Reason Roundup

Devin Nunes Can Sue Cow Account but Not Twitter, Says Judge

Plus: Time to cancel U.S. propaganda outlets, Twitch sued over sexy women, new Assange indictment, social-justice symbolism, and more...

|

A judge has dismissed California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes' claims against Twitter, in which the former House Intelligence Chairman sought to hold the social media site responsible for allegedly defamatory tweets about him from political strategist Liz Mair and parody accounts @DevinNunesMom and @DevinCow. Nunes "seeks to have the court treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of the content provided by others based on its allowing or not allowing certain content to be on its internet platform," wrote Judge John Marshall of Henrico County, Virginia, in his decision. "The court refuses to do so."

The lawsuit may, however, proceed against Mair, @DevinCow, and @DevinNunesMom. In other words, it may proceed against the entities whom Nunes accuses of doing the supposed defaming, not the digital forum that merely served as a conduit for said speech.

Judge Marshall rejected Nunes' argument that Section 230—the federal law shielding internet companies from some legal liability for things created by their users or customers—did not apply in this case because of Twitter's supposed bias against conservatives. That's because (contrary to current conservative talking points) there's actually no neutrality requirement in Section 230.

Following his loss in court, Nunes is apparently attempting to lead conservatives off Twitter to a new social media site called Parler, which bills itself as "an unbiased social media focused on real user experiences and engagement" that will not share user data.

And cheers to that—some more social media decentralization right now would certainly be a good thing.

But Parler goes on to make the hilariously nonsensical claim that on Parler, "content is moderated based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States which enables free expression without violence and a lack of censorship." Huh?

It's the First Amendment that codifies American protection from government censorship; courts merely uphold that right. None of that has anything to do with the content moderation decisions made by private companies. Nor does the Federal Communication Commission have any say over such decisions either. It seems Parler may be as confused about free speech and social media as poor Nunes…

Meanwhile, in other silly lawsuits against the internet:


FREE MINDS

Time to cancel Voice of America and other U.S. propaganda outlets. President Donald Trump recently ousted the heads of government-run news agencies Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks—all of which fall under the umbrella of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)—and confirmed Michael Pack as the new chief executive. "If the idea of Trump and [new Voice of America head Michael] Pack, a documentary filmmaker and comrade of Steve Bannon, running the U.S. government's news and propaganda operations alarms you," writes Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer, maybe it's time to consider canceling the whole operation.

"As disturbing as the Trump-Bannon-Pack disruption is, it allows us to reassess the U.S. government propaganda machine that has been running non-stop for almost eight decades." Shafer adds that

If we can agree that we don't want Donald Trump and Steve Bannon dictating what's news to a world audience of 350 million, perhaps we can also reconsider the wisdom of maintaining such a world-spanning information infrastructure in the first place. Maybe the lesson of the Trump "coup d'état" should be to abolish VOA and its sisters and salt the earth that nurtured them into existence to prevent Trump and the U.S. government from engaging in the propaganda business.


FREE MARKETS

Not today, class warfare. "The longer arc of the current revolutionary moment may actually end up vindicating the socialist critique of post-1970s liberalism—that it's obsessed with cultural power at the expense of economic transformation, and that it puts the language of radicalism in the service of elitism," suggests Ross Douthat in a new column about Bernie Sanders and the politics of class warfare and racial justice.

The demand for police reform at the heart of the current protests doesn't fit this caricature. But much of the action around it, the anti-racist reckoning unfolding in colleges, media organizations, corporations and public statuary, may seem more unifying than the Sanders revolution precisely because it isn't as threatening to power.

The fact that corporations are "outdistancing" even politicians, as Crenshaw puts it, in paying fealty to anti-racism is perhaps the tell. It's not that corporate America is suddenly deeply committed to racial equality; even for woke capital, the capitalism comes first. Rather, it's that anti-racism as a cultural curriculum, a rhetoric of re-education, is relatively easy to fold into the mechanisms of managerialism, under the tutelage of the human resources department. The idea that you need to retrain your employees so that they can work together without microaggressing isn't Marxism, cultural or otherwise; it's just a novel form of Fordism, with white-fragility gurus in place of efficiency experts.


QUICK HITS

• Police reform in the Senate is falling apart.

• A little good news:

• A little more: Boston voted to ban city officials using facial recognition technology. "The law makes it illegal for city officials to 'obtain, retain, possess, access, or use' facial recognition technology. It's also now illegal for the city government to enter into contracts that permit the use of facial recognition technology," reports Buzzfeed.

• "A coalition of AI researchers, data scientists, and sociologists has called on the academic world to stop publishing studies that claim to predict an individual's criminality using algorithms trained on data like facial scans and criminal statistics," notes The Verge.

• Here's the tale of one man wrongfully jailed based on faulty facial recognition technology.

• A reminder that the U.S. government continues to go after Julian Assange…

• .. and after encrypted communication:

Read more on that bill—the "Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act"—from Reason's Scott Shackford.

• The Democratic National Committee's August nominating convention will be held almost entirely virtually.

• A good thread from David French about right-leaning figures fighting for more government regulation of social media:

Coronavirus update: "Nationwide, cases are up 30% compared to the beginning of this month, and dramatically worsening outbreaks in several states are beginning to strain hospital capacity—the same concern that prompted the nationwide lockdown in the first place."

• More on what recent Black Lives Matter protests are actually teaching us about COVID-19.

NEXT: Peculiar Religious Discrimination

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. Police reform in the Senate is falling apart.

    They had one job.

    1. It’s all about the virus now. again.

      1. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. To start making extra income please…

        visit this site………………………….More here

    2. The federal government doesn’t and shouldn’t be doing anything with “police”. They use federal marshals.

      1. Largely true, but it’s not like the Federal government has a history of keeping its hands off of state and local policing.

        1. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. QWs
          Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot just open this link…………………………Go to this link

    3. Personally, I was unaware that Democrat filibusters constituted ‘falling apart’.

      1. It’s only bad when Republicans do it.

  2. President of NYPD captains union calls for an immediate “end to COMPSTAT as we know it.” Says the crime tracking program is used to embarrass and coerce commanders into more proactive policing…

    The enemy of my enemy…

    1. We are switching them over to virus tracking instead.

      1. I assume you’re winking when you say “virus tracking”.

        1. Agreed. When they’re being graded on metrics, they work toward good metrics, and not necessarily good outcomes. It takes time to develop and implement courses of action that result in good outcomes, but top brass frequently lack the patience to wait it out and get lasting results. Programs like compstat aren’t really about reducing crime or improving policing- they’re about justifying yourself to your boss, who writes the checks.

    2. well this is fucking stupid. Yeah, it was embarrassing to commanders who lied to the Chief about “oh, everything’s fine in my sector chief.” ‘well according to COMPSTAT you had 10 murders, 8 rapes, and a jaywalker on one of your street corners alone. So would you like to change your statement?’ COMPSTAT isn’t one of the problems here.

      1. Compstat is a big problem, according to the cops I’ve talked to who’ve worked under it, because management starts managing according to compstat stats rather than actual crimes. Go read something like Second City Cop Blog and read about how Compstat changes how they work. Tl, dr: cops spend more time dealing with the attendant paperwork and avoiding it, than they do making arrests.

        It sure looks like a good idea though, to those with a technocratic mindset.

  3. …the most severe US threat to press freedom since 2016.

    What happened in 2016?

    1. THE RUSSIANS!

    2. Some serious delusional-bubble bursting.

    3. ‘The press’ failed to take over the election process in the USA.

    4. There was a loud pop of the press disengaging their nose from Obama’s butt.

      1. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. It’s hard to tell what’s real in this day and age, what with all this fake new and other misinformation. There’s one other thing that you can always rely on to be a concrete fact beyond death and taxes. That’s the press absolutely refusing to disengage from Obama’s butt.

        1. This is confirmation bias. The right has plenty of its own big news sources, most prominently, Fox.

          1. Yes, the right has it’s own unabashed propaganda network. Thanks for pointing that out. The fact that all the leftist media continues to call his presidency “scandal free” is about the most laughable thing I’ve ever heard.

            1. Yes, that’s true. Obama’s presidency is not scandal free.

  4. …dramatically worsening outbreaks in several states are beginning to strain hospital capacity—the same concern that prompted the nationwide lockdown in the first place.

    Well, guess what. You idiots shot yourselves and everyone else in the foot by mission creeping the curve flattening. Good luck going back to lockdowns.

    1. The article says there are no surges in virus due to protests because they all wore masks and social distanced. The surges are due to Trump rallies.

      Jesus, journalists are not even giving lip service to plausible denial their prevarication anymore. Why the fuck would ENB link to such drivel…

      1. Should have been linked to the next thread. Sigh…

      2. But nobody went to the Trump rallies, right?

        The level of naked propaganda is breath-taking. I just want to know how much of this drivel is produced by delusional, true-believer retards and how much comes from cynical, evil bastards.

        1. how much of this drivel is produced by delusional, true-believer retards and how much comes from cynical, evil bastards

          Insanity is fluid. Don’t try to force your mental health stereotypes on Progressives.

        2. That is not a binary choice, you know – – – – – – – –

      3. And the article doesn’t say that. It says that no spikes have been observed following protests, and that the current spikes are correlated with early opening states. Not controversial in the least.

        1. Yes it does. Go fuck yourself.

          1. Quote it then.

            1. Specifically where it says the new cases are due to Trump rallies.

            2. I would like the #1 with cheese and a large diet coke. Can I get that without mustard?

            3. He said go fuck yourself. Then when you’re done, go take a nap on the railroad tracks.

              1. Lol. I guess you guys like your little stories you tell each other. Sorry, I thought this was a place to talk about actual events, not fan fiction.

                1. You’re not fooling anyone. We know you think it’s a place for you to come be dishonest and display your TDS.

                  Seriously though, go fuck yourself.

                2. No, it’s become a place for a daily Trump fan circle jerk of complaining about Reason and echoing to each other talking points they read on zerohedge.

