Reason Roundup

Jeffrey Epstein in Court Today on Sex Trafficking Charges

Plus: How the French could kill U.S. speech, do economic centrists exist?, and more...

|

7 things to know about the Jeffrey Epstein case. On Saturday, billionaire and buddy to the powerful Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in New York City. He's due in federal court Monday on charges of trafficking a minor and conspiracy to do so. An indictment against him was unsealed this morning (as I was finishing this, which means I've had time to skim but not read closely yet). 

There are a lot of parts to this case. Why now? Who else may be implicated? What do lawyer Alan Dershowitz, activist Mike Cernovich, and The Miami Herald have to do with it? Here's hoping to answer those questions and more in a few bullet points:

  • How long has this case been going on? A long time! Epstein first pleaded guilty in June 2008 to charges of soliciting and procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. He was accused of paying young women and teen girls to give him massages and then pressuring or forcing them into sexual activity. At the time, federal prosecutors declined to pursue the case so long as Epstein registered as a sex offender in Florida, served a little time in jail, and paid compensation to the victims. The prosecutor handling the case was Alexander Acosta, who is now secretary of labor.
  • Why did the feds decline to prosecute then? It's unclear, but one thing worth noting is that soliciting or patronizing prostitution from victims of sex trafficking was not explicitly a federal crime until 2015, with the passage of the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act. That law also stipulated that "there is no need to prove either that the defendant knew, or that he recklessly disregarded, the fact that a sex trafficking victim was a minor if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim." In addition, it made prosecuting said crimes more lucrative for the feds, stating that forfeiture was allowed for any asset that is involved in, or traceable to the proceeds of, human trafficking. That means that instead of just profits made by traffickers (profits that don't really exist in this case), a house where trafficking took place, vehicles used to transport victims, etc., could now be seized. And, indeed, the new indictment against Epstein lays claim to his Palm Beach and New York City residences. Before 2015, the feds may have been able to charge Epstein under the Mann Act (which prohibits bringing minors or adults across state lines for prostitution) or under federal statutes related to crimes against children. But proving federal crimes and getting any assets from Epstein out of them would likely have been much harder back in 2008.
  • Why did the case against Epstein start gaining attention again a few years ago? After Epstein's 2008 plea deal, two of his victims sued right away, saying prosecutors didn't consult with them about the deal as required under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). Their suit got new life in December 2014, when two more victims petitioned to join the case as plaintiffs. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted recently, these new petitioners "included in their filings not only descriptions of sexual abuse by Epstein, but also new allegations of sexual abuse by several other prominent individuals," including lawyer Alan Dershowitz. A court would have these allegations stricken from the record, but they reached the media anyway.
  • What happened last week before the arrest? Plaintiffs in the CVRA suit reached a settlement in 2017, and documents related to this were ordered to be kept under seal. Wanting to clear his name, Dershowitz sued to have them unsealed. Eventually, right-wing activist Mike Cernovich and Miami Herald writer Julie Brown would also seek to intervene and have the records unsealed. A district court let them intervene but denied their requests to unseal the orders. They appealed. On July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found "that there is no countervailing privacy interest sufficient to justify their continued sealing" and ordered "that the summary judgement documents (with minimal redactions) be unsealed upon issuance of our mandate."
  • Did the newly unsealed records have anything to do with Epstein's arrest a few days later? Probably not. While the timing is mighty tight, the renewed investigation into Epstein had already been underway and the July 6 arrest was likely in motion before July 3. What's more, the court's July 3 order to unseal the records doesn't mean they're actually unsealed yet, as they must first be reviewed and redacted by a lower court (though it's not totally clear what U.S. attorneys may have been already or immediately after the ruling privy to). However, renewed media attention to the case did likely play a big role in federal prosecutors revisiting it in the first place.  
  • Was this really sex traffickingPeople keep asking me that question. It's tough to answer, since sex trafficking is defined very differently depending on who or what you consult. But the short answer is that legally, it is: The conduct Epstein is accused of committing does fall under the federal definition of sex trafficking (which encompasses any paid sexual activity involving a minor, including paying them yourself). And more so than almost any case I've covered, Epstein's alleged actions fall within the spirit and not just the letter of the law. They also come much closer to what many people might think of when they think about "sex trafficking." But these allegations against Epstein—while exposing unequivocally wrong actions on his part—may be more closely aligned with other crimes, such as sexual assault, statutory rape, etc. The decision to bring child sex trafficking charges is likely a function of a) some of these other things not being federal crimes, b) a general federal enthusiasm for adding trafficking charges in sex-crime cases, and/or c) the greater asset forfeiture possibilities and related conspiracy/etc. possibilities that come with the federal sex trafficking statute.
  • Why hasn't this devolved into a partisan mudslinging fest yet? Because popular figures on both sides have palled around with Epstein, and bad actors on both sides may be implicated. While it's nice to think the near-universal cheering of Epstein's arrest comes because we can all agree on certain moral standards, we've seen really bad behavior excused before when it makes only one side look bad. Here, we're likely saved by the fact that it's to neither Republicans' nor Democrats' advantage to weaponize this.

FREE MINDS

The French don't get free speech. French president Emmanuel Macron "and others in Europe are moving to unilaterally impose speech controls on the internet with new legislation in France and Germany. If you believe this is a European issue, think again," writes legal scholar Jonathan Turley at The Hill

Macron and his government are attempting to unilaterally scrub out the internet of hateful thoughts. The French Parliament has moved toward a new law that would give internet companies like Facebook and Google just 24 hours to remove hateful speech from their sites or face fines of $1.4 million per violation. A final vote is expected next week. Germany passed a similar measure last year and imposed fines of $56 million.

How would such a crackdown affect us? 

Europeans know these companies are quite unlikely to surgically remove content for individual countries. The effect will be similar to the "California Exception." All states are subject to uniform vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, but California was given an exception to establish more stringent standards. Rather than create special cars for California, the more stringent standards tend to drive car designs. When it comes to speech controls, Europeans know they can limit speech not only in their countries but practically limit speech in the United States and elsewhere.


FREE MARKETS

Where are all the economic centrists? In The Washington Post, Henry Olsen tries to argue that American libertarians are basically a myth. At National Review, Robert VerBruggen calls foul. Olsen's argument relied on a 2017 paper by Lee Drutman that found that only about 4 percent of Americans are "socially liberal and economically conservative." But the Drutman's analysis (which was torn apart at the time by both Karl Smith at the Niskanen Center and Emily Ekins at the Cato Institute) relied on a ridiculous approach to categorizing economic liberals, conservatives, and centrists. Here's VerBruggen

The economic axis (left-right on the chart) is obviously incorrect. Most of the data points—74 percent of them!—are left of center. This means that the center isn't actually, well, the center. When you make it so that the vast majority of people are left of "center" on economics, very few will be right on economics and left on social issues.


ELECTION 2020

If Amash did run for president, as a Libertarian or as an independent, it could hurt Democrats, not just Republicans, suggests John Fund at National Review.   


QUICK HITS

  • The Affordable Care Act is on trial again this week. 
  • State drivers license databases are a "gold mine" for facial recognition programs run by federal immigration agents and law enforcement.
  • Residents of Maryland no longer have to list their sex or gender as either male or female to vote.
  • Economist Tyler Cowen weighs in on the census citizenship question. 
  • Bad news for bikini baristas?

  • Contra reporting in The Hill, Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska's exculpatory claims about Paul Manafort won't be much use to the former Trump campaign manager legally. 
  • Quebec's education minister says Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai can only teach there if she doesn't wear a headscarf. 
  • Protecting and serving: 

NEXT: NFIB v. Sebelius Already Addressed the “Injury in Fact” Question in Texas v. U.S.

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. Macron and his government are attempting to unilaterally scrub out the internet of hateful thoughts.

    Social justice surrenderers.

  2. CNN’s latest debate-related stunt is to hold a draw on live television to assign Democratic candidates to one of two televised debates.

    Hopefully announced by Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.

    1. Steve Harvey approves.

    2. O can fill out a bracket.

      1. O can easily fill several brackets.

  3. Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) wants to give grants to homeowners in communities that historically experienced discrimination.

    Just the homeowners? Jeez.

    1. based on skin color; the classic definition of a racist – – – – – – –

  4. Justin Amash, on CNN, says he’ll run for Congress as an independent but won’t rule out running for president as a libertarian/independent.

    Career suicide is painless.

    -Justin A*M*A*S*H

    1. He will help ensure a Democrat gets elected to Congress. That alone will get him an endless supply of paying gigs at think tanks and as a professional concern troll. He is just taking a bribe.

      1. He will help ensure a Democrat gets elected to Congress.

        Eh, maybe. Depends on how popular he actually is in his district and how responsive he’s been to his constituents. Murkowski was elected Senator in Alaska as an independent after losing the Republican primary, for instance.

        1. He won’t be elected. The only issue is whether he will split the Republican vote enough to let the Democrat win.

        2. A recent poll in his district should him sucking major ass there. Beyond that, I have no idea which side will get that seat.

    2. any Hot Tips on what he should do instead?

        1. Tony, was that you with the ripped jeans in that pic from the Facebook group I follow. When I finally noticed the name tag on the shirt … OK, it was supper awkward.

          1. You may rest easy, my friend. For social events, I don’t wear anything that covers my legs. It’s easier to attract cutie boys when they have an unobstructed view of my beautifully smooth calves.
            Of course, I speak only for this instance of myself. This dimension’s current and future me might have been the man in the picture. The probability is further increased if those jeans were as tight as they were ripped, and if there was a subtle bulge.

