with frowns upon something, no matter how small, you get the ‘controversial’ label.

  15. Russian troll farm even made a fake Obama-Clinton sex tape

    Who was the top?

    1. eewwwwww!
      /teenage girl

      1. eewwwwww!
        /everyone else

    2. R. Kelly?

  16. http://legalinsurrection.com/2…..back-home/

    Canada accepting “reformed jihadists” because as Prime Minister Zoolander says “they can be a great voice for Canada”, but sending North Korean refugees home. I guess Prime Minister Zoolander doesn’t want to deprive the North Korean Refugees of the pleasure of dying for the cause.

    1. Go on youtube. There you will find videos of that idiot comparing ‘reformed jihadists’ being mistreated like immigrants from Italy, Greece and Portugal in the post-war era and that’s not right. He then specifically singled out Italians who faced discrimination for their dress (?) and religion. He tried to equate the two. No seriously. ISIS = European immigration.

      Of course, it was not reported.

      I truly loathe that POS.

      1. He really is a piece of shit. ISIS was one of the evilest organizations of the last 100 years. They are Khmer Rouge level evil. And this dumb ass thinks the people who were a part of that are just misunderstood. That is not stupidity. That is evil.

    2. Well, Kim Jong Un is his fraternal socialist comrade.

    3. To be fair, they’re sending them back to South Korea. There’s some evidence that this is not an optimal solution, but it’s better than sending them back to NK.

  17. New excuse to avoid cleaning: it causes cancer?

    So you just get a new cleaning staff.

    1. So now we know the truth about the democrats support for illegal border crossers. They need a constant flow of slaves (oops, I mean workers) to do their cleaning.

  18. The iconic and controversial evangelical preacher Billy Graham has died, at age 99.

    Fun fact: Billy Graham believed in aliens, and hoped to one day spread the Gospel to them, if they didn’t have it already.

    1. Billy Graham was close friends with like 8 Presidents. How do you know he didn’t?

      1. I’m sure he at least spread the Gospel to the surgically altered Russian midgets they found in that flying saucer.

        1. There was a great article in Car and Driver last week where they had the famous drag racer Don Garlits drive the new Dodge Demon. Garlits is like 86 years old and still in great health. He is also a bonafide mechanical genius and a tremendous businessman. During the interview with Garlits, Garlits drops this bomb about how he had a friend who worked for the government and how the government has all of these flying saucers of various working condition that have all of this amazing technology. What made it interesting was that Garlits is in every other way a very smart, serious and practical guy. And yet he believes that.

          1. As often as not, having high intelligence means you’re better at talking yourself into believing the most ridiculous things.

            ?\_(?)_/?

            1. That is often true. There are some very smart people who have some blind spot and believe some very kooky things.

            2. Some ideas are so dumb, only intellectuals believe them.

          2. I think there is quite a bit of evidence that aliens or UFOs exist, but the article says the source was Bob Lazar, who I think even Art Bell found questionable.

          3. Maybe he was kidding?

            I had a chick on an airplane next to me ask what I did and I told her that I was military. She asked about secret stuff that I knew, so I gauged her gullibility. I told her about all the fake stuff that I could think of.

            Needless to say, I got off the plane at her city instead of where I was going.

            1. I really hate whoever led me to believe honesty was the best policy.

    2. And if your glubarp causes you to sin, tear it off. It’s better to enter the Kingdom of God with only three glubarps than to have four and be thrown into hell,

  19. So basically Newsweek is exploding because a higher up used company services for private means? Ones that seem to be able to be explained away as charitable giving for marketing benefits. The bland nepotism of choosing your wife’s orginization as the thing to give charitably too, is something that should get you fired, but is so common I’m trying to figure out the newsworthiness that made this story important enough to be pushed enough to get folks fired. Especially when according to the article this is already being investigated by law enforcement.

    It seems pretty no duh that your news company wouldn’t want you reporting on a legal matter that the company itself is involved in. That causes all sorts of complications in court.