                3. Oh, and deflecting from any challenge to their worldview by resorting to personal attack.

        2. Because contact tracers aren’t allowed to ask if the person went to a protest based on their rules dummy.

            1. So where did anyone say that the current outbreak is because of trump rallies? Nowhere. Let’s try to stay on topic, for once.

              1. You get dumber by the day Jeff.

                  1. I literally corrected a lie by Chuck. It’s quite telling what you consider to be dishonest: things that you don’t like. It’s called being delusional.

                    1. I literally corrected a lie by Chuck.

                      No you didn’t. My comment in all honesty restated what the article said multiple times: no surge from protests. Sure they qualified that with “in the cities with the largest protests”, but why do they disguise the truth, that Texas, the second largest state is having a big surge that perfectly coincides with the protests, and not with when the state opened up weeks earlier? The article is phrased so that useful idiots who ignore qualifiers get the message they want. Protest away, you didn’t kill Cuomo’s grandmama.

                      The part about blaming Trump rallies is in the comments and, based on the evidence of tens of thousands of protest photos, is patently false.

                      I have noticed that BLM protesters take more precautions than do Trump supporters.

                      The article does not exist in a vacuum. It is written for an audience, and the audience got the message loud and clear.

                      To summarize, DOL is a disingenuous, prevaricating coward whose talking points just happen to match up perfectly with the Progressive/Democrat agenda of ‘this is all Trumps fault’.

                    2. That’s a whole lotta equivocation.

                      The article was factual: a spike in cases in places with mass protests was not observed. Everything else is your editorializing (if we are being generous to you).

                      Oh, no, you’ve accused me of being a democrat! Funny, I get called a nazi when I comment in places with actual democrats. You must not have much else to fall back on.

                    3. You got it backwards. I don’t think you’re dishonest because I don’t like you. I don’t like you because you’re so dishonest.

                    4. You begged for me to quote the article, then call it equivocation when I do. You are about as genuine as Trump’s hair. However you shuffle off, I hope it includes gasping for air so that you can have at least a small taste of the panic and fear that you and all your Proggie friends forced upon the unsuspecting residents of all those nursing homes.

                    5. It’s because he’s a dishonest piece of shit.

      4. Do you KNOW ENB?

        This is less bad than usual for her.

      5. Why the fuck would ENB link to such drivel

        You must be new around here boy.

      6. “Why the fuck would ENB link to such drivel…”

        Posting stupid shit she found on her twitter feed is apparently in her job description.

        1. It kinda is. That’s what the morning roundup is supposed to be: a bunch of somewhat randomly-chosen links to get people to visit the Reason blog while drinking their morning coffee. It’s really odd that it the morning roundup gets criticized for not covering everybody’s conservative hobby horse topics.

          1. “randomly-chosen”

            Lol

      7. The article says there are no surges in virus due to protests because they all wore masks and social distanced.

        Nevermind the plethora of videos of “protests” clearly showing people NOT maintaining 6 feet and some wearing masks and some not. Don’t believe your own lying eyes.

      8. The reality is, the spikes are occurring in moderately populated areas where COVID had not spread prior to the entire state locking down. IOW, they are just now getting the spread they would have had back in March/April if things had not closed down. It is 100% expected but the problem is the lockdown should have happened for them later than it did for the first places it spread. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all policy making is going to prolong this much more than necessary.

    2. It is almost as if they forgot to expand hospital capacity.

      1. It is almost as if they forgot to expand hospital capacity.

        March – “Flatten the curve!”
        April – “We just need more time to prepare!”
        May – “Trump should have prepared sooner!”
        June – “Were we supposed to be doing something?”

        Are these guys all stoned, or what?

        1. One could wish.

        2. No, but they should be stoned. With rocks, just to be clear.

      2. Actually they started allowing for elective surgeries again with the huge backlog of those surgeries from shutting them down for 3 months. You know, things like heart stints and other surgeries delayed during the first phase.

        According to the Arizona Department of Health Services’ COVID dashboard, 1,405 ICU beds are currently in use. The 15 percent not currently occupied equates to 257 beds as of Friday.

        Of those admitted into the ICU, 546 are COVID-19 patients, according to DHS

        https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-arizona-icu-beds-85-percent-capacity-1512352

        Only 1/3rd of the beds are from covid patients. This is the actual information most of the media is missing. Was shocked newsweek actually quoted the numbers.

        1. “This is the actual information most of the media is missing.”

          I doubt they missed it, they just decided to keep it to themselves. Probably for our own good even!

    3. Also locking too many places down too hard. Public Patience and trust are a currency to be spent wisely and carefully.

      I get that due to lack of testing it was hard for states to know if they were about to be in a New York level problem or not. The guiding principle to all government actions should always be “lightest possible touch” especially in a situation like this where it’s going to be a long term situation.

      1. MSM article this morning says Texas is in big trouble with COVID surge and Houston ICUs are at 97% capacity. Co-worker who was exposed goes to get tested this morning and is told not to bother, tests are still taking 3 weeks and it will be moot by the time he finds out. Isolate for 3 days and go back to work if he feels fine. We are in Austin, 3 hours from Houston.

        This co-workers girlfriend is an ICU nurse. ICU nurses temporarily in Texas are making $5k per week, more than double what local nurses are making. Local nurses are travelling to other cities to take advantage of the similar offers. There are a shortage of ICU nurses because so many are taking advantage of premium pay for travelling to other cities. Without nurses, ICU capacity is strained.

        Also, she thinks that way too many non-COVID cases are being labeled as COVID for the $$$.

        As has been the case all along, the problem is not what the media is making it out to be. If the government would quit throwing money at hospitals for COVID, the market would solve the real problem because only the markets actually needing additional nurses would be offering the premium pay.

        1. Elective surgeries were only suspended today in Texas.

          https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/gov-abbott-issues-order-that-suspends-elective-surgeries-in-harris-bexar-dallas-tarrant-counties/285-e0410d1b-4a47-4bc0-b97f-d1f4d49bea61

          A lot of the current ICU issue is from the backlog of surgeries delayed during the first lockdown.

    4. I keep seeing these references to “dramatically worsening outbreaks” but the COVID-related deaths per day continue their downward trend. It’s almost enough to make you think that something else might be going on.

      1. Well, apparently it’s a lot of younger people catching it now (gee, wonder what all those youngins did over the last 3 weeks that might have contributed to an outbreak!). It’s not going to knock them out nearly as bad as some fatbody or diabetic over the age of 50, who are the primary victims.

  5. More on what recent Black Lives Matter protests are actually teaching us about COVID-19.

    The Rona respects the cause?

    1. More like something about naked political power grabs and flexible endorsement of SCIENCE.

    2. As the late great Doug Henning used to say, ‘Magic is illusion…..and illusion is magic….’

  6. “If we can agree that we don’t want Donald Trump and Steve Bannon dictating what’s news to a world audience of 350 million, perhaps we can also reconsider the wisdom of maintaining such a world-spanning information infrastructure in the first place.”

    People who didn’t oppose getting rid of this stuff before Trump was in the White House should be ashamed of themselves.

    If Trump appointed the staff, could we get rid of NPR and PBS, too?

    1. It is such a “they don’t get to play with our toys” type of reasoning that it is difficult to take seriously.

      1. +1

        There is no principle involved for them.

      2. It essentially admits the central premise of the far left: they believe in total control by a strong central government and moreover they expect a strong central person in control of that government.

        As such, I believe their ‘fears’ about Trump are projection and their true fear is that they won’t end being the group that ends up solidifying power first. Because they project, they believe everyone wants the same ends they do.

        If Trump putting someone he chooses in charge of these outlets is propaganda than one might wonder what it was before Trump put people in charge of, apparently, propaganda outlets?

        I mean, isn’t one of the other Reason links a journalist calling for the end of objectivity in reporting? You’d think he’d be fucking overjoyed at Trump’s actions, if that’s their shtick.

        If that isn’t their hot take, than you know the ‘ending of objectivity’ is really ‘ending anyone who opposes them’. I don’t think that, in the end, it really matters if it’s Trump or anyone else. They will all be crushed, because they will not fall in line with the revolution. It doesn’t even matter if the reasons why they won’t join aren’t the same reasons. Eventually they come for you all, because they have a utopia to create over your ashes.

    2. Of course nary a peep from ENB about the mendacious nonsense being spewed by NPR:

      https://www.npr.org/2020/06/21/880963592/vehicle-attacks-rise-as-extremists-target-protesters

      1. Yeah, we know from Nice that one sensibly planned vehicle attack can easily kill upwards of 50-60 people. Much more than a nutjob with 2 AK47s, bumpstocks, extended mags, and a shit-ton of ammo shooting into a packed concert venue. When protesters start getting ‘targeted’ by vehicles there will be no doubts.

        The conspiracy theories about the Ukrainian in the semi were pretty hilarious though.

    3. Ken, we are way past the post-shame era for the woke generation.

    4. Can’t have anything nice, eh? $1.35 per american per year. I’m sure it’s the cost aspect that offends you, and not the science and fact based programming which is harmful to “conservative” talking points.

      1. “…$1.35 per american per year…”

        Scumbag lefties have no understanding of principles, do they, scumbag lefty?
        Sounds cheap to you? Good. Pay mine and that of everbody else who objects, scumbag lefty.

      2. Excuse me, are defending the public funding of NPR and PBS?

        Why are the taxpayers subsidizing shows like This American Life and Sesame Street–that have no problem finding financing opportunities of their own?

        There are now two competing streaming services devoted to British mystery series, whole networks devoted to cooking and home improvement, and why should the taxpayers be funding British mystery series, cooking shows, or home improvement shows anyway?

        It’s indefensible.

        1. No, I think government spending outside of constitutional mandates are wrong (I’m willing to be a hypocrite for NASA though), but if I’m working my way down the government spending list, public radio is going to be one of the lowest priority items to shit can. Both because of the low cost and high return. Education and non biased reporting at least give us a return on capital.

          You guys have no problem with Trump spending $136,000,000 on golf, but a a buck and change per American is too much because of principles. These principles seem to be unevenly applied.