              1. Fuck off, Hihn.

      1. Represent the interests and views of the voters who put him in Congress?

        1. An impossible task. How do you represent 700,000 people?

          1. Not telling them to fuck off would be a start. His constituents told him they didn’t want Trump impeached. And his response was to tell them to go fuck themselves.

            Amash is just a piece of shit.

            1. Hell hath no fury like a Republican scorned.

              1. Telling your supporters to fuck off is generally bad for a political career. Who knew?

                1. TBF I seem to recall his wording was somewhat more delicate. Such an eloquent and gracious “fuck off” was never before spoken.

            2. Heaven help him that he was elected and swore to defend the constitution and his constituents are dumber than a box of rocks.

              I’d rather he do what he did and tell the constituents, rightly, to go fuck themselves.

              1. Your definition of defending the Constitution seems to include forgiving blatant 4A violations, 5A protections, 1A free speech protections and the fact that the President is head of the executive branch. Every single so called incident of obstruction was the result of a bogus investigation, perpetrated by extremely questionable and almost certainly unconstitutional methods, and the so called possible obstruction seem to be based upon rumor, or a President asking advisors for advise, or a President tweeting or saying stuff the prosecutor didn’t like (pretty sure that is protected speech). Basically, it seems as if Amash is interpreting the Constitution as saying that a President he doesn’t like doesn’t deserve the same legal protection as anyone else.

    3. Carry on (Corporal) Klinger(s).

    4. Damn you’re good.

      1. And yet they all hate me here. Go figure.

    5. sweet. t-shirt level funny.

    6. Amash is not a serious contender and he knows it. He is looking to build his profile and getting ready for a book deal.

  5. You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.

    Union workers used to say something similar to me when I was summer help at a local plant. Does Reason want me to go Galt?

    1. No, we have Ken Schultz for that.

      Badum-tsssss!

  6. http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

    An MLS under 15 boys development team beat the WNT 5-2. That is epic. As bad as women’s basketball is, I do not think an under 15 AAU boys team could beat a WNBA all star team. An 18 and under boys team might but no way a 15 and under would. The quality of women’s soccer is bad even for women’s sports.

    1. Ugh, I’m sick of misogynists pouncing on this obscure fact as if it means anything at all. It’s such a lame attempt to justify the existence of the WAGE GAP. The fact is, the women’s soccer players should be making more money than the men.

      #Feminism

      1. Fun fact, women’s world cup players get 13% of the revenue from the event while men get 9% of the revenue from the men’s world cup.

        1. LOL, I wonder how long it will be before the Left demands that soccer fans be forced to attend as many women’s games as men’s games.

          1. The “big game” between the US and France, a world cup quarterfinal in the home country, had 45,000 fans in attendance. It did not even sell out. Minor league games in France are better draws.

          2. You joke but…

          3. espn is putting the chick league nobody pays to watch live on tv … so all cablepayers fund the league now, not just US Soccer

          4. Why limit it to soccer fans? We all should attend and support, comrade. And most importantly — LIKE IT. I cry as I realize how much I love Big Brother.

      2. OBL is probably right about this one.
        Not only is the women’s team better than our men (2 straight world championships vs not even qualifying…) but they bring in more revenue than the men.
        The ladies actually have a point here

        1. “Not only is the women’s team better than our men”

          No, they’re more successful in their arena than men.

          They are not in any way better.

          1. Yup. The women may, or may not, be technically better than the U15 boys’ team for FC Dallas. They lost on athleticism, though…15 year old boys were taller, faster, and stronger than they were. If they played the U.S. men’s team, who are at the very least on par with the women’s team, the women would lose, likely by double digits, every time.

            1. Ok, more successful.
              Better in their field, relative to official competition.
              C’mon – let’s not try to excuse our pathetic sack of shit men’s team.
              This is America – we’re supposed to dominate even the stupid sports.
              Except cricket. Fuck cricket.

        2. Do they actually bring in more revenue, or do they just get a larger share of a much smaller pot of money?

          1. Hard to find clear numbers, but I believe the women’s team brings in several million more

    2. Practice, you talking about practice!

      1. I bet the boys talked some real shit during that game.

        1. It’s actually most surprising that a 15 year old boy could run in the presence of athletic women. I know at that age I would have experienced a loss of blood flow to most of my body any time one of them smiled at me.

          1. Ah, but most of the WNT are lesbians. Why would they smile at a male?

            1. HAWT!

              1. You’ve never actually been near a woman it appears…

            2. Girl on girl action? Nice.

    3. Any state championship caliber high school boys team would beat the WNBA all stars or women’s U.S. Olympic team by at least 20 points.

      1. That is 18 and under. This is 15 and under, which is basically middle school.

        1. The real divergence in boys and girls is at puberty. So it makes sense that a 15U team will compete with women to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if a upper-tier 15U boys team could compete with women at any sport that relies on strength and speed.

          1. The Australian women’s soccer team lost 7-0 to U15 boys, so it appears that competitive balance in sports between men and women does disappear around puberty.

            It also doesn’t help the women that women’s professional soccer struggles for viability in most countries. The U.S. has seen two women’s leagues fold already and the current one pulls a quarter of the fans that the men’s league does. People generally pay to watch what they see as the better sport and women’s soccer is unfavorably comparable to high school men’s in terms of athleticism.

            1. I caught a bit of the USA v England women’s match a couple weeks ago. I am NOT a soccer fan, but I don’t remember nearly so much flopping in men’s soccer as there was in the women’s match. It seemed like there was a stoppage very minute or so because a woman fell down over a phantom push or a slide tackle that didn’t even make physical contact with the other player. Soccer players aren’t known for their upper body strength, but the women’s team couldn’t possibly compete physically with any men’s team.
              And frankly, their penalty kicks were lame as well.

              1. Men’s soccer is worse for flopping.
                Sad, but true

              2. Flopping is my 2nd biggest gripe about soccer. The first is no visible game clock showing the actual time left.
                Third is faking agony when flopping.

    4. Disagree.
      Soccer is the best women’s sport relative to the men’s game.
      Basketball isn’t even close.
      You could gather a squad of random guys from any gym in the country that would dominate the WNBA.

      1. They couldn’t beat an under 15 development team. That is pathetic.

        1. Scrimmages are not about winning or losing. What a joke that you publicized this story because rapinoe said something about your dear leader. So sad.

          1. “Scrimmages are not about winning or losing.”

            LOL, what the fuck?

            Take that loser talk somewhere else.

          2. Scrimmages are not about winning or losing.

            Then why keep score?

          3. Scrimmages are about winning and losing. It is a sad statement on the state of distaff football.

          4. Then why not give everyone a participation trophy and call it a day.

            Who won the world cup? We all did!

          5. The newspaper that published the story publicized it dummy.

        2. Yea, it’s bad.
          Take the best u15 boys AAU team, and they would destroy WNBA champs.

      2. I prefer foxy boxing.

  7. The Affordable Care Act is on trial again this week.

    The court is out of order! Your insurance paperwork is out of order! The Obamacare website is out of order!

    1. Can’t Obamacare avail itself of double jeopardy?

      1. Technically you did phrase your response in the form of a question…

  8. Macron and his government are attempting to unilaterally scrub out the internet of hateful thoughts. The French Parliament has moved toward a new law that would give internet companies like Facebook and Google just 24 hours to remove hateful speech from their sites or face fines of $1.4 million per violation. A final vote is expected next week. Germany passed a similar measure last year and imposed fines of $56 million.

    This just further entrenches the big boys like Facebook and Google. EU implosion when?

    1. This is the most troubling part, IMO:

      When it comes to speech controls, Europeans know they can limit speech not only in their countries but practically limit speech in the United States and elsewhere.

      This is one of the drawbacks of globalism. European policy should not affect us one iota, especially when it comes to free speech, and this sort of thing bleeds over into other areas as well. It’s already caused enough problems with NATO operations in the Balkans and Libya, which were largely driven by European interests, not American ones.

  9. State drivers license databases are a “gold mine” for facial recognition programs run by federal immigration agents and law enforcement.

    Get out of my dreams and into my car and then into my database.

  10. Emily Ekins. Miss having her around.

    1. She was very cute as I remember.

      1. Very cute? Nostalgia goggles, I hope.

        1. I think cute is a good word for her.

          http://www.google.com/search?q=Emily+ekins&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk7sjAxaXjAhVMMt8KHZv-CmoQ_AUIESgC&biw=1920&bih=935

          That is in the real world as opposed to hit and run where every woman is ugly and unworthy of any man.

          1. You’re right: she’s cute. “[V]ery” is where I take issue.
            That is in the real world as opposed to hit and run where every woman is ugly and unworthy of any man.
            The internet ruined everybody’s standards. Hell, I have a hard time caring if a girl isn’t packing some heat under the skirt.

            1. I think she is very cute. I sure as hell wouldn’t kick her out of bed.

      2. Yeah, she’s a pretty lady. I liked her writing voice as well.

        Oh well, at least we still have Suderman. (/sarc)

      3. Would.

  11. “I wanna give ’em away, but my wide won’t let me” – ‘Mad Man’ Muntz

    “California bill could triple rebates for electric car buyers”
    […]
    “SACRAMENTO — California could triple the rebate it gives to drivers who purchase zero-emission cars under a San Francisco lawmaker’s bill that seeks to put the state on track to meet its goals to combat climate change.
    Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting’s bill, AB1046, would let state regulators increase a typical consumer’s rebate for an electric car to up to $7,500 and provide a stable pot of funding for the payments.”
    https://reason.com/2019/07/08/jeffrey-epstein-in-court-today-on-sex-trafficking-charges/#comments

  12. Federal appeals court rules ‘bikini baristas’ may have to wear more clothes

    Seattle modesty police.