    1. Don’t you realize? If Newsweek hadn’t given away that paper and ink, someone else would have bought that advertising!

  20. That photo makes me realize that technically JFK could still have been alive today.

    1. Yes. He would be 101. Old but not unthinkable old. His war injuries to his back were pretty severe and likely would have prevented him from living that long, but you never know.

    2. He should never have let LBJ get that close to the Presidency.

      1. He would have never beaten Nixon without LBJ assuring the South that the Northeastern Catholic wasn’t a n***** lover. It is an interesting counter factual to imagine if Nixon had won in 1960. Would Nixon have done the great society and the CRA? Could the Democrats have won in 64 without the guilt and grief over the assassination of JFK?

  21. “Red flag laws” that would make it easier for authorities to seize someone’s gun are gaining popularity.

    Of course they are. Gun grabbers do not have enough support to repeal the 2nd Amendment, so they are pushing unconstitutional infringements on American’s right to keep and bear arms (armaments).

  22. “The scientists advise using microfiber cloths and water for cleaning rather than chemicals, while some health advocates suggest using cleaning products that are labeled “allergy friendly” and are made with fewer chemicals.”

    In other words, less effective products.

    1. I smell Big Fuller Brush behind this so-called “study”.

    2. I use bleach. The smell of burning after scrubbing everything with raw bleach and water is the only thing that make me feel powerful these days.

  23. Newsweek is an important voice in #TheResistance so it would be a real shame if it imploded. In addition to showing how Franken’s resignation was the result of an alt-right bot network, they publish great pieces like this one describing how Hillary can still be president.

    #StillWithHer

    1. Comedy that good is hard to find these days. You do have a point about that.

    2. Yep, OBL. All the true rock-ribbed Glenn Beck libertarians know that the movement of people should be restricted to their native racial lands.

      1. Butt: Shut up, moron, All you do is lie.

      2. Mr. Buttplug, I greatly appreciate your contributions to this website. But recycling posts word for word is beneath you. You can do better.

        1. Well, OBL, it is because you have done such a stellar job in calling out the fake libertarians among us. Without them the libertarian moment will forge ahead with the robust clarity it deserves.

          1. All you do is lie.

            Lies, lies, lies
            Lies, lies, lies
            Lies, lies, lies

            All you need is lies, all you need is lies
            All you need is lies, lies, lies is all you need

        2. [citation needed]

      3. All you do is lie.

        Lies, lies, lies
        Lies, lies, lies
        Lies, lies, lies

        All you need is lies, all you need is lies
        All you need is lies, lies, lies is all you need

    3. I remember back when Newsweek used its editorial discretion to keep the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal out of the news. It’s rare to have news outlets with such integrity anymore, and o hope they keep fighting the good fight.

    4. they publish great pieces like this one describing how Hillary can still be president.

      LOL that desperate wet dream is still alive.

  24. Newsweek has retracted the Frankin story.

    1. Oh, it seems they did. Strange.

      Still, this does nothing to alter my belief that foreign interference and shady alt-right Internet practices are the biggest threats to our system of government.

      1. Believe it with both hands, buddy. Still doesn’t make it longer.

      2. They still try to load in that advertising though.

        This retraction is brought to you by the good folks at Victory Gin.

  25. Pretty sure you can make money short on this:
    “Maduro: Digital currency puts Venezuela on tech vanguard”
    […]
    “In its first hours on the market, the so-called petro racked in $735 million worth in purchases, Maduro said without providing details.”
    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/
    wireStory/venezuelas-digital-
    coin-makes-debut-53214583

  26. “Red flag laws” that would make it easier for authorities to seize someone’s gun are gaining popularity.

    Sure. Make it easier to take guns from people who have not committed a crime but don’t allow people to defend themselves by ending the “defenseless victim zone” policy.

  27. Last year, we were deluged, but CA it’s dry this year, so:
    “Permanent water restrictions imminent for California”
    […]
    “Members of the state Water Resources Control Board are scheduled to decide Tuesday whether to bring back what had been temporary water bans from California’s 2013?2017 drought and make them permanent.”
    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/
    2018/0220/Permanent-water-
    restrictions-imminent-for-California

    Moonbeam’s choo-choo is far more important than any water storage infrastructure!