          1. “You guys have no problem with Trump spending $136,000,000 on golf . . . “

            Right, so we’re on board with getting rid of this shit no matter who is in the White House, but it’s about Trump with you?

            Is everything you believe a function of Trump?

            1. They honestly think Orange Hitler is a demiurge. Everything wrong exists by his will.

            2. I’m against any president spending that insane amount on golf, especially presidents who do it to funnel taxpayer money into their own coffers.

          2. “No, I think government spending outside of constitutional mandates are wrong (I’m willing to be a hypocrite for NASA though), but if I’m working my way down the government spending list, public radio is going to be one of the lowest priority items to shit can. Both because of the low cost and high return. Education and non biased reporting at least give us a return on capital.”

            Random Idiot: Gee, why can’t we cut spending?

            Me: Well, even the tiniest spending will have people fighting for it. See the post above.

          3. “…non biased reporting…”

            Hahaha!

          4. You have principles?

          5. Education and non biased reporting
            You can’t be seriously describing government funded news outlets as “non-biased reporting”

            1. 10 to 15% of their funding is from government.

              https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22168.html

              1. So they’re government funded. And you support that because you’re a lefty hypocrite.

        2. Ken Shultz : Excuse me, are (you) defending the public funding of NPR and PBS?

          Damn right I’m defending it. Here’s one reason why : Ten years ago I hiked from Maine to Georgia to escape a period of hopeless unemployment and divorce (the anniversary of my start was two days ago). Being a painfully slow hiker, the entire trek took eight months, often thru sparsely populated areas and tiny Appalachian towns. Being a news junkie, my first action reaching any burg was to buy whatever newspapers were available, though they were often just a few sheets of local news – fun enough to read, but insubstantial fare.

          But however remote or thinly peopled the area, there was always an NPR station to be found, offering detailed and comprehensive news equal to anything found anywhere in this country. Near larger cities there were multiple options, but thru some of the areas I passed NPR was the one choice available. That’s one reason for defending National Public Radio.

          I once stopped in a town near Roanoke, Va for resupply, and did my laundry in a truck stop. There I fell into conversation with a burly trucker who did routes up&down the east coast. The talk turned political, (the guy had a strange amalgamation of Right & Left views) but the amazing thing was how he knew. I’ve got pretty serious chops political-knowledge-wise, but this trucker effortless kicked my butt, tossing off names of arcane Supreme Court decision and legislative bills. Finally I had to confess my admiration, but he just shrugged. The hours he spent driving were listening to NPR; of course he knew his shit. Given an educated citizenry is a good thing, that’s another reason to support NPR.

          But being of the Right, you probably have no interest in educated citizens and don’t care if comprehensive news if available in all parts of the country. Like making it harder for people to vote, you probably see less news as a goal, not a problem….

          1. grb, always making great points. I appreciate your contributions to the discussions here.

            1. You losers really do love each other. Good for you. Why didn’t you hire him into your imaginary business?

              1. Actually I think my feelings are unreciprocated. As for imaginary businesses: put up or shut up, jesse.

              2. Jealousy is not a good look for you, Jesse……

            2. Poor grb, this means he doesn’t appreciate you.

          2. Cool story about you being a loser and becoming a hobo. Not sure why my tax dollars need to be used for your favorite radio station.
            Unless you are willing to give me some money towards my satellite radio subscription.

          3. If it weren’t for taxpayer funding of NPR, I suspect a few things would happen.

            1) People like you and that truck driver would give more during NPR pledge drives.

            2) NPR would start selling more advertising–like they do when they say a show is sponsored by such and such an organization.

            3) NPR would start demanding partial ownership of a share of the proceeds for advertising before popular shows.

            4) You and that trucker would get more of your NPR fix through podcasts rather than over the radio.

            5) There’s this thing called satellite radio now. And it works great in rural areas. Sirius-XM is presumably already paying NPR to broadcast its content, too.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sirius_XM_Radio_channels#Talk,_news,_and_public_radio

            Suffice it to say, the alternative to taxpayer funding of NPR is not ignorant truckers and dead air. The alternative to taxpayer funding of NPR is private funding of NPR and other content creators.

      3. I’m sure it’s the cost aspect that offends you, and not the science and fact based programming which is harmful to “conservative” talking points progressive propaganda.

        FTFY, you lying sack of shit.

        1. Like I said, science and facts are hostile to the “conservative” agenda.

          1. Like how rght-wingers are causing a spike in vehicular assaults on protestors? That kind of science or fact?

            1. He doesn’t know what your talking about, and he will refuse to find out. Or he’ll make up some bullshit to explain it away. Once someone claims that NPR is unbiased, you know they are full of shit.

              And if there is one thing Lying Jeffy is, it’s full of shit. Because he can’t stop lying.

          2. DOL comes from the party of chakras, anti-GMO rallies, crystal power, measles parties, astrology, anti-vaxxers, acupuncture, tantric healing, climate models, feng shui, homeopathy, ancient astronauts, ley lines and aromatherapy…
            …but hey, it’s all science and facts for DOL.

            1. He’s also a dishonest piece of shit.

            2. Nice attempt to discredit me by making a list of silly nonsense I have never commented on.

              Maybe try honing your own arguments or –gasp!– changing your mind on things when presented with new information.

              1. You literally just said “science and facts are hostile to the conservative agenda” and now you’re saying that nobody’s allowed to smear you with the exact same broad brush you just used?

                Fuck off you dishonest hypocrite.

                1. Global warming is real. Covid19 is real. Evolution is real. Gay people can’t be “fixed”. These statements are still controversial among “conservatives”. Do you really want to argue that the GOP would accept scientific findings that did not help their agenda? Of course not.

                  1. I thought “The Science” changed to climate change?

                    Now do gender.

                  2. And GMO, 56 genders, ‘big pharma’ and vaccines are controversial among lefties.
                    You’re so sciency.

          3. You wouldn’t know a fact if it crawled up your ass and died.

          4. “Like I said, science and facts are hostile to the “conservative” agenda.”
            What a stinking pile of shit.

      4. “science and fact based programming”

        Citation Needed.

      5. Nice of Lying Jeffy to prove he’s a leftist hypocrite.

    5. What a fun conversation that would be…

    6. I also find it very interesting that ENB didn’t bother to tell us who the previous executives were. What are their political/social/commercial affiliations? How often have previous presidents changed them?

      I’m trying to remember Reason previously making the libertarian argument against all state run media. I’m sure they have right?

      1. Hey’ I’m all for getting rid of Voice of America. But everything I have read from ACTUAL DISSIDENTS in countries like China and Iran was that the previous administration had filled the ranks of VoA with functionaries pushing not American Values, but the administration’s agenda. In the case of China, that meant supporting more business with the country and downplaying and human rights abuses that could complicate that. In the case of Iran it was praising the regime there for working on the nuclear arms deal, even if that meant selling out or at least ignoring the protesters there.

        1. That would make an interesting article. Got any cites?

    7. Well, to be fair to me, I wasn’t aware that this shit existed until this article. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, and yep, don’t care who’s in the command seat, give them the axe! I was aware of NPR & PBS (and have been against us funding them, they should be able to stand on their own feet).

      1. All libertarians should be against the government funding them. Which is why Lying Jeffy is defending it.

    8. And after they spend the requisite time being ashamed of themselves, as libertarians can we still root for a reduction in the scope of government?

    9. Or put another way. Why so butt-hurt all the time about Trump?

  7. Time to cancel Voice of America and other U.S. propaganda outlets.

    Who listens to radio anymore. They should transition to podcasting America’s greatness.

    1. Many countries limit what you can see on tv but people still seem to get radio for now until the U.S. requires all radio stations to go digital to support satalite radio like they did with TV.

  8. The law makes it illegal for city officials to ‘obtain, retain, possess, access, or use’ facial recognition technology.

    Illegal.

    1. Fun fact: if that is reported correctly (inserts laugh track) then those officials cannot use any cell phone that uses facial recognition as an unlocking method.

  9. I suppose the Democrats having a mostly virtual convention is entirely appropriate. The candidate they are set to nominate has mostly virtual brain functions.

    1. Yep. All appearance, no reality.

    2. Interesting. Can Biden be pre-recorded so he doesn’t look so terrible and incoherent? This could be a positive for him and the Democrats.

      1. Biden doesn’t do great with pre recorded – at least not the other end.
        He keeps asking videos questions.
        Those questions go unanswered.
        Because they’re pre recorded videos

      2. With virtual reality they can make a Biden out of all of his good comments, if he has any, and thats what we will see. a pre edited program much like they did to Arnold in the “Running man” it very possible

    3. I’m disappointed. I was looking forward to BLM & Bernie Bros crashing the convention and 1968’ing it

  10. courts merely uphold that right.

    Is this chick retarded? Because that patently erroneous claim makes her sound retarded.

    1. ENB has already made it clear that free speech is strictly about the government not violating the 1st Amendment, and not a philosophical component of liberty that existed before.

      1. And don’t forget the other great libertarian thinker here at Reason’s views on free speech:

        https://mobile.twitter.com/shikhadalmia/status/827205459581009920

  11. The new Senate GOP encryption bill DOES contain backdoor mandates for device makers and comms service providers…

    Any word yet on where this authority is defined?

  12. Just in case anybody’s getting crazy out there about the market, there are three things happening at the moment (in no particular order):

    1) It’s looking at new jobless claims–which remain steady rather than accelerating.

    2) There is some fear that a second wave of COVID-19 might force companies and/or governments to reimpose lock-downs.

    3) The chances of lock-downs being reimposed are being assessed as a function of the number of ICU beds available in important markets–and so far, it looks like there are more than enough hospital beds for COVID-19 patients.

    The question of whether people would comply with lock-downs doesn’t need to be answered if the number of ICU beds available for patients remains okay, but we are seeing governors in some states impose mask requirements whenever you’re in public.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/companies/nevada-governor-orders-mask-wearing-in-public-after-virus-spike/ar-BB15WqGp

    I suspect this is coming to a state near you. The constitutionality is an issue, but they’re specifically ruling out arresting individuals for not wearing a mask in public. They’re requiring companies to require customers to wear masks. I guess that means if you go into a grocery store without a mask and refuse to comply with the request to wear one, they’ll treat you like shoplifter and have you arrested for trespassing if you don’t leave the premises.