    1. Burkini baristas?

    2. Would transparent raincoats count as more clothes?

      1. Interesting legal point – – – –
        I was going to bet on very thin, very wet, t-shirts

  13. “Macron and his government are attempting to unilaterally scrub out the internet of hateful thoughts.”

    For a compelling argument that hate speech should not be protected, see Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky’s piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

    #BringBackBerlatsky

    1. #Libertariansfortyranny

  14. MSP officer runs stops sign, hit by car, arrests other driver

    The multiple witnesses didn’t seem to deter the cop, but the surveillance footage might come back to bite him and his credulous colleagues.

      1. OBL outlook: There’s nothing worse for consumers than falling prices.

  15. …Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska’s exculpatory claims about Paul Manafort won’t be much use to the former Trump campaign manager legally.

    Fucking magnates, how do they work?

    1. They suck!

    2. Do you get some kind of membership card when you become a “Russian Oligarch”? Is “magnate” the junior version of oligarch kind of like Masons are to Shriners?

      1. US oligarchs Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg are very interested in the results of the partnership between EU oligarch George Soros and US oligarchs the Koch brothers to combat free speech

  16. http://www.foxbusiness.com/small-business/small-business-seeing-best-economy-50-years-nfib

    Small business seeing best economy in 50 years. Don’t worry, I am sure the trade monster will punish them for their sinful ways some day.

    1. Faux News isn’t a legitimate source. I read Bloomberg and CNBC and Palin’s Buttplug posts and Eric Boehm Reason.com articles, so I know this Drumpf economy is terrible.

      1. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is just a front for Trump.

        1. I’ve never heard of them before. But I have heard of Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. And he predicted Drumpf’s election would cause a global recession with no end in sight.

          I don’t know about you, but I trust Nobel Prize winners. Especially when they’re talking about their field of expertise.

          1. Long live Krugabe!

          2. Except Krugman hasn’t been an economist for years. These days he sits on his laurels and plays a nouveau-Marxist scold.

            1. Krugman o,Amy’s the role of the sultry bitch.

          3. Is that the guy who writes for the newspaper full of retractions, and unretracted but made up stories? That one?
            Obama got a Nobel prize for participation. Yet he was proven a liar multiple times. Like almost every time he followed a sentence with “Period.”
            Winning a nobel prize just proves the committee approves of your politics, not necessarily your intelligence.

  17. Quebec’s education minister says Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai can only teach there if she doesn’t wear a headscarf.

    Or be an activist?

    1. Ban hate, make hate. I wish the fucking French would make up their minds.

  18. Residents of Maryland no longer have to list their sex or gender as either male or female to vote.

    It’s enough that you’re a resident in the Land of Maries.

    1. Why did they ever have to in the first place? Are there women only primaries I don’t know about?

      1. Identifying feature for the pole workers?

      2. DO NOT give them any ideas.

  19. 7 things to know about the Jeffrey Epstein case.

    Suddenly I’m at heavy.com.

  20. When it comes to speech controls, Europeans know they can limit speech not only in their countries but practically limit speech in the United States and elsewhere.

    But its cool guys, no worries, Facebook and Twitter (and any successor to these companies) are private, so if they choose to impose French laws on Americans, its all good.

    1. Or Chinese laws.

    2. TripK
      July.8.2019 at 10:41 am
      “But its cool guys, no worries, Facebook and Twitter (and any successor to these companies) are private, so if they choose to impose French laws on Americans, its all good.”

      Yes, it is.
      I know this comes as a shock to you, but it is their company, not yours, so please fuck off, slaver.

      1. Being oppressed by giant multinational corporations acting as agents of government is not real oppression. It is good oppression. The private sector and the God Market is never wrong.

        1. “Being oppressed by giant multinational corporations acting as agents of government is not real oppression. It is good oppression. The private sector and the God Market is never wrong.

          Inventing new meanings for words to justify “taking” is good bullshit, right?

          1. What part of the meaning of the word “agent” do you not understand? If these companies want to act as agents of governments and enforce government’s rules, they are the government. Thinking otherwise is something so dumb only a Libertarian could believe it.

            1. Precisely. The difference between these companies and the government is so blurred at this point it hardly makes a difference. Hell, many government agencies rely on Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. to be their data warehouses, their facial recognition databases, their primary information gathering, sorting and indexing entities.

              This is besides the major implications for freedoms when 2 companies dominate nearly the entire advertising market.

              1. Shall we fight it out in a game of Rollerball?

        2. Please explain how I’m being oppressed by Facebook.

          1. You are not and no one is claiming you are. What is going to happen is the few companies that effectively control the internet are going to ensure that you only have access to the internet if you hold political views they like and you don’t offend China or any other nation powerful enough make it worth their while to act as agents for.

            Likely, you will never be oppressed by it because you will just go along with the rules. That is okay. It is your cheering the boot on everyone else’ face that is a problem. It is a private sector boot, so it feels good. And hey, anyone can just go and start their own internet. It is just so easy and there are no such thing as cartels or barriers to entry or anything.

            1. What is going to happen is the few companies that effectively control the internet are going to ensure that you only have access to the internet if you hold political views they like and you don’t offend China or any other nation powerful enough make it worth their while to act as agents for.

              Actually, worse than that. They will still allow you access – however you will be shadow banned. Your reach will be limited and you won’t even know that it is. You will think “well, I guess my ideas just don’t have much support.”

            2. You are not and no one is claiming you are.

              John
              July.8.2019 at 10:48 am
              Being oppressed by giant multinational corporations acting as agents of government is not real oppression. It is good oppression

              1. Just because they are oppressing other people doesn’t mean they are oppressing you personally.

                1. Who are they oppressing then?

                  1. Anyone who wants to use their services and holds an opinion they don’t like. Again, your response to that is just go start your own internet. I am not sure what is more sad; that you think that is an answer or that you don’t understand how stupid you sound when you give it.

                    1. Huh. So not granting you a platform is a form of oppression against you. Who knew.

                    2. When I have a cartel that controls the market’s ability to provide and alternative, yes my denying you access is a problem.

                    3. So not granting you a platform is a form of oppression against you.

                      ::Ignores “free speech zones”::

                    4. Sevo… this should be a lesson. You’re on the side of Jeff.

                    5. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      July.8.2019 at 1:13 pm
                      Huh. So not granting you a platform is a form of oppression against you. Who knew.”

                      Now do illegal immigration

                    6. PEDO JEFFY!!!!!!!

                      Where’s my rent?

            3. Likely, you will never be oppressed by it because you will just go along with the rules.

              I don’t use Facebook, what binds me to using their rules?

              It is your cheering the boot on everyone else’ face that is a problem.

              So not foaming at the mouth about Facebook is now cheering them on? As far as I’m concerned, anyone that uses Facebook is a moron but it’s not my responsibility to make them stop.

              It is a private sector boot, so it feels good. And hey, anyone can just go and start their own internet.

              Ah, I didn’t realize you don’t know how the Internet works. Now I see the problem.

              1. I don’t use Facebook, what binds me to using their rules?

                That is because you don’t have a business and think social media is about putting up pictures of cats.

                So not foaming at the mouth about Facebook is now cheering them on? As far as I’m concerned, anyone that uses Facebook is a moron but it’s not my responsibility to make them stop.

                That is because you are fucking idiot who doesn’t understand the value and necessity of social media in running a business or a brand.

              2. I don’t use Facebook, what binds me to using their rules?

                Nothing, so long as you are (1) cool with being locked out of the advertising market (don’t try to start a small business) and (2) are cool with having very limited reach for your opinions/ideas.

                Its fine, its all good. If you want to be able to do the above, just adjust your opinions to match the correct opinions, or don’t express your opinions at all.

                1. “Nothing, so long as you are (1) cool with being locked out of the advertising market (don’t try to start a small business) and (2) are cool with having very limited reach for your opinions/ideas.”

                  I run a business, never use facebook, and can find all sorts of opinions, slaver.
                  Fuck off.

                  1. I run a business, never use facebook

                    That settles it then. The millions of businesses who do and see it as profitable and necessary are just wrong and you are right.

                    Do you realize how retarded you sound?

                  2. I bet you that business was started well before Facebook or Twitter even existed.

                    1. Or he doesn’t deal with the general public. Most of my business interests have no presence on social media, because they are business to business and already in very close circles. So social media is of no real value to me.

                      If I had a retail storefront, or offered services tot the general public, Facebook would be potentially very valuable.

              3. Unfortunately this isn’t about Facebook, despite many journalists believing that “facebook IS the internet”. Facebook is the example big-tech giant used for the story. The alaw applies to everyone and every company– presumably if they have offices in Germany or France. The answer, of course, is to pull your operation out of those countries and tell them to fuck off.

                1. That is never going to be an answer that is given. And the result is going to be people’s speech on the internet, which has effectively become the public square, will be restricted by however much the worst government wants it restricted.

          2. It amazes me how fucking stupid people like you are. Try to start a business without a social media presence today. It is well neigh impossible. And you can’t have a social media presence if Facebook and Google don’t allow you one. And they won’t allow you one if they don’t like you politics.