  28. “Russian troll farm”

    Band name.

    1. Movie too? The Russians raising giant trolls to unleash on the world.

      Then cut to a blimp hangar with hairy trolls like Buttplug, OBL, and Tony at computer terminals. Their big sausage fingers hitting the wrong buttons trying to advocate how great socialism is.

  29. “White Nationalist Files Suit Against Twitter”

    The suit by Jared Taylor, filed Tuesday in state Superior Court in San Francisco, argues that Twitter violated California law protecting free speech in public spaces when it banned Mr. Taylor in December.

    —-Wall Street Journal

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/ white-nationalist-files-suit- against-twitter-1519214401

    1. My knee jerk reaction to this is that Twitter should be free to ban whomever they want for any reason they like, but it’s more complicated than that.

      1) What if Twitter failed to live by their own user agreement?

      If someone invests time, effort, and money into their Twitter feed, because they expect Twitter to live by the terms of their user agreement, but Twitter kicks them off the platform for reasons that are inconsistent with that agreement, then Twitter may well have violated the contract.

      If I offer you $100 to go find my dog, and you spend the day finding my dog, then I owe you $100–I don’t get to jip you out of $100 just because the dog is my private property.

      2) California’s public accommodation laws.

      If a private business serves the general public, they say that makes it public space–and you can’t discriminate against minorities within that space. California law may be wrong in regards to the difference between private property and “public space”; however, there is a legitimate libertarian concern about the equal protection of the laws. The state of California doesn’t get to pick and choose between more favored and less favored identity groups.

      1. If someone invests time, effort, and money into their Twitter feed, because they expect Twitter to live by the terms of their user agreement, but Twitter kicks them off the platform for reasons that are inconsistent with that agreement, then Twitter may well have violated the contract.

        Does Twitter really offer a for-pay service that is different from their free service?

        1. You do “pay” for Twitter. You just don’t do it with money. You pay for it by allowing them to sell you information and target advertising to you. The Twitter terms of use is a valid contract with consideration going both ways. If Twitter wants to tell its customers “we reserve the right to kick you off for any reason including our arbitrary dislike of your politics, looks, or anything else and application of standards that may or may not ever be applied fairly or even to anyone but you”, that would be fine. That, however, is not what their terms of service say. The terms of service imply not only a set of content-neutral rules of conduct but also the implicit promise that those rules will be applied evenly to all users. And it is pretty clear Twitter is in no way living up to that promise.

          So, I think this guy has a case. If Twitter wants to operate like this, they should update their terms of service and tell their customers that is what they are doing.

        2. Are you familiar with the term “unilateral contract”?

          Twitter told them that if they invested their time, effort, and money into their Twitter feed, that they could use the service. Twitter benefits from users creating content for Twitter and creating new users for Twitter.

          If Twitter told them in their user agreement that they would be free to continue with the service so long as they didn’t x, y, or z–and the user didn’t x, y, or z but Twitter terminated their account anyway–then Twitter has violated their contract.

          What part of this don’t you understand?

          The lost dog example was simple as can be. If you’re not familiar with what a unilateral contract is, go look it up.

          1. I don’t use Twitter and I don’t read TOS for fun but I’m glad you chose to go colossal douchebag rather than give me a simple answer.

            1. You argued with Ken and lost poser.

        1. It is not complicated. Twitter has to live by the terms of service it gives to its customers.

        2. “How is it more complicated?”

          1) What if Twitter failed to live by their own user agreement?

          2) California’s public accommodation laws.

          Can’t you read?

          1. Both have pretty easy answers for a libertarian, which would be clear to you if this was, say, DeRay Mckesson suing twitter for the same ‘violation.’

            1. Does the term “ad hominem” mean anything to you?

              The observation that Twitter may have violated their contract wouldn’t be valid–if only there were something different about me?

              There wouldn’t be a valid libertarian concern about the equal protection of the laws–if only there were something different about me?