    1. Should there not have been more ICU beds available now than back then?

      1. There are more beds than there used to be. An ICU bed is basically a bed with a ventilator available–for purposes of this discussion.

        I don’t think they need to wait for the number of cases to exceed the number of beds before they reimpose lockdowns, but right now, the number of cases isn’t exceeding the number of beds–at least not anywhere large enough to have a big impact on the economy.

        That’s what the market fears–a return to lockdowns. There is a greater risk of that now that the infection rate increased with the end of the lockdowns, and the markets are digesting that increased risk. However, there are no signs presently that lockdowns need to be reimposed.

        There is always the chance that some idiot governor will reimpose lockdowns for some stupid reason, but looking at the number of hospital beds available for COVID-19 patients, the risk of them actually imposing another round of lockdowns for rational reasons appears to be low–for the time being. That could change as new data becomes available.

        No one smart ever said that infection rates would stay the same or decline if there were no more lockdowns. The smart ones just said that the cost of the lockdowns was far worse than whatever benefits we were getting.

    2. Mandate or no, you should wear a mask if you are in a rising case area. We are travel banned from Europe, while most of the world is going to be returning to business without us. It’s embarrassing.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

      1. One of the problems with progressives is that because they’re defined by their eagerness to use the coercive power of government to force people to do things against their will for their own good, it’s practically impossible to tell the difference between a progressive who’s trying to persuade you to do something of your own free will and a progressive who wants to arrest you if you don’t do what you’re told.

        1. How about just ignore the progressives as much as you can as you do what is best for you and the people around you? You can turn your attention to them if they demand it through government mandate and force, or come election time, but otherwise don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. My advice, anyway.

          Wear a mask when indoors with a bunch of people. It’s not a big deal. I want to sell a bunch of American steel and engineering to Europeans.

          1. Why can’t we just do what we’re told when it’s in our best interests to do as we’re told?

            Spoken like a true progressive.

            The intellectually precise answer to that question is “Eat Shit and Die”.

            1. When Ken Shultz is essentially telling you to Eat Shit and Die—and in three sentences, no less!—-you’ve lost the room.

              One of the most levelheaded posters here, and he can’t stand you either.

              1. Lol. Lost the room. In the room full of morons who hate all the writing and reporting here, but love pjmedia and breitbart, I expect to lose it.

                1. Ken was not precise enough. Lemme try:

                  Fuck off, eat shit, and die in a fire, Tony. You’re a jackbooted thug slaver. Also a wilful ignoramus.

            2. Not what I said at all, Ken. I said you should wear a mask, mandated or not because it is the scientifically and morally right thing to do. I suggested you ignore these culture war nonsense points, and just do what is right.

              If you catch yourself mischaracterizing someone’s position in order to make it easier to argue against, you’ve lost your impartiality.

              1. “I said you should wear a mask, mandated or not because it is the scientifically and morally right thing to do. I suggested you ignore these culture war nonsense points, and just do what is right.”

                Within the context of this conversation, you’re essentially saying we shouldn’t let attacks on our autonomy influence our choices.

                Unfortunately for you and your inclinations, 1) autonomy is the stuff that happiness is made of, and 2) respect for other people’s agency is the difference between right and wrong.

                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/bouncing-back/201106/the-no-1-contributor-happiness

                Not only is autonomy more important than whatever you’re trying to make people do to plenty of people, but your claim to be acting morally is directly contradicted by your obliviousness to the importance of respecting other people’s agency.

                The issue isn’t that I don’t understand what you’re saying. The issue is that I see exactly what you’re saying–and it’s disgusting.

                1. I said nothing about mandates and therefor nothing about imposing on peoples’ rights. I side stepped all of that and said to just wear a mask because it will help get the pandemic over sooner. That’s it. Everything else is your reactionary interpretation.

                  For the record, I don’t think governments can or should put people in jail for not wearing a mask. I do think private companies and individuals have every right to make whatever rules on their property as they see fit, including mask wearing.

              2. I said you should wear a mask, mandated or not because it is the scientifically and morally right thing to do

                From the flat-earthers at the New England Journal of Medicine:

                We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

                “Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era”

                1. Or you could look at a meta study that goes over the dozens of studies done on this topic, instead of cherry picking a study that fits your worldview, and discarding studies that class with your worldview.

                  1. “HEY YOU POSTED SOMETHING THAT CONTRADICTED ME NOT FAIR”

                    1. Not true at all. I could pick several dozens studies showing the opposite, which is why I posted the meta-review for you guys. Jeesh.

            3. He literally just made a pitch for voluntarism. And you have a knee-jerk reaction of calling De Oppresso Liber a progressive, because anyone to the right of you is apparently a progressive.

              1. He was responding to my comment. Look at my comment.

                He did not literally make a pitch for voluntarism. He tried to rationalize using the coercive power of government.

                1. No, Ken. I did not. I said “mandate or no…” which is quite correctly a plea for voluntarism.

                  The “libertarians” in here (although I’ve noticed many have chosen to disavow that title and throw in with the trump cult) think that doing something out of courtesy and responsibility is “sheep”-like behavior. You had LC1789 in here during the lockdown bragging about making shop clerks afraid by standing in their personal space. It’s disgusting and counter productive for both libertarianism and society in general.

                  1. As reprehensible as loveconstitution1789 was, and as much as I’ve mocked him, I sincerely hope he is not gone because he got sick (or worse) from COVID-19.

                    1. I wouldn’t want that for him either. I think he was/is mentally ill. He claimed to have multiple armored personnel carriers at one point.

                    2. What?!

      2. Oh NOW the left likes travel bans.

        Got it.

        The literature on mask wearing is inconclusive. In order to mandate it, in my view, is to show HARD evidence backing it works.

        Again. Anything below N95/KF94 is hit or miss. It’s psychological and the way they get people to bend to it is ‘you should wear it to respect others.’ /jack off motion.

        That’s the best they’ve got. And on top of that people don’t use/wear the masks well and on top of THAT, they throw them in the streets like the thoughtless dumbass sheep they are so a turtle could choke on it.

        1. Nobody likes travel bans, rufus. Try reading a little more carefully. And I linked a peer reviewed meta review of mask effectiveness. The science is in.

          I don’t want to be travel banned, because economic activity is highly related to the ability to enter another fucking country. But I am travel banned, largely because of my moron country men and their moron president have decided the best course of action is to try to gaslight everyone about the virus.

          See Trump’s newest strategy of just not testing for it. If the numbers make us look bad, just don’t count! Makes perfect sense, if you are a toddler, or a goldbricking trust fund baby and lifelong conman.

          https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/23/trump-joking-slowing-coronavirus-testing-335459

          1. The overall point is ‘bans’ were ‘rrrracist’.

            1. Which makes no sense, still, since no one is defending travel bans here. And furthermore, a travel ban over a pandemic is different than a travel ban because muslims.

          2. “And I linked a peer reviewed meta review of mask effectiveness. The science is in.”
            Yes, and you should read your links before making an ass of yourself:
            “The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial,”
            The science is IN: they *might* be beneficial!
            Hope you like your face-diaper.

            1. No, I posted a meta study which found, overwhelmingly, that masks have a positive impact. You cherry picking the study that suits your politics is a perfect example of how not to use studies.

              1. I quoted your study, you fucking ignoramus.

                1. Try reading the whole thing first.

              2. For fuck sakes, you don’t even know what a meta study is or does. God damn you’re dumb.

          3. He’s your president too, no matter how far along your TDS has progressed. Haha it’s fun to watch you cry!

          4. “The science is in.”

            Poor Lying Jeffy doesn’t know what science means.

        2. I love the photo of a woman carrying a sign with a mask picture covered by the circle-slash “no” symbol saying “my body, my choice”.

      3. “Mandate or no, you should wear a mask if you are in a rising case area.”

        Scared of catching something? Go crawl in a hole.
        Your health is your concern, not mine.

      4. You mean various spike can happen at different times in different parts of the world? You’ll be shocked when you learn the trend happened in different parts of even this country!

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-casualties/who-official-european-deaths-spike-since-march-linked-to-covid-19-idUSKBN2341K2

      5. If you are embarrassed by the performance of the rest of the world vs us you are an idiot.

        The US has been precisely middling compared to the rest of Europe. Some countries like Germany and Norway have done much better, still others like Belgium, France, UK, Italy and Spain. In all, the US is right in the middle along with countries like the Netherlands and Ireland. And indeed, if it weren’t for the tristate area, we would look amazing.

        The extent to which Europe will use this as an excuse to restrict our trade is no different than when they were using scares about GMOs to protect their farmers. That you are embarrassed about it is more a commentary on you than on the state of the US health.

        1. The unfortunate thing about Lying Jeffy is that he is very dumb, but it often goes unnoticed because of how incredibly dishonest he is.

    3. they are already giving people in California no trespassing tickets the problem with that is if your town only has a few stores.

  13. “obsessed with cultural power at the expense of economic transformation”

    IOW modern American progressives care deeply about toppling statues of dead white males — and not so much about fighting living white male billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Charles Koch. Which is what I’ve been saying for years. And which explains why progressives are natural allies for Koch / Reason libertarians.

    #ProgressivesAreEffectivelyProBillionaire

    1. Why do you keep doing this? Is it really that much fun? I have to admit you’ve kept it up much longer than I ever expected.

      1. He’s actually the smartest one of us all. When the proggies take control and start disappearing anyone with independent thought, he’ll be safe because the proggies are incapable of processing sarcasm and humor. They’ll see him as one of their own and he will be able to survive.