            But hey, you can just go start your own facebook and instagram and then after you have done that you can start whatever business you can’t start now because the tech oligarchs have fucked you out of a social media presence for holding the wrong views.

            That will of course never affect you because you will never hold a wrong view and will never see a boot you don’t want to lick.

            1. Your pants-shitting terror is quite impressive.

              1. So as usual you have no response to the point but are too much of a fucking asshole to admit the point. We know you and know that you are as much as conceding the point by degenerating to snark.

                I forget sometimes just how easy it is to make a fool of you.

                1. John
                  July.8.2019 at 11:25 am
                  “So as usual you have no response to the point but are too much of a fucking asshole to admit the point. We know you and know that you are as much as conceding the point by degenerating to snark.”

                  I responded to your bullshit by pointing out your bullshit was bullshit.
                  Fuck off, slaver.

                  1. And I responded to your bullshit and you had not response beyong “but its the private sector” as if that explains away cartels, oligarchy, and corporatism as being okay.

                    Fuck off slaver. You may think it is great having everything you think and every piece of information and opinion you have access to controlled by some multinational oligarchy but I don’t. There is literally no freedom you won’t give away as long as it is done the name of “markets”.

                    1. “You may think it is great having everything you think and every piece of information and opinion you have access to controlled by some multinational oligarchy but I don’t. There is literally no freedom you won’t give away as long as it is done the name of “markets”.”

                      Poor, poor John! Can’t find any information outside of facebook!

                    2. Poor Sevo, he is too stupid to understand what corporatism is how how fascism works or what a cartel is. God you are fucking stupid.

                  2. I responded to your bullshit by pointing out your bullshit was bullshit.

                    “And your argument was bullshit because my ideology said it was!”

                    Your logic is AOC-level absurd.

                    1. You wish you HAD some logic.

                    2. Wow, nice comeback!

                  3. Sevo, it is strange watching you so passionately defend excess legal waivers to favored companies like FB. They are private .. but they get extra benefits. Why arent you advocated removal of the privileged liability waiver?

      2. Sevo shilling for slavers while calling people slavers.

        1. “Sevo shilling for slavers while calling people slavers.”

          Inventing new meanings for words to justify “taking” is good bullshit, right?

          1. Any company whose goal is to take over the public square should be subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment. Full stop.

            I refuse to kiss the boots of these businesses that are in bed with various governments throughout the world, no matter how many times you demonstrate your willingness to.

            1. TripK
              July.8.2019 at 11:05 am
              “Any company whose goal is to take over the public square should be subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment. Full stop.”

              Any slaver who uses any justification outside of NAP is a scumbag to be ignored.
              No one owes you a place to post your lies.
              I repeat: Fuck off, slaver.

              1. Any slaver who uses any justification outside of NAP is a scumbag to be ignored.
                No one owes you a place to post your lies.

                So google taking over and controlling every means you have of mass communication is consistent with the NAP? Do you do anything but just spout buzzwords?

                1. John
                  July.8.2019 at 11:34 am
                  “So google taking over and controlling every means you have of mass communication is consistent with the NAP? Do you do anything but just spout buzzwords?”

                  If you quit posting lies, you might get an answer which doesn’t point out that your bullshit is bullshit.

                  1. That is not a lie. Google owns youtube and instagram. That along with facebook is 90% of more of the mass internet. You think four people reading your dumb ass newsletter counts. It doesn’t.

                  2. I think Sevo is just admitting that yes, all he knows is buzzwords. Once again Libertarians proving that they have zero solutions to real world problems, which is why they are completely irrelevant.

              2. Ugh, another ideological fanatic. When you have no where to run, you hide behind your tautological ideology. Have fun being silenced, but I refuse to participate in your cowardice.

                1. TripK
                  July.8.2019 at 11:35 am
                  “Ugh, another ideological fanatic.”

                  Ugh, another scumbag willing to use the government to get what he wants.

                  1. Its hard to hear you with Zuckerberg’s dick in your mouth.

                    1. TripK
                      July.8.2019 at 11:39 am
                      “Its hard to hear you with Zuckerberg’s dick in your mouth.”

                      How
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      infantile.

                    2. Aw, poor baby.

    3. How does Facebook or Twitter “impose” any laws on Americans? I wasn’t aware that they had a law enforcement division.

      Pro-tip. You can actually just quit FB or Twitter if you don’t like their business model.

      1. How does Facebook or Twitter “impose” any laws on Americans? I wasn’t aware that they had a law enforcement division.

        Funny that you think the only way to impose or enforce something is with boots knocking down your door.

        You can actually just quit FB or Twitter if you don’t like their business model.

        I did. Guess what? Now no one hears my opinions unless its in person or on obscure websites like Reason. And minimizing my reach (and the reach of people that think like me) – that’s probably the point.

        1. minimizing my reach

          What should the government do to help you reach more people with your message?

          1. Break up these cartels so that no one company can screw someone. You know create an actual free market with competition rather than a government sanctioned oligarchy.

            1. John
              July.8.2019 at 11:33 am
              “Break up these cartels so that no one company can screw someone.”

              John wonders why he’s called on his bullshit when he claims not being provided opinions he agrees with is ‘being screwed’.
              Quit posting lies.

              1. Haha, John isn’t even talking about that. He’s talking about the advertising market. You’re so deep in your own ideological bullshit that you don’t even know whats going on.

            2. So before Facebook existed, TripK could only reach people with his message in obscure forums and comments sections of blogs. Now that Facebook exists, TripK doesn’t like it so he chooses not to use it to spread his message. He never said that Facebook banned him or his message, but he doesn’t like that they’ve done it to others, so in solidarity with them he chooses not to use Facebook. Because of this, the government should seize control of the means of production and break up corporations whose policies you and TripK don’t appreciate. Is that an accurate summary?

              1. Since when is anti trust enforcment seizing the means of production? That is just a straw man. Moreover, the problem isn’t facebook it is Facebook and Google and Twitter combined acting as a cartel.

                Look what happened to Yak or whatever it is that was set up as a competitor to Twitter. It kept getting kicked off its host servers even though it was paying its bills. If you set up a competitor to one of these companies, they will either just buy you out or use the power of the oligarchy to ensure you can’t compete.

                How is that the free market? And how is standing around letting it happen a realistic course of action? It is not. Stop pretending anti trust laws are the same thing as communism.

                1. How do you break up a corporation without seizing it? Telling them to break up into pieces in a prescribed manner or else is basically taking control of the company.

                  And yeah, that’s the free market. It’s not always friendly or fair. Sorry.

                  1. You are not seizing it. You are just telling them to sell it off and create competition. We did it with AT&T and ended up with a much better telecommunications market as a result.

                    And yeah, that’s the free market. It’s not always friendly or fair. Sorry.

                    Cartels are not a free market. Why do you think they are?

                    1. IINM, Mah Bell was a government created monopoly, not a “natural” one. Anyway, now I’ve got shit to do, so have fun.

                    2. “Anyway, now I’ve got shit to do, so have fun.”

                      IOW, John explained how to do something you insisted couldn’t be done, and now you look like a retard so you flee.

                    3. FB and twitter are no longer natural monopolies either as they persist in buy and kills of competition. They also use predatory practices as described above with Yak.

                      This plays right into leftists attempting to get payment processors and banks to also kick people they dont agree with put of the economic markets.

                      If you cant see that as a problem you’re as dumb as Jeff.

              2. Before Facebook, the public square was generally decentralized and healthy. It is not so any longer. 2 companies control virtually all advertising and public-to-semi-public online communications. These 2 companies have a particular ideological bent and have regularly shown interest in influencing elections, deciding what political ads can/cannot say as well as what news is true and what news isn’t. This wasn’t as big of an issue when it was just newspapers engaging in this – because there were LOTS of healthy newspapers. There isn’t nearly as much diversity in the ideological bent of news anymore. Want to know why? Because 2 companies control virtually the entire advertising market. Want to start a conservative publication? Good luck getting your betters at Facebook and Google to approve you in about 12 months.

                break up corporations

                I haven’t advocated for that.

                1. Before Facebook, the public square was generally decentralized and healthy.

                  That public square is still there. There are still tons of forums and blogs and whatnot. They all have about the same number of users they did 10-15 years ago before Facebook existed. But Grandma and Aunt Freda weren’t there. Facebook created a different space where Grandma and Aunt Freda take part. That’s why it’s so huge and that’s why so many other people flocked there, to influence and sell things to your mom and Uncle Phil. Those other places, or places just like them, are still out there though.

                  1. So your argument is that because other websites have several thousand (maybe even 10s of thousands) of users, Facebook is not dominant in the space?

                    What happens to those smaller forums, or other social media companies once Google decides to de-list them for hate speech?

                2. Want to start a conservative publication? Good luck getting your betters at Facebook and Google to approve you in about 12 months.

                  Yes, I see The Bulwark and National Review and Breitbart have all been banned by Facebook and Google, haven’t they?

                  1. “The Bulwark”

                    He said conservative.

                  2. You’re stupid Jeff, so I’m not surprised that you haven’t realized you can’t just go around banning established organizations. You have to start with the little guys. People its easy to smear as “alt right” or “alt right-adjacent” because not enough people know the actual content to see through the lies.

                    1. So your big worry then is that Facebook and Google are banning actual Nazis. Is that it?

                    2. And by the way, I can do a Google search right now for VDare or Stormfront or American Nazi Party and the top result is correctly displayed.