              The culture war you’re fighting is in your own head, not mine.

              1. Yes, the simplicity of these issues would be clear to you if you were different. E.g. if you were more like me.

                1. Do you not understand that is the classic definition of the “ad hominem”?

                  You embrace your fallacies like a security blanket?

                  1. “”You embrace your fallacies like a security blanket?”‘

                    That’s all the rage these days. Generalization fallacies are king.

      2. The state of California doesn’t get to pick and choose between more favored and less favored identity groups.

        The hell they don’t; read their laws.

        1. They may be getting away with it, but if the courts (or the Court) is going to uphold public accommodation, in this way, then they need to do so consistently–or make the whole idea even more of a laughing stock.

      3. Regarding (1) If Twitter failed to abide by their own user agreement then sure, sue them on those grounds. But that doesn’t appear to be what Taylor is doing.

        Regarding (2) So far, internet “spaces” haven’t been deemed to fall under public accomodations. Further, if you have to become a “member” and agree to terms of service, user agreement, license and so-on, then you’ve already stepped beyond any sort of “public accommodation” even if it were a brick and mortar place.

        1. To be clear, from the articles I skimmed it does appear there’s a “he said/she said” component to this regarding whether or not he actually violated their ToS, but what Taylor is suing under is non-discrimination law.

          1. Califonia if I am not mistaken makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of politics in a public accommodation. That is a bit of a crazy law, but it does exist and Twitter is pretty clearly violating it.

            It seems to me that they are also violating their TOS. The only reason that I can see why he is suing under the discrimination law and not just for violating the TOS is that the discrimination law likely provides for statutory damages and attorney’s fees where a contract action would not. And what are your actual monetary damages for Twitter breaking their TOS? Not very much and certainly not enough to justify the legal fees to collect.

            1. […] in a public accommodation.
              I don’t think you appreciate just how radical a change it would be to rule that Twitter was a public accommodation.

              1. I don’t see how. Any business open to the public is a public accommodation. I think you are confusing public accommodation with public utility.

        2. I didn’t say he was necessarily right; I said it was more complicated than my knee-jerk response.

          From the article linked above:

          “The suit by Jared Taylor, filed Tuesday in state Superior Court in San Francisco, argues that Twitter violated California law protecting free speech in public spaces when it banned Mr. Taylor in December. Twitter told Mr. Taylor by email that it did so under a rule in its user agreement that bars accounts affiliated with organizations that promote violence, according to the suit. Mr. Taylor says he neither advocated violence nor was affiliated with such groups.

          Twitter didn’t respond to requests for comment. It added the rule cited in Mr. Taylor’s suit in December as part of a broader effort to reduce “hateful and abusive” content.”

          —-WSJ, Ibidem

          Whether he did or didn’t violate the rule in question, of course, is the same argument about whether Twitter violated their contractual agreement.

          The question of whether California’s public accommodation speech applies to private spaces that are made available to the public by businesses like Twitter’s may be novel, but maybe it isn’t. I don’t know. If California law hasn’t been applied to businesses online before, then it’s no surprise that someone would eventually assert such a a thing, and it has been applied before, then equal protection probably means that it needs to be applied consistently.

          1. The question of whether California’s public accommodation speech applies to private spaces that are made available to the public by businesses like Twitter’s may be novel, but maybe it isn’t.
            Novel as in “new”? No.

            But while there have been some lawsuits relating to websites and public accommodations?, the question of whether a member service of a website is a public accommodation is much less developed. Off the top of my head, there was the Netflix cases and ChristianMingle or Match.com or something. In the Netflix cases, Massachusets ruled it was a public accomodaiton and needed to provide closed captioning under the ADA, while California ruled the opposite. In the ChristianMingle (I think) case, it was some gay dudes suing for access. The court ruled in their favor, but I still think that was wrongly decided.

            To put it simply, Twitter is a private club. A private club that sends out a public newsletter, sure. But no one is entitled to write for that newsletter. Ruling that they’re a public accommodation and bound by non-discrimination in public accommodation law would be the wrong ruling.