    1. Where are the san culottes (the deplorables) when you need them?

    2. I laughed personally at ‘Alexa, what is a guillotine’.

  14. A Minneapolis Neighborhood Vowed to Check Its Privilege. It’s Already Being Tested.
    Blocks from where George Floyd drew his last breaths, residents have vowed to avoid the police to protect people of color. The commitment is hard to keep.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/minneapolis-george-floyd-police.html

    After the death of George Floyd at the hands of the police, Ms. Albers, who is white, and many of her progressive neighbors have vowed to avoid calling law enforcement into their community. Doing so, they believed, would add to the pain that black residents of Minneapolis were feeling and could put them in danger.

    Already, that commitment is being challenged. Two weeks ago, dozens of multicolored tents appeared in the neighborhood park. They were brought by homeless people who were displaced during the unrest that gripped the city. The multiracial group of roughly 300 new residents seems to grow larger and more entrenched every day. They do laundry, listen to music and strategize about how to find permanent housing. Some are hampered by mental illness, addiction or both.

    Their presence has drawn heavy car traffic into the neighborhood, some from drug dealers. At least two residents have overdosed in the encampment and had to be taken away in ambulances.

    1. Think of it as evolution in action.

    2. Like I’ve said before, fuck ’em. If they want to continue to let these semi-feral predators shit up their nest, let them. I’m sure the last thing that will go through these white leftists’ minds–besides the machete–will be the question of why their tolerance didn’t save them from elimination.

    3. They were brought by homeless people who were displaced during the unrest that gripped the city.

      *MAKES HIGHLY DOUBT IT FACE*

  15. Court: Injured officer can sue Black Lives Matter organizer
    https://apnews.com/7359886a9d534c758a6ab07b22e6f0b2

    BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A Louisiana police officer injured during protests over the 2016 killing of a black man can sue a Black Lives Matter organizer on the grounds he acted negligently by leading people to block a highway, a federal appeals court has ruled.

    The Baton Rouge officer, identified only as John Doe in court records, had sued DeRay Mckesson and others who gathered as part of the Black Lives Matter movement after police fatally shot Alton Sterling, The Advocate reported. A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in 2017, citing First Amendment rights and noting Black Lives Matter was too loosely organized to sue.

    1. The cop should be suing the individual who threw the object.

      1. The same way the little old lady who burned herself with hot McDonalds coffee should sue the drive thru worker who handed it to her or the employee who turned on the percolator that morning or the worker that installed and set up the percolator, or the franchise owner who had the installer set the percolator to the ‘scald’ setting…

        Weird how, when we don’t like the victim we suddenly decide that people’s ability to sue is too broad.

        1. A protest isn’t a juridical person unlike employers who have legal identity. That’s the difference.

          1. He didn’t sue the protest. He sued the juridical people who organized it. McDonalds didn’t employ the employee who burned the old lady, the franchise owner did.

            Dumbfuck.

            1. I accept that the cop is suing an individual. He’s suing the wrong individual.

              1. What court are you in charge of again?

    2. There are several elements of a negligence case you must prove in court in order for your negligence claim to be successful:

      Duty: the other party owed you a duty of care;

      Breach of Duty: the other party failed to meet that duty;

      Cause in Fact: but for the other party’s failure, you would not have been injured;

      Proximate Cause: the other party’s failure (and not something else) caused your injury; and

      Damages: you have actually been injured and suffered some loss.

      In this case the officer will not be able to show that Mckesson’s actions were the proximate cause of his injury because his injury was the result of an intentional tort.

      1. In this case the officer will not be able to show that Mckesson’s actions were the proximate cause of his injury because his injury was the result of an intentional tort.

        You know because you’ve seen evidence the judge hasn’t?

        My guess is you’re just stupid enough to think having a modicum of legal training and access to Google means you can pull stuff out of your ass on the internet and have everyone acknowledge your acumen.

        1. “You’re just stupid enough to think…”

          You’re describing yourself. Read the opinion. The 5th circuit isn’t saying the cop has proved his case. The cop has to show that Mckesson’s negligence was the proximate cause of his injury but he will not be able to do so because his injury was caused the intentional act of some unknown person. It’s really just basic tort law.

    3. he acted negligently by leading people to block a highway

      But has the number of people blocking the highway been clearly established as a violation of civil rights? If not, then case dismissed.

      1. Juice, that might work if qualified immunity were available as a defense for the BLM leaders. Obviously, it’s not. Further, it’s not only likely foreseeable that their protest would lead to blocking the streets, it’s likely the intent of the protest organizers. Which discovery should…well, discover.

        1. Irony definitely noted, though, that a cop is suing over conduct that if a cop did it, could be excused.

    1. You are on a real junk food media kick here. Careful with that.

      1. The language in these articles is hilarious. Can you not see how this is intentionally written so as to hyper stimulate your fear response? Notice the odd and ill fitting use of violence words like “threaten”, “targeted for destruction”. Folks, they are describing local elections and school board meetings, not the vigilante mob you envision when reading these things. This is 100x worse than anything from vox or salon. You are poisoning your mind.

        “Here in Oregon, the small, rural, conservative-leaning towns of Estacada and Mollala have recently seen elected officials threatened with recall. In Oregon City, a medium-sized city south of Portland, a protest group has organized a recall against the mayor. The suburb of Gresham saw resignations from its mayor, city manager, and chief of police. And in Salem, the state’s capital, several school board members have been targeted for destruction.”

        1. “…Can you not see how this is intentionally written so as to hyper stimulate your fear response?..”

          So they’ve watched how CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo handle coverage of Trump and the ‘rona?
          That sort of fear-mongering from junk food media?

          1. But Lying Jeffy worships those media outlets, so it’s different.

            1. I don’t worship any of them. I prefer reuters, bbc, pbs/npr, and politco and the hill for more focused analysis. I’ll read the atlantic if I want a glimpse at the “elites”‘ current thinking.

              1. Nobody cares Lying Jeffy.

                1. So you don’t care about facts….so you are a dishonest liar.

                  1. Lol. Not caring what you prefer makes me dishonest? So you don’t know what dishonest means. Explains how you don’t think you’re dishonest, because you care about your preferences! That’s hilarious really.

      2. junk food media kick

        Tell us again about the 1619 Project and maybe Voxplain it.

        1. Remember, DoL is the guy who is still pushing the Trump Hotel/Russian bank conspiracy theory.

          1. Not pushing anything. Stating the facts repeatedly that you don’t like to hear. Everything I talk about was done in the open, usually on video.

            1. And you’ve ignored every public debunking of said “facts” even by the MSM. And theories are not facts. When the FBI and other experts come out and basically say the hotel to bank server story is full of shit, you should change your views. You dont.

              You think if it was once theorized in the media and you agree with it, it is a fact. That’s not what a fact is dummy.

              1. Don Jr. didn’t take a meeting with a Russian spy and then lie about it through 4 iterations? I wonder why donny jr would cop to it, then?

                1. So you’re walking back your assertion about the hotel to bank? No you aren’t. You’ll repeat it again tomorrow. Because you’re an ignorant fuck.

        2. Post a comment of mine in which I cite either of those.

  16. Conservative Principles Never Require You to Submit to Tyranny
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/06/25/conservative-principles-never-require-you-to-submit-to-tyranny-n2571207

    There’s a basic rule that far too many conservatives ignore: if some alleged conservative principle makes you less free, then it’s not a good conservative principle and you should toss it in the trash. After all, principles are merely shorthand for the best practices of a just society. When some alleged principle helps leftists enserf-ify you, then it’s a pretty Schiffy principle, isn’t it?

    Weaponizing principles is one of the left’s favorite tactics, and it’s right out of Alinsky 101. Rule for Radical No. 4 is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” And it works really well, right up until the moment that you stop playing by the rules that the left is trying to jam down your throat.

    Now, the objection to my view – offered in good faith by good faith conservatives (you old softies) and in bad faith by the cruise-shilling Fredocon hacks who make common cause with our enemies – is that this kind of wokeness makes one unprincipled. It doesn’t. Those of us who see what’s happening and refuse to go full lemming – never go full lemming – are not abandoning conservative principles. We’re just not trying to hold onto the alleged principles that have abandoned us.

    1. But another conservative principle is freedom of expression. This is distinct from the First Amendment, which bars the government from preventing or punishing free speech. The left makes a great deal of this distinction – “Cancelling you racist sexist cisgender monsters does not violate the First Amendment, and individual and companies have a right not to do business with anyone they want” – when we seek to use our power to correct these outrages. The lib objection sounds plausible, until you understand that individuals and companies punishing you by preventing you from earning a livelihood is as much of a punishment as the government coming and punishing you under criminal law – except in the cancellation kangaroo court you have no rights, no due process, and no appeal. And, in fact, this is not even an accurate representation of the allegedly operative principle. We already bar individuals and companies from discriminating on the basis of many attributes – race, sex, religion. What’s the – wait for it! – principle that bars all that kind of garbage invidious discrimination, yet somehow requires us to accept invidious discrimination on the basis of our political views, specifically views that are pro-American?

    2. After all, liberals control almost all the major institutions of society. The premise that a coder can just go across the street to a more tolerant version of Google, or that an oppressed professor can go grab tenure at one of the myriad conservative colleges, is nonsense. They have the power that comes from infiltrating institutions, but we have the power that comes from winning elections, yet we’re not supposed to use our power to enact laws that protect ourselves when the left uses its power against us without restraint?

      Nope, not buying it. The politicians we support should be aggressively pushing regulation and legislation to protect our rights. “BUT CONSERVATIVES ARE SUPPOSED TO HATE REGULATION!” Yeah, maybe, but we definitely hate being oppressed. After all, any principle that is construed in a manner that makes us second-class citizens, unable to speak without the threat of retaliation, is not a principle worth having.

    1. We can take the endowments of every university named after a slave owner or racist and use that.

      #CancelYale

      1. Indeed. Most universities have problematic pasts. Take their endowments and give them away. Then cut their funding 100%.

    2. Absolutely!
      Egypt needs to go first, paying reparations for 400 years of Israeli slavery.

      1. Germanic tribes owe some big money to the celts and basques too.

  17. “Police reform in the Senate is falling apart.”

    Scott was right, the Democrats would rather that there be no police reform at all than allow for the perception that Republicans could offer something to communities of color. Also, it certainly didn’t help that you had the Speaker of the House saying Republicans were complicit in murder.