                      What *precisely* is your concern here? The mainstream conservatives aren’t being de-listed from Google, the actual Nazis aren’t being de-listed from Google, what is the problem?

                    3. When you go straight to “nazi” it makes you seem like a crazy person. I’m talking about Facebook saying its their job to “prevent another Trump situation.” I’m talking about Twitter banning people for saying “men are men and women are women” under harassment guidelines.

                      I am very concerned that the stuff that has been going on on college campuses for years – deplatforming mainstream conservatives like Ben Shapiro and classic liberals like Jordan Peterson – is starting to happen in social media too.

                    4. I’m talking about Facebook saying its their job to “prevent another Trump situation.”

                      This quote was actually from the Project Veritas video about Google, not Facebook.

                      Tell me, what *precisely* do you think Jen Gennai meant when she said “prevent another Trump situation”? O’Keefe is slick at editing his videos. You’ll note that in the video, the lady never precisely mentions what she means by what a “Trump situation” is. Is it just him getting elected? Is it the misinformation and propaganda as a part of the election which he won? He brings in this anonymous “Google insider” to “helpfully” explain what these things are supposed to mean, but this “insider” just winds up repeating right-wing tropes and narratives. O’Keefe skillfully gets you to believe what he wants you to believe, but I challenge you to watch the video again but ignoring the “Google insider” guy and focusing only on Gennai’s own words. Their precise meanings are not clear from the context that O’Keefe has chosen to share with you, and deliberately so. Hence, the role of the “insider” to “explain” it. You’re falling for another James O’Keefe con here.

                      I am very concerned that the stuff that has been going on on college campuses for years – deplatforming mainstream conservatives like Ben Shapiro and classic liberals like Jordan Peterson – is starting to happen in social media too.

                      But here is the real problem here. You seem to be saying that deplatforming someone on social media is equivalent to taking away someone’s voice completely. That is just not true. Just like, if you are in my house and I no longer wish to hear your opinion on anything, I am, and should be, free to throw you off my property. I have not taken away your voice completely, I have simply taken away your ability to speak *on my property*.

                      If you want to support your own right to throw people off your property that you no longer wish to listen to, then you have to support Twitter’s right to throw people off their property that they no longer wish to listen to.

                      Now, the government CAN take away a person’s voice completely, by throwing that person in a cage and making sure that person is never heard from again. That is why many of us around here treat whatever threats that may arise from Google and Facebook as qualitatively different from the threats that arise from the state.

                    5. Pedo Jeffy, is it a knee jerk reaction for you to take the dumbest possible position on everything?

                      Stupid little shitbag.

                    6. You’re falling for another James O’Keefe con here.

                      Maybe, but it lines up with everything else I’ve seen coming out of these big tech companies. Why can’t I say “a man is a man” on twitter without being suspended? Even if this particular instance is taken out of context, the rest isn’t. Why was Sargon of Akkad taken off of Patreon?

                      You seem to be saying that deplatforming someone on social media is equivalent to taking away someone’s voice completely.

                      Yes.

                      Just like, if you are in my house and I no longer wish to hear your opinion on anything, I am, and should be, free to throw you off my property.

                      That’s not the same thing and you know it.

                      If you want to support your own right to throw people off your property that you no longer wish to listen to, then you have to support Twitter’s right to throw people off their property that they no longer wish to listen to.

                      No I don’t. Corporations are not people.

                      Now, the government CAN take away a person’s voice completely, by throwing that person in a cage and making sure that person is never heard from again. That is why many of us around here treat whatever threats that may arise from Google and Facebook as qualitatively different from the threats that arise from the state.

                      At your (and the rest of our) peril.

                    7. Why was Sargon of Akkad taken off of Patreon?

                      Because the owners of Patreon no longer wished to associate with Sargon of Akkad (whoever that is). That is their right to associate with whomever they choose. Or would you force Patreon to associate with anyone at all? Even Communists and Nazis get to steal Patreon’s property to try to raise money for their causes?

                      You seem to be saying that deplatforming someone on social media is equivalent to taking away someone’s voice completely.

                      Yes.

                      That is a complete lie. Being banned from Twitter does not mean you have no voice at all. It means that you don’t have a voice *on their property*, JUST LIKE if I throw you off my property, you no longer have a voice *on my property*. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have a voice AT ALL. Only the state can take away your voice completely, by throwing you in a cage and making sure no one ever hears from you ever again.

                      Corporations are not people.

                      Now you are starting to sound like an AOC progressive. Corporations are an association of people, who don’t forfeit their rights just because they choose to associate in a for-profit venture. You want to take away the rights of individuals who run corporations just because the corporation is “big”. Well too fucking bad. Go console yourself in the arms of AOC if that makes you feel bad.

                  3. The irony of your idiocy little baby jeffrey. Leftists have indeed got google to lower rank the sites you mention. They also are pushed out of advertisement markets and the censorious mob is seeking to deny them access to banking and other goods.

                    1. Go ahead and do a Google search for American Nazi Party. The first result is the correct one. Sheesh.

                    2. Stupid kid. Go back to your violent child rape videos.

          2. What should the government do to help you reach more people with your message?

            Ensure that companies that have taken over the public square are subject to 1st amendment restrictions. No new regulatory bodies – all disputes can be handled by the existing court system, in the same manor that you would petition the government to have your grievances (such as 1st amendment violations) heard and addressed.

            (Take note, Sevo, see how I actually addressed the question directly and without cowering behind ideology?)

            1. Facebook didn’t take over any public square. It created one that lots of people use, but it’s not the first one or the last one or the only one.

              Now, the government could break up local ISP monopolies, because those are actually government imposed monopolies. Also, they could greatly reduce restrictions on the payment processing industry, which is essentially an actual government created oligarchy system. I think those two actions would have ripple effects that would reduce the amount of concentration that has occurred in the social media space.

              1. Standard Oil didn’t invent oil, it just took over the entire market for it. Do you understand that cartels are antithetical to free markets?

                1. There’s a long history lesson here about Standard Oil and how it wasn’t really a monopoly and it shouldn’t have been broken up by the feds, but I just don’t have time for it here.

                  https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil

                  Ok, only one link allowed at a time.


              2. Facebook didn’t take over any public square. It created one that lots of people use, but it’s not the first one or the last one or the only one.

                You’re right. This public square’s shadowbanning/left-leaning policies will ensure that this particular iteration of the public square will be dominated by the democrats & socialists, which may very well result in the election of a socialist. No big deal, right? What’s important is that there will be another iteration of the public square in the future -one that might even be dominated by communists! What fun!

                Now, the government could break up local ISP monopolies, because those are actually government imposed monopolies.

                That’s not even true. I work in the industry.

                1. If that public square becomes dominated by socialists then it’ll be their own big echo chamber. People who aren’t socialists will not be turned into socialists because of this.

                  So I can just start a cable internet company in just about any location in the country and start laying out my cable infrastructure?

                  1. If that public square becomes dominated by socialists then it’ll be their own big echo chamber. People who aren’t socialists will not be turned into socialists because of this.

                    Yeah, and if the socialists all take over the college teaching positions, we won’t end up with a bunch of socialist college students. The fear is WAY overblown. /sarc

                    So I can just start a cable internet company in just about any location in the country and start laying out my cable infrastructure?

                    As long as you comply with a the standard government bullshit (such as being able to track all of your users and provide a detailed account of activity based on IP address), the Communications Act, local laws, etc. yes, you can. Of course you need the right of ways, pole attachment rights, etc. too.

                    In fact, we have a lot of electric distribution companies in rural areas that are looking at providing internet service to underserved areas. There’s no government-granted or enforced territorial rights for these businesses (or any other internet provider). The only reason they tend not to compete with each other in meaningful ways is because the economics of maintaining expensive networks prohibits competition. There’s not even a “certificate of necessity/public need” associated with it.

            2. Ensure that companies that have taken over the public square are subject to 1st amendment restrictions.

              Okay then, let’s be more precise with your idea.

              What precisely do you mean by “taken over”? All of the Internet forums out there are a part of the ‘public square’. So you would submit Facebook to First Amendment scrutiny – how about Reason’s forums? If not, where precisely do you draw the line between forums that should be subject to First Amendment scrutiny, and forums that should not be?

              For that matter, how about forums run by devout Christians? Would they be permitted to moderate their forums to kick out atheists? How about forums run by gun enthusiasts? Would they be permitted to moderate their forums to kick out anti-gun people?

              1. If not, where precisely do you draw the line between forums that should be subject to First Amendment scrutiny, and forums that should not be?

                We would probably have to come up with somewhat arbitrary numbers, like an average of over 10 million unique visitors a day for 3 years straight – specifically for sites that exist on user-generated non-specific content (for instance, we wouldn’t apply this to websites that are designed around a specific type of hobby or activity – like knitting).

                So if a Muslim forum wants to kick out non-Muslims, they are welcome to, since they are not a website for user generated non-specific content.

                Under this system, Twitter could just declare itself a haven for liberal content and censor all of the conservatives they want without consequence. OR, they could stick with their current marketing plan and try to attract everyone, abide by the 1st amendment — and save the costs on content moderation since any time anyone gets upset they can just point to the federal government and say “we have to abide by the 1st amendment, use the mute/block button we’ve provided for speech you don’t like. Please report only posts that constitute illegal activity.”

                1. Keep in mind that I’m not talking about setting up a regulatory body to deal with this. I’m talking about allowing people to take Facebook to court for not allowing access.