            1. I do not see how a for-profit organization that is open to anyone who signs up could be considered a private club.

  30. As the narrative about Russian trolls becomes more dominant in the media, it’s important to refresh our memories about the kinds of facts we knew about Clinton–that had nothing to do with Russian trolls.

    “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

    —-Mother Jones

    “Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors:

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/ hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals/

    Just to be clear, Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State–and that is not according to Russian trolls. That is according to what Hillary Clinton reported to the State Department and what the Clinton Foundation reported itself.

    When I was in boarding school, they had these guys come play us black metal records backwards to prove that they contained backwards masking messages. I was sitting there thinking, “Have you heard what these records say played forwards?”

    There’s no need for Russian trolls to play Hillary Clinton’s statements backwards. Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. She’s a crook.

    End of story.

      1. Because the media is telling a lie. Just because you like the lie Ken, doesn’t make it okay or any less of a lie. Your lies are lies too.

      2. They’re trying to invalidate criticism of a politician–and a presidential election result–as if everything bad you think you know about Hillary Clinton were the fabrication of a Russian troll.

        Hillary Clinton is a crook, and Russian trolls don’t have anything to do with it.

          1. Does the term “willfully obtuse” mean anything to you?

            1. I’ve followed your posts for years now, Ken, so yes, I am very familiar with the concept.

              1. And the irony of you being willfully obtuse in response to a post where Shultz is being uncommonly clear is not lost on anyone.

              2. I hardly notice you at all.

                1. “I hardly notice you at all.”

                  That was intended for Mr. Green.

                2. Indeed, that’s another fault of yours, Ken.

                  1. Yeah Green, Ken’s life is so much poorer for not enjoying the smug storms you produce.

              3. “”I’ve followed your posts for years now, Ken, so yes, I am very familiar with the concept.””

                And why is that important?

          2. Because half the country falsely believing that the election was stolen and isn’t legitimate is a big problem. If people refuse to accept the results of a lawful election, you can’t have a Republic. The whole thing depends on the losing side accepting defeat.

            This stuff isn’t hard. I get it that your status anxiety compels you to worry about being associated with the evil Trump supporters and to believe what all right-thinking people believe about this. But, sometimes you have to bite the bullet and tell the fucking truth even if it hurts your ability to status and virtue signal.

            1. Because half the country falsely believing that the election was stolen and isn’t legitimate is a big problem.
              Birthers. Do I need to say any more?

  31. “If I offer you $100 to go find my dog, and you spend the day finding my dog, then I owe you $100–I don’t get to jip you out of $100 just because the dog is my private property.”

    Your example looks more like a verbal contract which would be different than wanting to post something on Twitter outside of a contract with Twitter.

    If Twitter keeps bumping users for opinion then hopefully people who want to give opinion migrate to a better social networking site that does not bump people for opinions.

    Reason does not seem to ban people unless they are spamming, which is far different than other forums where people get banned for going outside lefty groupthink.

    1. This was supposed to be under Ken’s comment and got teleported here.

    2. It’s a unilateral contract, and it’s based on performance.

      Twitter said, “Feel free to invest your time, effort, brand, money, etc. into our service. We’ll keep your account active so long as you don’t x, y, or z.

      The user is saying he didn’t do x, y, or z–and Twitter violated the unilateral contract anyway.

      1. That does seem more accurate to this situation.

    3. I don’t think you can post something on Twitter without a userid, and I don’t think you can get a userid without agreeing to their terms of service, which I would consider a contract.

      1. I agree with you. The problem is what are your damages for Twitter violating the contract? They put out usends with no intention of following the terms because no one can claim enough damages to justify suing them over it.

  32. Wait. Somebody cares about Newsweek? Stop the presses!

    1. They already did in 2013.

  33. Marine Le Pen

    For some reason I picture the DI from Full Metal Jacket in really unconvincing drag.

  34. Uh-oh. Vox is reportedly laying off 50 of its 400 writers.

    Trump’s the cause?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.