    1. Democrats are wisely waiting until next year to address police reform. Why waste time letting the party of backwardness and bigotry try to diminish and delay reform? Wait until you have the votes to do the work while the clingers mutter lamely from the sidelines.

      1. So you’re saying you’re fine with more people dying because you’re impotent.

        1. Naah.
          Asshole-bigot is just spouting his normal stinking pile of shit. If it makes sense, it’s not his fault.

        2. And here you are acknowledging police are murdering people and that existing law is powerless to stop it.

      2. Democrats are being obstructionists because they hate real reform, just like you.

      3. Passing a bill is delaying reform. War is peace. Black is White

      4. Wait a year so Republicans can’t delay it? Fuck your stupid.

  18. Nunes — is he the yahoo with a degree in cow-milking and a taste for conspiracy theories in the service of backwardness and bigotry? The guy who gets his ass kicked, repeatedly, in and out of courtrooms, by an illusory cow?

    That guy? Let’s hope he inherited enough money to pay his legal fees.

    1. No, you’re thinking of Adam Schiff.

    2. Must have been his evil twin brother that was right all along about the Hillary/DNC propaganda fueled coup following the last presidential election.
      I notice no one has yet asked Joe Biden if he will accept the results of the 2020 presidential election.

      1. That’s because, once again, his victory is certain so the only person they need to ask that of is Trump.

        /sarc

        That said, if Trump does lose I do not expect him to go quietly into that good night. I don’t expect that of any politician that loses, and I don’t know why anyone else does expect them to.

        Does no one else here remember hanging chads?

      2. That’s because Biden isn’t aware that the year is 2020, or that he’s running for president. He thinks its the 80s and he’s running for senator.

  19. Parler App is seeing unprecedented growth due to its free speech platform, actual free speech. So of course the media is out to make sure they can shut down the platform.

    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/06/24/media-attack-parler/

    1. The media can’t shut it down. That’s the point. Parler may be the best market-based solution to Twitter.

      1. That’s not true. If the media can successfully paint them as entirely racist and alt-right, they can push the backbone carrier or certificate authority or financial institution to cut them off. Already precedent for that.

        1. And that’s the hard(er) socialist solution.

          Soft socialist solution is to guarantee that no one who posts predominantly to Parler ever gets front page or top billing in the news cycle or, if they post to Parler, bend the knee to one or more SJW causes first. Ignoring actual important and factual news in order to advance a narrative and/or drown out voices is MO at this point. Between Weinstein, Epstein, and Russiagate, it’s pretty obvious that the media will amplify fake news to 11 in order to drown out real news, even real news that they themselves will pick up weeks later.

          1. Certainly. Merely painting the site as “StormFront II, The Revenge of StormFront” could certainly make the site toxic enough that polite society so it remains forever in the margins. That’s what the media was doing to Gab, if I recall.

      2. Leo… at this point I’m going to honestly ask you… Do you think the Media has no power at all in shutting down avenues of funding and other sources for companies? Because I can show you many many examples of media reporters calling companies and having them disassociate work with people the media doesn’t like.

        Is this naivete on your part or just plain chosen ignorance?

        1. I believe the right seriously over-amplifies the power of the media. There are obviously cases where the media reporting on a story leads to funding drying up, but cancel culture seems to eat the right and the left alike. Most Americans simply don’t care.

          I don’t think that people en masse are going to allow the media to shut down companies for relatively mainstream ideas like those espoused by Chik-fil-A or Hobby Lobby. Those companies seem to be doing pretty well.

          Let’s wait and see what happens with Parler before making the claim that the media is already trying to shut them down, when no real evidence yet exists.

    2. I didn’t see anything in that article about shutting it down. I see criticism from competing media outlets, as would be expected. Sorry people notice the high volume of Q-cult and “Michelle Obama is a tranny” posts on your new twitter alternative. This is where I would normally make a quip about your safe space and your blankie, but this is getting so pathetic, I can’t be bothered.

      1. I’m pretty sure Twitter has a huge load of the same crap.

        It’s called ‘the internet’.

        1. I believe it’s the proportion which is notable. Which would be expected, given the entire marketing around this thing.

          1. Not really when Twitter probably has a few million, if not billion, users compared to…really any other number. The odd’s are pretty good that Twitter probably has way worse shit on it, given that more people almost always equals more assholes. Plus they’re international, and I can tell you people in other countries are straight up overtly racist on a regular basis that would shock your typical American.

            If the concentration of idiots is higher on one platform over the other, the only reason I can think of for it is that some people are just too stupid to create another Twitter account.

            Twitter bans mean precisely jack shit, unless you’re someone relying on a blue check mark I guess.

      2. That’s because you’re an idiot. Again, there are many many stories of media calling banks, funding sources, and others to disassociate business with things the media doesn’t like.

        1. I’m an idiot because the thing you claimed was in your source wasn’t there, and it’s not even close? Jesse, you used to offer at least a warm-up difficulty level debate.

          1. Jeff. You are not capable of rational thought.

          2. “I’m an idiot”

            The most honest comment you’ve ever made.

      3. The story last week in which Google forced the Federalist to close its comments was the result of a division of NBC News trying to convince Google to defund the Federalist of ad revenue Google controls an overwhelming share of the internet ad market because The Federalist criticized MSM reporting on the riots.

        This is an ongoing pattern of behavior by Big Media to marginalize outlets not under their or their allies control.

  20. Local story:

    Joe Biden may have ‘personally raised’ idea to investigate Michael Flynn
    https://nypost.com/2020/06/24/biden-may-have-personally-raised-idea-to-investigate-flynn/

    “According to Strzok’s notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act,” defense lawyers Jesse Binnall and Sidney Powell wrote.

    ”That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn.”

    The revelation contradicts Biden’s claim of total ignorance regarding the Flynn probe when he was vice president, which he was asked about during a May 12 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

    1. Odd how Watergate, the scandal of the century at the time and resulting in the resignation of the Leader of the Free World, did not deter a Democrat President whatsoever.

      In the least.

      If only John Dean had used active duty CIA and FBI people to spy on Nixon’s political opponents instead of the retired Hunt and Liddy.

    2. The revelation contradicts Biden’s claim of total ignorance regarding the Flynn probe when he was vice president, which he was asked about during a May 12 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

      It’s entirely possible that Biden actually doesn’t remember any of that on account of his increasing senility.

  21. “If the idea of Trump and [new Voice of America head Michael] Pack, a documentary filmmaker and comrade of Steve Bannon, running the U.S. government’s news and propaganda operations alarms you,” writes Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer, maybe it’s time to consider canceling the whole operation.”

    This is one of those rare instances where someone in politics accidentally says what’s really going on. He’s nakedly coming out and saying “if we don’t get to be in charge of the government funded propaganda machine, nobody does.”

  22. Judge Marshall rejected Nunes’ argument that Section 230—the federal law shielding internet companies from some legal liability for things created by their users or customers—did not apply in this case because of Twitter’s supposed bias against conservatives. That’s because (contrary to current conservative talking points) there’s actually no neutrality requirement in Section 230.

    This is a complete misrepresentation of what Nunes lawsuit was and why 230 needs to be struck down. Nunes argument was that Twitter was negligent in rule enforcement due to its arbitrary and capricious enforcement of its rules and terms of service. His argument was based on negligence, not based on publisher doctrine. This is clearly spelled out in the Nunes lawsuit.

    This is the current problem with section 230. It has been twisted and contorted by Silicon Valley judges to include other aspects of the law beyond defamation. It was used to block contractual claims in the Meagan Murphy lawsuit. It has now been used to block negligence claims for Nunes. 230 has become a complete defense for anyone seeking to raise any normal complaints consumers have against a business. Virtually every business is subject to contract issues and negligence issues. But 230 has now granted liability protections over these issues for SV despite the law not issuing protections for those aspects of law.

    1. there’s actually no neutrality requirement in Section 230.

      It’s like a retarded Monty Python sketch. You ask these disingenuous shitbags for a car that works with a radio and, when you get in the car and the engine doesn’t turn over, they turn on the radio and say, ‘See? It works!’ Worse still about the exceptionally maloderous shitbag ENB is that, in two weeks or two months, when Congress is moving to pass legislation that modifies section 230, she’ll come back bitching about how the car doesn’t work like it’s supposed to.

      There is no neutrality requirement, which means Congress *or whomever they abdicate their authority to* gets to decide what constitutes good faith moderation without any concern for truth, accuracy, or fair play/even handedness.

      The issue never was about neutrality, the issue was about protection without any guarantee of neutrality or non-intervention. Passive-aggressive assholes think they can just be perpetually passive-aggressive, it’s worked so far and as long as they get their way. They don’t realize that they’re effectively forcing someone to punch them in the face first and then say no.

      1. Perhaps Nunes screwed himself by even mentioning Section 230 instead of just filing for breach of contract. Or maybe he did?

        Either way; it would be one heck of a hearing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a breach had occurred and being that twitter doesn’t charge it’s direct customers makes it even harder to establish.

    2. Striking down 230 would be a great way to entrench the current tech behemoths and fuck over upstart competitors like Parler

      1. How is enforcing contract law and negligenceaws against big companies a threat to small business? I mean sure if you ignore current anti competitive practices by big tech that get hand waived away under the guise of 230, youd have a point.

      2. So, what you’re saying is that without section 230, the 1A doesn’t apply to the internet?

        Think long and hard about your answer. Take your time.

  23. Peaceful Protesters in Tampa call in a fake shooting to 911 in order to get cops to respond, ambush them.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/25/the-media-swept-a-massive-police-ambush-in-tampa-bay-under-the-rug/

    Local News.

    1. What do I care of Target has some inventory damaged?

      1. When your local Target closes because of those costs, and you have to drive quite a bit further to find the same items elsewhere, you’ll care then,

    2. I’m absolutely amazed there hasn’t been a pile of rioter bodies yet from one of these. Bricks and bottles thrown at cops in this situation are things that can easily commit serious bodily injury. And the cops were surrounded—it’s not like they could have just hopped back into their car and fled.