                2. We would probably have to come up with somewhat arbitrary numbers, like an average of over 10 million unique visitors a day for 3 years straight – specifically for sites that exist on user-generated non-specific content

                  So please explain how this is not a bill of attainder in disguise.

                  (for instance, we wouldn’t apply this to websites that are designed around a specific type of hobby or activity – like knitting)

                  So your proposal would allow Ravelry to ban pro-Trump discussion? They are just a “knitting site” after all. Why should a site like Ravelry be let off the hook from your proposal? Evidently they have free-ranging discussion forums that go beyond just discussions about knitting. Wouldn’t these forums be instances of “user-generated non-specific content” by your standard? Heck even Reason’s comment forums could be considered a type of “user-generated non-specific content”.

                  By your standard, the following forums would be subject to the First Amendment:

                  Reddit
                  Craigslist
                  Quora
                  Stack Overflow
                  GameSpot
                  IGN Boards

                  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-top-10-forum-with-most-users-online

                  So if a student wanted to ask their homework questions on Stack Overflow in order to get others to do their homework for them, your proposal would force the mods at SO to publish these questions. Is that about right?

                  Your proposal is not only arbitrary, it is full of unintended consequences, and would empower unaccountable judges to be deciding on the precise meaning of “user-generated non-specific content”. It is a recipe for disaster.

                  1. So please explain how this is not a bill of attainder in disguise.

                    If this is a bill of attainder, than so is our current regulation of banks and the arbitrary asset lines we set for various levels of compliance.

                    So your proposal would allow Ravelry to ban pro-Trump discussion? They are just a “knitting site” after all. Evidently they have free-ranging discussion forums that go beyond just discussions about knitting.

                    Yes, they could even ban all political content. Actually, I think people were sharing designs of pro-trump knitting content – it was not a free-ranging discussion forum.

                    By your standard, the following forums would be subject to the First Amendment:

                    Maybe, I don’t know. The 10 million figure was just to illustrate that this would be an arbitrary limit depending on at what point the service becomes part of the public square.

                    So if a student wanted to ask their homework questions on Stack Overflow in order to get others to do their homework for them, your proposal would force the mods at SO to publish these questions. Is that about right?

                    Maybe, it would be for the lawyers to fight out in court when that issue comes up.

                    is full of unintended consequences

                    Indeed, we’re going to have to work through those just like the current problem we are working through now. Shocker.

                    Reason.com

                    No, this forum would not need to change a thing. There is no moderation here anyway – Reason already complies with everything I’ve written… not that they would have to, anyway.. its a political forum (and therefore specific).

                    1. Yes, there is moderation at Reason, it is just rare.

                      I get the impression that you haven’t really thought this whole idea through, and are just looking for some convenient and plausibly legal way to get Big Tech to conform to your will.

                      at what point the service becomes part of the public square.

                      ALL OF THE FORUMS are “part of the public square” at least to some degree. If your argument for applying First Amendment rules to Twitter is because “they’re a part of the public square”, then that very same argument must also apply to every other forum as well.

                      If you’re going to demand the First Amendment should apply to Twitter, then there is no reason in principle why it should not also apply to Ravelry or Stack Overflow or Reason.

                    2. I get the impression that you haven’t really thought this whole idea through

                      Duh, its a current issue that no one has a solid answer for yet. At least I’m proposing something and letting it be criticized. At least I’m being direct and honest. You’re position is either “la la la, its not happening” or “eh, it’ll fix itself.” Fair enough, but I’d rather stick my neck out and find solutions than sit around being useless.

                      ALL OF THE FORUMS are “part of the public square” at least to some degree. If your argument for applying First Amendment rules to Twitter is because “they’re a part of the public square”, then that very same argument must also apply to every other forum as well.

                      If you’re going to demand the First Amendment should apply to Twitter, then there is no reason in principle why it should not also apply to Ravelry or Stack Overflow or Reason.

                      Nope, I suggested no such thing.

                    3. Yes, there is moderation at Reason, it is just rare.

                      Like I said, they have to remove illegal content — including when people like you post links to child porn.

                    4. I never posted links to child porn. That is absurd and reprehensible.

                    5. And your proposed “solution” is, like any progressive, just about getting government deeper and deeper involved.

                      “Here’s a problem, I’m proposing a ‘solution’ which is poorly thought out and involves government stomping all over everything and creating all sorts of unintended consequences and creating all sorts of new problems in the process. But don’t you dare criticize me! At least I”m proposing *doing something*!!!!!!”

                      I will take “doing nothing” over “government creating even more problems”.

                    6. Nope, I suggested no such thing.

                      Because you aren’t being consistent. Don’t expect everyone else to lack a sense of consistency.

                      If Twitter is a part of the “public square” then so is Reason, and Ravelry, and Stack Overflow. If you want to subject Twitter to government censorship, then everyone will be subjected to government censorship for the same reasons.

        2. I did. Guess what? Now no one hears my opinions unless its in person or on obscure websites like Reason. And minimizing my reach (and the reach of people that think like me) – that’s probably the point.

          Of course it is. That’s the whole point Sarah Jeong made when she literally wrote the book on how to justify shadow-banning and deplatforming–that social media is a “town square” and some people need to be marginalized in order to maintain the viability of that forum. All you need to do is say that, for instance, a person’s posts are making others feel “unsafe” and you can censor to your heart’s content. It’s anarcho-tyranny at its finest.

          1. That is it Red Rocks. And your point is of course greeting with complete silence by the idiots who will do anything to defend big tech.

          2. Exactly. I blows my mind that libertarians think that this is somehow a free market. Its not. People here somehow think that this is a-ok on total faith that it’ll work itself out. Its a self-sustaining cartel at this point.

            1. Its a self-sustaining cartel at this point.

              Just like MySpace and AIM!

              1. So wait, you don’t understand THIS either?

              2. Said no one, ever.

                1. Talk about missing the point.
                  MySpace used to be huge. Now, they are gone. What happened? Oh yeah, competition. Wouldn’t that be nice?

                  1. No one was worried that MySpace was taking over the public square. It was still decentralized at that point.

                    1. No but there was plenty of other panic about MySpace.
                      Guess what, most of those fears were overblown.
                      Just like the fears about Google and Facebook are mostly overblown and being pushed by people with agendas more than facts.

                    2. I find your argument of “just don’t worry about it” to be unconvincing.

        3. TripK
          July.8.2019 at 11:18 am
          “Funny that you think the only way to impose or enforce something is with boots knocking down your door. ”

          Tell us how they forced you to use their product.
          Did then send armed thugs and tell you to log on to FB? Did they grab your dog and tell you the pooch gets it if you don’t.
          Really, you need to write an expose’ about their methods.

          1. I don’t think a point could fly any further above your head.

      2. Sure, you can quit all social media if you don’t like their business model. And your competitors will use social media and have a huge advantage over you.

        The value of social media is for businesses not just people putting up pictures of their cats. And if these companies don’t like you, they just kick you off or shadow ban you and you are screwed because your customers are not.

        And literally your answer to that problem is “just go start your own facebook”

        Pro tip, you sound like a complete fucking lunatic when you say shit like that. Maybe being an ideological fanatic who lets your ideology do your thinking for you without any regard to reality isn’t such a good idea.

        1. You not being able to have a platform for your speech is not an adequate enough reason for me to promote the government taking control of or breaking up private companies. Property rights are at the heart of libertarianism (and freedom in general). They shouldn’t be abandoned unless they are in conflict with other rights.

          And before you bring up freedom of speech, no right (including speech) is legitimate if it requires someone else to positively support it, which is what the right is expecting FB and Twitter to do here.

          1. It is not about platforms and speech. It is about cartels using their leverage to destroy competition and the market.

            We are talking about anti trust here. The ability to squash people is just one of the powers they get by having a trust. They also get the power to extract returns on investment over and above the natural rate of return and destroy innovation in the name of stasis.

            Is there any cartel no matter how powerful and how destructive you would want broken up? Is your view that if it turns out that one or two companies control the internet and can police speech on it however they see fit is a good result and nothing to worry about?

            Good to know you believe in free markets and competition. You would be happy with any result no matter how anti free market as long as it is done by a private actor.

            This is why no one takes Libertarians seriously about anything.

            1. They also get the power to extract returns on investment over and above the natural rate of return

              LOL.

              It is not about platforms and speech… Is your view that if it turns out that one or two companies control the internet and can police speech on it however they see fit is a good result and nothing to worry about?

              So it is about platforms and speech?

              You would be happy with any result no matter how anti free market as long as it is done by a private actor.

              That it is done by a private actor is what makes it free market. Because you don’t like the results of other people’s decisions doesn’t mean they are any more or less free market than if you do.

              1. Normalfags are to blame for the dominance of Google and friends.

                1. How have you not David Carradined yourself yet?

              2. They also get the power to extract returns on investment over and above the natural rate of return

                LOL.

                I will flag this comment for the next time you start fucking whining about tariffs. You clearly have no idea how markets work and worse than that don’t want to know. You are happy in your ignorance.

            2. Is there any cartel no matter how powerful and how destructive you would want broken up?

              I can think of one.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

          2. “is not an adequate enough reason for me”

            I don’t care about convincing you, and that isn’t a standard anyway.

      3. How does Facebook or Twitter “impose” any laws on Americans? I wasn’t aware that they had a law enforcement division.

        They don’t, but it does appear we’re entering a kind of tech “dystopia” in the realm of free speech that lives in a kind of symbiotic relationship with government.