      Betcha Reason and the rest of the media will cover it though when a cop or storekeeper or homeowner has to shoot their way out of one of these armed mobs. I can already see the, “To be sure,” and “Both sides share some blame…”

      1. The cops in the blue cities are on a leash–they know the mayors and DAs are going to throw them under the bus, so they don’t unleash with everything they have.

        That shit’s a lot different once you get outside the “downtown” zone. Apparently there was a march in Richmond, VA that was heading towards the suburbs past the county line. They got to within half a mile of the line, stopped, and dispersed. Apparently someone remembered that past those lines, the cops and residents aren’t nearly as sympathetic, and were likely to be itching for an excuse to kill them and dump them in the woods.

        These people might be brave in numbers in their urban safe zones, but they do NOT believe in the cause enough to actually risk their lives for it if they think their target will respond with deadly force. That’s why it’s important for hinterland militias to be formed and ready, in case these feral animals try to start shit outside their safe zone where they can destroy property at will. Don’t go to downtown areas unless you absolutely have to, and if you have to go there for work, start looking for a job that isn’t in a big city where you can still pay your bills. These blue city mayors and blue state governors do not give a squirt of piss for your family’s safety or well-being–in fact, they believe you deserve to suffer because of America’s original sin–so you’ll have to rely on forming high-trust bonds with neighbors.

        1. “The cops in the blue cities are on a leash–they know the mayors and DAs are going to throw them under the bus, so they don’t unleash with everything they have.”

          That may be, but the thing about a riot is that nobody has control over what happens once the fighting starts. The cops may indeed be very loathe to defend themselves, and that may change once one of those two gets knocked out by a brick and the mob starts to swarm them. Or, maybe they’ll never defend themselves, and we’ll get to watch footage of the mob dragging the cops’ bodies around the streets, a la Mogadishu or Baghdad.

          It’s coming.

          1. we almost had it a few weeks ago in NYC, there was a case where a couple of cops were surrounded by rioters and the supervisor with the group was cracked over the head with a brick (he had a helmet luckily). One of the cops at that point pulled out his gun, and that was enough to get the mob to back off, but afterward you had all the news stations talking about how the cops were “threatening innocent protesters”, the lying sacks of shit

      2. Betcha Reason and the rest of the media will cover it though when a cop or storekeeper or homeowner has to shoot their way out of one of these armed mobs.

        Cops yes. Storekeepers or homeowners, no. Multiple merchants, bystanders, and others have been killed or forced out of their businesses and families forced from their homes or forced to just accept whatever terrorizing conditions the mob gives them. Covering these people disrupts the peaceful protest and successful progressive social justice narrative. The only ones we hear from are the ones who say things like ‘Other than setting fire in the rectory, they were a peaceful group.’

        Jorge Gomez (25): Was shot and killed by Las Vegas police during riots near the state’s federal courthouse. Gomez, wearing body armor and armed with three weapons, raised his gun toward officers before being fatally shot.

        1. I meant if said shopkeeper was something like a 3-Gun competitor in her spare time, and stacked up an even half dozen or so rioters. I’m sorry, ‘unarmed peaceful protesters’. The media would cover that.

          You’re right that they could give two shits about the ordinary people physically harmed or financially ruined by these rioters.

    3. This was the same kind of shit that Pablo Escobar did in Colombia.

      Congratulations, lefties and cosmos, we’re now at the same societal level as a third-world narco-state.

      1. All in the game, if the desired end state is something like Brazil.

  24. Peter Strozk notes just got released basically insinuating that Obama and Biden personally directed the FBI and Department of Justice to go after Flynn with the “right people” but sure let’s mock Devin Nune’s dumbass lawsuit. Basically every tinfoil hat wearer was proven right about Russiagate including Nunes who was routinely mocked as a joke(he is) while Schiff was taken at his word(an even bigger clown).

    1. Chuck Colson of Watergate fame was sentenced to prison for possessing a single FBI file on a political rival.

      What’s the penalty for a President employing the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State wins the Presidency?

      1. None, FYTW. Progressive Privilege. There is no rule of law.

    2. I for one am sorry to hear about Peter Strozk’s impending suicide

      1. Maybe he can drown in a pool? Or has that been overused?

        1. he’ll probably suicide by repeated knife stabs to the face. Btw, any update on Philip Haney’s death or are we just gonna keep pretending that never happened?

          1. For all her skill at her enemies coming up with increasingly novel means of dying by natural causes, it’s flatly incredible that she didn’t win in 2016.

  25. DOJ Whistleblower caught off guard, has to admit he sought to get a job on the Democratic committee overseeing the Trump impeachment.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-whistleblower-admits-seeking-job-with-house-democrats-during-trump-impeachment

    1. At least you guys are consistent with your “ignore the facts, attack the source” strategy.

      1. That’s rich coming up from you of all people.

      2. Tell us more about the Trump hotel/Russia servers or the Trump loans from China.

        1. Which are facts. Factually, the president’s son and campaign manager took a meeting from a woman claiming to be working on behalf of the Russian government offering illegal campaign assistance in the form of electronically stolen property. The president’s son and campaign manager failed to report this meeting, and in fact went through several iterations of lies before something resembling the truth came out. Don Jr. perjured himself before congress over this.

          On Chinese loans, Trump org does have 1/2 billion in foreign held loans coming due in the next 2 or 3 years. Much of it is personally guaranteed by Trump, because he is such a poor credit risk. If the president being in debt to foreigners is no big deal to you, then I don’t know what to tell you.

          There is also the nagging little issue of Trump taking actions to “protect jobs in China” a la ZTE, right after a Trump project received a massive loan on favorable terms from China.

          This is why we usually demand that presidents divest. Clear and unmistakable conflicts of interest. Just because you cultists decided that Reagan was just some asshole who never said “Trust, but verify,” doesn’t mean the rest of us have moved on to a post-accountability world too.

          I don’t even know who reported those first. So your point about it being rich that I notice you criticize sources instead of facts is…

          1. You keep using this word ‘facts’. I do not think it means what you think it means.


          2. This is why we usually demand that presidents divest.

            Go ahead, make that case. I’d love to hear more about your opinions on divestment.

            1. Avoid obvious and possibly hidden conflicts of interest.

              There, that was easy.

              1. So, that’s your whole case? Avoid conflicts of interest, real or imagined?

                Sure, ok. Lets put Biden and Trump in jail, along with every other politician.

                You game?

                1. Does Biden have a bunch of foreign debt and equity?

          3. Politico pulled their China loan story two days after they published it you ignorant fuck.

      3. By the way, which facts are you actually defending from his testimony. Be clear and precise.

        1. That Trump and Barr are using prosecutorial power to further their political aims, not for pursuing justice. They are not applying the law in an even and blind manner. They went after cannabis businesses with anti trust investigations only to inconvenience the companies with asinine and expensive document demands. They knew there was no anti trust case, Barr just wanted to use his power to hurt people he doesn’t like. There’s more, of course.

          Which facts are you critiquing? Be precise.

          1. lol… Antitrust in the cannabis business? Isn’t that like charging Al Capone for running a monopoly on alcohol… I’m all in favor of throwing the federal drug laws under a bus but if I’m not mistaken; it’s still a federal law.

            1. If anything it seems Trump is just as good as any other prior President in declining to go after States who are explicitly violating federal law. The Fed has the jurisdiction and you can’t just pass a State law to circumvent them.

              All legal pot business owes their entire existence to the President for actively choosing to not put them out of business at their leisure. Yes, it is exactly as bad as it sounds.

              It was exactly the same with Obama. All of them have poked the ‘legal businesses’ with their enforcement sticks when it suits them, but everyone just sort of goes along with it and tries not to complain loudly enough to get squashed like a bug on the highway.

          2. Those arent facts dummy. You’ve listed an opinion of a partisan, based on facts, as a fact

            1. That’s factually what 2 whistleblowers are reporting. if you want to engage those facts, then please do. You seem to be waiting for your talking points on whistleblower #2, though. Don’t worry, I’m sure someone will find an instance of him being cordial to a democrat voter once, or something. Maybe a nevertrumper deepstate antifa super spy!

              1. AN OPINION FROM A PARTISAN IS NOT A FACT.

                Jesus fucking christ.

  26. “If the idea of Trump and [new Voice of America head Michael] Pack, a documentary filmmaker and comrade of Steve Bannon, running the U.S. government’s news and propaganda operations alarms you,” writes Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer”

    Iranian dissidents called VOA Persian the Voice of the Mullahs over the last 12 years, and were horrified by how it parroted Tehran propaganda, and Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer didn’t give a shit until now… because Orange Hitler.

    1. Yeah, if whatever they’re calling VOA, now, is just parroting the same progressive bullshit we get from our own media, then maybe we should just pipe the tripe they’re selling at CNN and save the taxpayer a few bucks?

      The military might object that broadcasting CNN and MSNBC is actually aiding the enemy, but if that’s what it’s doing, maybe the American people need to hear that from the military.

    2. I’m sure Valerie Jarrett was completely ignorant of all of that.

  27. “stop publishing studies that claim to predict an individual’s criminality using algorithms trained on … criminal statistics”

    OK. Now stop with the climate change predictions based on climate statistics.

  28. Ah. David French.

    1. ever look at a guy and just know he’d love to lead a Crusade?

  29. The RCMP should change its motto to ‘Women mounties always get their women’. Diversity you know?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqmzqjibncY&feature=youtu.be

    1. I feel bad for laughing but they’re both so jaw-droppingly stupid.

      1. My favorite part was the Indian guy who wasn’t quite sure if Canadian etiquette says he should hold the door for them or not.

  30. “content is moderated based off the FCC and the Supreme court of the United States which enables free expression without violence and a lack of censorship.” Huh?

    I think I know what they’re trying to say here, and if I’m correct, it’s admirable. But it’s just a guess.

  31. It cannot be disputed that the Obama administration, led by Obama, attempted an illegal, wide-ranging, and multi-level attempted coup of the incoming POTUS.