        As Western countries completely abandon free speech, they’ve found they can quite easily outsource censorship by hitting global companies in the pocketbook. In turn, those tech giants want to stay chummy with the local BurgerMeisters so they comply.

        I don’t know what the answer is beyond the fact that thinking we can “regulate the companies” into a free speech utopia is the exact wrong solution. I see this as a teachable moment, and it’s possible we will lose the internet as we know it in regard to the mega-public squares that we have now. Perhaps we’ll go back to a more federated internet– which can also be regulated quite easily, by the way.

        1. I agree that regulation is the wrong approach. Additionally, this is tech, so a market change could easily come as a result of some type of disruptive tech. The solutions should revolve around making such an occurrence easier.

  21. The French Parliament has moved toward a new law that would give internet companies like Facebook and Google just 24 hours to remove hateful speech from their sites or face fines of $1.4 million per violation.

    That had jolly well better be $1.4 million per violation *per hour*.

    And failure to remove hateful speech promptly should itself be a HATE CRIME.

  22. Contra reporting in The Hill, Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska’s exculpatory claims about Paul Manafort won’t be much use…

    Just like aluminum isn’t of much use to magnets. Dummies.

  23. State drivers license databases are a “gold mine” for facial recognition programs run by federal immigration agents and law enforcement.

    Does anyone really believe they wouldn’t have eventually employed this as a crime-fighting tactic, though? It’s not like they haven’t been using mugshot databases for the same purpose for decades, and it’s relatively easy to cross-reference driver’s license photos, mugshots, and digital video footage, you just need the time and resources. For example, the growing prevalence of doorbell cameras means that doorstep package thieves and trespassers are going to end up getting pinched if the police departments and DMV offices end up sharing information.

      1. To be fair, if someone stole my shit off the porch or tried to break into my house, I’d want the cops to catch them so I could press charges.

        Fuckin’ LOL at the byline–“and people of color are once again being harmed.” Yeah, how dare people who have had their property stolen not accept their victimization so PeeOhSees don’t have to suffer the consequences of being useless thieves.

        In Amazon’s version of a “new neighborhood watch,” petty crimes are policed heavily

        Don’t want to get in trouble with the po-po? Don’t steal shit or vandalize private property in an area that’s known for heavy resident surveillance.

        What’s left unsaid in this article (and of course, it’s published in Vice) is that thieves tend to target these upper-middle-class enclaves because they get nicer stuff when they can pull off the heist. After a few instances of neighborhood residents complaining about it on the subdivision’s social media page, recommendations get made for security installation and people start following suit.

        1. Yeah there’s some really lame race-baity stuff in that article. The partnering with local law enforcement stuff does kinda irk me on a surface-level, but I haven’t dedicated too much thought to it yet.

          1. Partnering with local law enforcement is inevitable when property theft or vandalism is involved. In the past, people might have given up because they thought the perp wouldn’t get caught, but if they know that their camera videos can actually get these assholes caught and charged, they’re going to be a lot more likely to report the incidents.

            Also, while a lot of these subdivisions even hire their own private security to patrol the area, these guys can’t do anything about crimes committed after the fact. That’s what the police are for.

            1. That seems fair as long as I get to dictate when law enforcement has access. I don’t want law enforcement with a permanent camera posted to the door facing towards my lawn.

    1. You think cops give a shit about doorstep package thieves?

      1. Read the Vice article Trip linked. They do if they have viable leads, and doorbell camera videos cross-referenced with driver license photos allows them to make the connections and evidence they need to get a warrant issued.

      2. It’s also not a shock that these tools are being used in high-crime areas like Albuquerque and Aurora, Colorado where thefts are already prevalent.

    2. “”Does anyone really believe they wouldn’t have eventually employed this as a crime-fighting tactic, though? “‘

      I expect one day cops will use phone location data to replace old school canvasing around a crime scene.

  24. Residents of Maryland no longer have to list their sex or gender as either male or female to vote.

    Uh, huh. What about their political affiliation?

  25. “”Under Harris’ proposal, homebuyers who rent or live in historically redlined communities can apply for a federal grant of up to $25,000 to assist with down payments or closing costs.””

    It may sound nice, but if you really need financial assistance for a down payment or to close, you probably can’t afford the mortgage, taxes, and home repair over time. Home ownership is a money pit.

  26. French president Emmanuel Macron “and others in Europe are moving to unilaterally impose speech controls on the internet with new legislation in France and Germany.

    Damn it! Macron is still pissed off about that video I made. I have to hurry up and get that Israeli immigration visa and passport so that I can make plans to shuttle to Paris for some … demonstrations? To be frank, I don’t know how much is feasible this winter, but supporting freedom in France is on my long term to do list.

    1. Europeans know these companies are quite unlikely to surgically remove content for individual countries. The effect will be similar to the “California Exception.”

      Aha, OK. We could fix this in the Kenesset with a law that imposes a $3 million fine to be paid to the victim every time Facebook violates the free speech rights of a user.

  27. Here are two ways that Google is probably screwing us–from over the past week:

    1) Google is breaking uBlock Origin beyond all repair.

    https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-blocker-extension-api/

    uBlock Origin is by far the most powerful ad blocking program with a user interface that makes it accessible to average people. Google is castrating the API in Google Chrome that makes it effective, citing the risk that malicious advertisers can use it. That this will destroy uBlock Origin is only an accident. So sorry!

    There are and will be other, less effective ad blocking solutions out there, but uBlock Origin and its ten million installed user base is probably dead in the water without that API.

    Google says not to worry, they have a solution for you! At the same time they castrate the API uBlock Origin depends on, Google will integrate their own ad blocking capability–right within Chrome itself. Isn’t that reassuring?

    Um . . . no. Google’s primary business is selling targeted advertising. Why would they make an effective ad blocker? They’re not interested in blocking their own ads. They’re interested in blocking malicious ads, by which they mean people stealing your credit card information, installing miners, etc. I consider Google selling my friends and family’s personal information to be malicious. Who will watch the watchers?

    2) Google’s Fuchsia is supplanting Android

    Their new OS is now up on its own website, the source code, etc. is available for download. You can install it. It’s happening.

    It’s open source and its backwards compatible with Android apps. Good news, right? Um . . . from what I can tell, it just takes control of the kernel away from the Linux community and gives Google de facto control of their own kernel. They may not be doing anything malicious with it now, but who will be able to stop them from leveraging that control in the future?

    Conclusion:

    You might think these two things would be red flags for antitrust advocates, but nobody in the mainstream media seems to even be aware of them. I’m not citing them as a good reason to give politicians more power to control our economy and our lives. I bring them up as a good reason to get yourself, your friends, and your family to substitute away from Google products every chance you get. They are solidifying their control, and the only thing politicians are likely to do is ask for a cut of the proceeds for their reelection campaigns and protect them from criticism.

    1. Come on Ken, just go start your own internet.

      1. John, if you think you have it bad now, just wait until the government gets more involved in regulating the internet.

        1. They already are. Google is essentially an agent of the Chinese government at this point. I will take my chances with the US government and the constitutional protections that come with that over the Chinese and their corporate agents, which is all Google is. Go try and post things the Chinese government doesn’t like and see how long it is before Google slaps your ass down. The only way you will get away with it is if no one sees it.

          You really think these companies are benign and will never act as an agent of government. God damn, don’ t you understand how corporatism works. A cartel controlling the internet is perfect. The government can just buy it off and let the cartel do its dirty work for it. Why the fuck can’t you see that? You really seem to think that private companies are incapable of doing any harm don’t you?

          1. Google is essentially an agent of the Chinese government at this point.

            Hyperbole much?

            You really think these companies are benign and will never act as an agent of government.

            No I believe that they can’t. They lack the enforcement capability that government has.

            Your argument that Google has to support any speech it doesn’t like is akin to telling bakers to decorate cakes they don’t like. I’m not going to compromise my principles just because someone is doing something that I don’t like. And I’m sure as hell not going to ask government to step in and do it for me.

            1. They lack the enforcement capability that government has.

              What kind of enforcement do you think they lack?

              I’m starting to get the impression that libertarians think that the only thing that constitutes punishment/enforcement is boots kicking down your door and dragging you away to jail or shooting you. There are so many other ways to enforce something – banning people, doxxing people, locking people out of financial systems, adjusting an algorithm so your business is never exposed to potential customers.

            2. No I believe that they can’t. They lack the enforcement capability that government has.

              If they are a cartel, they have that enforcement capability. They can censor you more effectively than any government.

          2. Substituting away from Google because you don’t approve of their relationship with the Chinese government is as good of a reason to substitute away from Google’s products as any. I bought a pair of Asics shoes last week, in part, because Nike shit on Betsy Ross.

            Incidentally, the last verdict I heard was that the Betsy Ross’ flag hadn’t been coopted by any right wing or white supremacist group. Kaepernick’s issue was that celebrating patriotism during the Revolutionary War is racist because slavery was legal at that time.

            You can’t be a patriot for a country where slavery is legal without being a racist. Even if not every patriot who fought in the Revolutionary War was a racist, everyone who celebrates the patriotism of a slave society today is a racist.

            If he’d opposed the Betsy Ross flag because it was coopted by white supremacists, that would have been better. The idea that Nike dissed Betsy Ross because they believe that Revolutionary War patriotism is itself inherently racist is much, much worse.

            1. If he’d opposed the Betsy Ross flag because it was coopted by white supremacists, that would have been better.

              If I were a white supremacist I would coopt everything thus making everything problematic.

              1. What would happen if white supremacists bought all the NBA teams?

            2. But do you like the shoes?

              Seriously. I am looking for a new pair.

      2. The alternatives to Google’s products and services available now are almost certainly superior to the solutions antitrust politicians and bureaucrats will hand us once Google has fully colonized them.

        Meanwhile, Brave is better than Chrome. You can use still use Firefox. Anybody who would rather use whatever remedy the government cooks up than use Firefox is nuts. You can try Opera.

        I don’t need to start my own internet. I just need to wake people up. People who are so pissed off they’re willing to do anything–including put President Liz Warren in charge of the internet–rather than make different choices piss me off.

        1. Those products are great. But the moment they become a threat to Google, Google will just buy them the way they did Youtube and that will be that.

          1. That’s what they said about Linux, and some of those Linux businesses have become targets of big players. Linux became dominant in cloud computing, and that’s why IBM just bought Red Hat. That’s making users drop out of Fedora, Red Hat’s free desktop Linux version, but they have no shortage of fantastic options to choose. The fifth best looking Linux distribution looks better than Windows, and I can think of two that look better than Apple–one that might do Apple better than Apple. The fact is that there’s only so much left that desktop operating systems can do to improve themselves.

            The same is true of browsers, maybe even more so. Brave looks and works better than Google branded Chrome. It’s not like the next version of Chrome will start doing the dishes for you. They have their advertising model, but the underlying technology we use in the browser space is probably already fully mature. Who pays a premium for an mp3 player anymore? They play music while you’re jogging. There’s nothing more to do in that space, and I think a lot of people go to Google’s products out of habit. When they want a new mp3 player, they go to Apple out of habit–not because Apple’s mp3 player is in any way better than boring Sandisk, the memory manufacturer.

            We can get people to switch when there’s little or any difference in quality, especially when the alternatives aren’t bending you friends and family over and screwing them. I’m buying decent email addresses for my friends and family as stocking stuffers this year. I’ll tell them to stop sending me stuff from that God awful address, and, for goodness’ sake, I hope they’re not signing in to Google before they browse the internet like a bunch of idiots.

            I don’t see how Google can buy out every commodity business when people have so many choices. I think their advantages are mostly psychological. They offer better search results for being privacy invasive, but the results I get from other search engines are often good enough, too, even if they aren’t always great.

          2. But the moment they become a threat to Google, Google will just buy them the way they did Youtube and that will be that.

            Which just encourages more start-ups to do the same thing and get a big payout from Google.

            Google can’t afford to buy out everyone, though.

            1. What is a big pay out to a start up is nothing to google. They could do this for a hundred years and still be on top. Moreover, if it is a profitable company, google makes money buying it.

              1. I guess we just need government to control all the internet and tech companies then. It’s the ONLY solution.

                1. No. We just need the tech companies to be expected to abide by the law and not form cartels.

                  Are you that stupid or just pretending to not understand the point?

              2. What is a big pay out to a start up is nothing to google. They could do this for a hundred years and still be on top.

                No, they can’t. No company can. It’s not like they’re the government! That is a reason why cartels always fail. No company is big enough to buy out *ALL* of its competitors, and once a company starts trying to, it only incentivizes MORE people to start competing in hopes of getting the big payout.

            2. Which just encourages more start-ups to do the same thing and get a big payout from Google.

              “See, Google, we built new extra effective censorship technology right into the platform!”

        2. You can try Opera.
          Opera went downhill after they switched from their in-house engine to Blink. (The one used by Chromium.) That and the majority owners of Opera’s developers are Chinese. Not necessarily bad, but it’s a cause for apprehension.
          Just use Firefox, Brave, or Waterfox. There are some more niche browsers for the braver and more technically inclined among us.

      3. And people wonder why I say the things I do about what must be done about the progtards. Everyone better nut up soon, or be prepared to be crushed under the boot of the new world order and it’s masters like a Soros.

    2. As someone who uses Android/Chrome, you scare the hell out of me

      1. Yellow Tony linked Librem.

        I’m excited about this one, which you can use now–but will come out of beta later this year:

        https://e.foundation/products/

        Options are proliferating. We just need to make people aware of them and encourage them to use their freedom of choice.

    3. Google’s Fuchsia is supplanting Android
      Soon, gentlemen, soon.

    4. I’m not citing them as a good reason to give politicians more power to control our economy and our lives.

      At least anti-trust and FTC complaints work within the existing system.

      1. Explain the solution to me and how Congress and the FTC will get there.

        I do not believe that any of their remedies will give us better or more choices than we have now, and I believe their remedies are more likely to infringe on our rights than Google and others are doing now.

        You’re asking the fox to guard the hen house.

        We keep pointing to real problem, but they keep ignoring those and talking about fake news and hate speech. They are not interested in solving the problems that we’re pointing out. They’re interested in controlling our speech. The cake is a lie. The cake is a Trojan horse.

  28. “…new allegations of sexual abuse by several other prominent individuals,” including lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

    Epstein diddled Dershowitz, too???

  29. So France is going to hold social media companies responsible for the content posted. At least it was not from GOP written legislation.

    1. Because anyone who criticizes government intervention into social media is inconsistent and must just hate the GOP

  30. zut alors ne jamais pisser le court français!

  31. re: “Was this really sex trafficking?”

    No. Okay, yes it meets the new ‘legal’ definition. But any time you try to define the crime of sex trafficking to not actually include any “trafficking”, you’re pretty obviously off track. Did he do some bad stuff? Yes. Did he traffic anyone to do it? No evidence of that so far.

    1. The better question is whether some guy buying under age hookers really the hill anyone wants to die on? I think if you want to make sex work legal, defending under age sex work is a really bad idea.

      1. Did you know that “kidnapping” has been stretched to include preventing a person from leaving their own home? Even by the custodial adult? On that technicality, you can be charged with kidnapping for grounding your teenager. You could also be charged with kidnapping for holding your own child’s hand while they cross the parking lot. That’s not what the word is supposed to mean (and thankfully, not how most prosecutors use it) but there are a subset of prosecutors who have successfully made those charges stick.

        Allowing prosecutors and legislators to twist the normal meaning of words in order to demonize “bad people” is an evil in its own right. If you don’t stop them when they are abusing language against the bad people, then you will already have lost the precedent when they abuse that language against you.

    2. Trapping 13 year old girls on a remote island and coercing them into fucking his buddies is definitely trafficking. Epstein needs one in the back of the head.

  32. plus you don’t have no rights right now.”

    The officer was speaking the truth here.

  33. Ah! A chance for “me tooers” to nominate K. Harris and E. Warren as their one -two punch. . . . Or their two- for – one punch, whatever! What a sick white male dominated culture we live in – NO MORE. Divisiveness will never end , well not for another 12 years when the world abruptly ends!

  34. Oh, late to the party here, but one of the reason you won’t hear much in the media isn’t so much because “both sides” it’s because “the media”.
    From 2011, for fuck’s sake.

    On the evening of December 2nd, 2010, a handful of America’s media and entertainment elite—including TV anchors Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos, comedienne Chelsea Handler, and director Woody Allen—convened around the dinner table of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. It wasn’t just any dining room, but part of a sprawling nine-story townhouse that once housed an entire preparatory school. And it wasn’t just any sex offender, but an enigmatic billionaire who had once flown the likes of former President Bill Clinton and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak around the world on his own Boeing 727. Last spring, Epstein completed a 13-month sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in Palm Beach. Now he was hosting a party for his close friend, Britain’s Prince Andrew, fourth in line to the throne.

    1. They were obviously discussing a comedic remake of Lolita with Woody Allen directing and Epstein as Humbert. Prince Andrew was there because they were thinking of shooting the film in England to give it a sort of Monty Python twist.

  35. I can’t seem to find a pic of Jeffrey in a speedo so I can imagine myself as a 14 yr old girl and what I would be thinking.
    Is the dearth of comments on Jeffrey due to admiration and envy?

  36. if you think kenneth`s story is impressive,, 2 weAks-Ago my sister’s boyfriend Also got A cheque for $5532 sitting there thirteen hours A week from their ApArtment And their roomAte’s mother-in-lAw`s neighbour hAs done this for 8-months And mAde over $5532 in their sp………………….www.payshd .com

  37. +1 ENB
    The article on Epstein was largely straight reporting, with plenty of relevant facts, seemingly from all angles of the story.

    A rare bit or journalism from Reason.

    ENB has been pretty good with these news round ups. They’re the best thing that Reason has going these days.

  38. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  39. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  40. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  41. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  42. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  43. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  44. […] ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of […]

  45. […] Lots of people are asking for my take on the Jeffrey Epstein thing, but I’m afraid I don’t have one just yet; when a powerful, wealthy, well-connected person is accused of a crime (especially a complex one), the result is invariably dueling volcanos of accusation & defense vomiting megatons of obfuscation into the atmosphere.  Moreover, when the crime “just happens” to fit into a moral panic in full eruption, the result is a firestorm that makes it very difficult to separate truth, lies, prevarications, opportunism, excuse-making, police-statery, and outright bullshit from one another.  However, I respect Liz Brown’s judgment on such things and here’s what she had to say on Monday: […]

  46. […] an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself […]

  47. […] an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself […]

  48. […] an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself […]

  49. […] an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself […]

  50. […] an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.