    The silence at REASON is fucking DEAFENING.

    It cannot be explained.

    This is not a non-story. It is THE fucking story of the last 4 years.

    Scumbags.

    1. Tom, don’t you know…it is OK to use the government to attack people Reason finds icky.

      1. Double standards are the best standards because that means ENB gets to have twice as many as less principled people.

        1. Does she have to make twice as many sandwiches?

    2. Civil liberties are for those who get with the program. Some animals are more equal than others.

  32. The idea that you need to retrain your employees so that they can work together without microaggressing isn’t Marxism, cultural or otherwise; it’s just a novel form of Fordism pointless, annoying virtue signaling and a jobs program for Victimhood Studies majors

    FTFY.

  33. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/rioters-vandalize-memorial-to-victims-of-communism/

    Rioters Vandalize Memorial to Victims of Communism
    By Anders Koskinen 3 ¾ min
    A memorial to the more than 100 million people killed by communism was vandalized in the midst of the protests resulting from George Floyd’s violent death at the hands of Minneapolis police officers.

  34. More on what recent Black Lives Matter protests are actually teaching us about COVID-19.

    Buzzfeed? Are you serious? America’s Jr high school newspaper?

    1. It’s probably who she thinks she’s writing for.

      1. Maybe more like Gawker.

  35. The idea that you need to retrain your employees so that they can work together without microaggressing isn’t Marxism, cultural or otherwise; it’s just a novel form of Fordism, with white-fragility gurus in place of efficiency experts.

    Well, if you actually took some time to study the terms used by modern HR departments, “white fragility” and, well, pretty much all the others, you’d discover most if not all came from obscure post-marxist and post-modernist academic texts from the 1980s. There’s not just a thread running back from our current state of culture to the post-marxists*, it’s a fucking steel conduit with a high speed fiber optic link running through it.

    *(those who openly admitted that the working class had failed the revolutionary movement, so new classes and strata needed to be found to service the revolution: race, gender, sexual minorities etc.)

    1. Add to it, business texts that began advocating for corporations to have other priorities beyond making profits for their shareholders. Not arguments like, ‘Doing X allows for the potential for greater long term profit, even if means lower profits immediately.’ Or ‘doing Y will increase our goodwill, which will guarantee greater sales, even if it costs more now.’

      No, the arguments were along the lines of, ‘a corporation should (must) consider social goals as well as making profits for its shareholders.’ Things that would rightfully have earned its Board a derivative suit for waste and breach of fiduciary duty, thirty years ago. How happy are Disney shareholders that woke management set a tens of billions of dollars IP asset on fire? Now, it’s simply being a socially conscious corporation.

    2. The radical left lost the economic argument when the Soviet Union fell and Deng Xiaoping said, “To get rich is glorious”. The revolutionaries from the post-colonialism era turned out to be despots. The radical left turned their backs on the blue collar middle class, but I’m not sure they had anywhere else to go other than grievance studies. They can’t make sense of their world view by confronting economics directly anymore, so they turn to this shit. Unironically, the reason their shtick is resonating right now is because of the economy. The reason people weren’t rioting and tearing down statues six months ago wasn’t because there weren’t any cases of police brutality caught on video or any statues to tumble. It’s because people were too busy spending their money and enjoying themselves to bother.

  36. >>When you hear increasing right-wing (I refuse to say “conservative”)

    “act like me. think like me.”

    1. I prefer to say David Cheeseeatingsurrendermonkey.

  37. On the one hand, they say they want us all to celebrate Juneteenth.

    On the other hand, they say they’ll tear down a statue, later today, that was erected in 1876 to commemorate Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves.

    https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/emancipation-statue-removal-called-for-in-lincoln-park-protest/65-33bb9f8a-ee02-4b0e-a244-f45fe8aab2bb

    I say it isn’t really about history or historical context at all.

    1. 8 year-old kid in the statute doesn’t tower over Abe like Terrell Owens, so racism.

      1. They don’t like seeing a person of African ancestry in chains at a white man’s feet–not even if it’s a statue of Abraham Lincoln freeing a slave.

        1. offers for replacement art appropriate. “please design statue of Lincoln freeing slaves without Lincoln or slaves. 1-2-3 go!”

          1. *** meekly raises hand ***

            Must I incorporate the ubiquitous George Floyd image?

            1. other than the two restrictions world is your oyster.

      2. It certainly isn’t about what’s happened in the past and whether what Lincoln did was a good thing.

        It’s all about what’s happening now, especially with the virus and the economy, and how they feel about it.

      3. Fun fact: T.O. is 6’3″. Honest Abe, the tallest President, was 6’4″ tall.

        Now take your revisionism and run on home before you mom comes looking for you. /sarc

        1. sub Amare Stoudamire.

  38. Aaaand that about wraps it up for CHAZ.

    My guess is, the few sane (although entirely marxist) voices in the CHAZ realized that the optics were not just getting bad, but getting downright awful and scary and decided to voluntarily pull the plug.

    Try as they might to stop video from escaping the zone, and despite fawning, positive media coverage, everyone with eyes could see shit was going sideways fast.

    1. “It is time we shift to the next phase of our organizing and move from direct action to virtual activism. We call on everyone to continue the struggle through Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.”

      They’re trolls.

      It’s a troll army.

      We always knew the trolls were made up of America’s most horrible people, and now we know what they look like in real life, too.

      1. The best part?

        Their letter literally starts Dear Comrades.

        They honestly could not help themselves.

    2. Probably has more to do with this:

      https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/capitol-hill-businesses-sue-seattle-over-handling-of-chop-zone-chaz/281-45d4cb36-3447-4446-9124-ee25af14f129

      Capitol Hill is not a low-influence area. If they are pushing back on the city, the city will no longer tolerate CHAZ to the same degree it has been.

  39. On the subject of Section 230, which I continue to support wholeheartedly as a means to defend content creators from frivolous lawsuits, take a nice, long gander at what would happen if it weren’t Section 230.

    “Four Black YouTubers have sued YouTube, arguing that the online platform discriminates against Black content creators like themselves . . . . On several occasions, YouTube demonetized some of their videos, blocking them from generating revenue via ads. They say these decisions were made based on vague criteria with no meaningful opportunity to appeal. They also fault YouTube for failing to take down—and in some cases even promoting—”hate speech videos targeting the African American community.”

    —-Ars Technica

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/lawsuit-by-black-youtubers-against-youtube-faces-uphill-battle/

    I doubt the comment section of a website like Reason would survive a slew of frivolous lawsuits by some political group who wanted to take them off the web, but even apart from that, anyone who imagines that if only it weren’t for Section 230, big players like Facebook and YouTube would be safe for right of center content creators are foolish or nuts. If it weren’t for Section 230, the rules for content on big sites like Facebook and YouTube would be driven by more or less the same concerns as those that drive the rules for content at your typical state university. And it wouldn’t matter if the case had merit. When you make third parties respond to lawsuits for content they didn’t create, they simply start denying all content that is likely to get them sued. If you think YouTube’s policies resemble the values of social justice warriors now, why would giving social justice warriors the freedom to sue YouTube for content they didn’t create improve that situation?

    1. ^^^ THIS

      “When you make third parties respond to lawsuits for content they didn’t create, they simply start denying all content that is likely to get them sued.”

      The landlord isn’t responsible for the crimes the tenant preforms.

    2. I mean, I agree 230 is better than nothing but at the same time it seems the large social media companies are policing content, while also being an actual content creator themselves, and that they’re using this muddy water to carry on a lot of shit they otherwise wouldn’t be getting away with.

      Reason, for example, can still be sued for a variety of things explicitly because of their speech. Defamation and slander, among others.

      Reason could not hold their comments section up in front of them in such a suit, and claim that since they have a comments section they are therefore immune to just about any form of civil suit.

      1. Shackleford and Suderman are on Google’s lobbyist’s email list as contacts for Google talking points.

      2. The point of Section 230 is to prevent people from suing others for things they didn’t say. Like being sued for robbing a store when the store owner admits before the trial even begins that you weren’t the one that robbed the store, Section 230 throws the case out of court. Go sue the person who actually did what you’re alleging. Section 230 does not protect content creators from lawsuits for things they actually said. I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that it does that, but if some court made a bad ruling to the contrary, the court was wrong.

        1. What I’m saying is that with companies like Facebook how certain are you that it’s a 3rd party post, a Facebook post, a Facebook subsidiary post, a post by a Facebook moderator under a different name, or a post by a random individual expressing their viewpoint?

          I guess you can be sure when you get a settlement, versus crushed in court.

          Certainly Facebook should not be liable for what I say, that would be idiotic. However, if they are moderating comments than can it be said that if they choose not to moderate what I say in particular that they must therefore agree with it?

          Note the somewhat recent O’Keefe interviews with Facebook moderators, and ask yourself is that isn’t a widespread abuse of Facebooks own terms of service? I guess fire the ‘bad eggs’ and continue on, nothing to see there?

          1. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment, libel law typically requires malice. It works like mens rea in a criminal case that way. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect your right to indiscriminately shoot people. It protects your right to carry a gun. If you posses mens rea and choose to use your gun to violate someone’s rights, then you are held criminally responsible in court.

            The First Amendment, likewise, doesn’t protect your freedom to violate other people’s rights with your speech. To allow people to take you to court for violating their rights with your speech, libel law requires you to prove malice–like you need to show mens rea in an armed robbery case. The plaintiff must prove damages, as well, but they also need to show that the libelous statement was made with malice.

            The fact is that a third party can’t possess malice. If Facebook or YouTube didn’t make the statement in question, then they cannot possibly have possess malice. If you want to find out who made the statement (because you think it might have been Facebook or YouTube), then you need to hit them with a subpoena or a warrant. There isn’t anything in Section 230 that says you can’t get a judge to subpoena their records.

            If Facebook or YouTube refuses to take down something defamatory after you tell them it’s defamatory, but apart from that, Facebook and YouTube aren’t and shouldn’t be legally responsible for what other people say on their platforms any more than a local gun shop owner is or should be liable for the armed robberies perpetrated with the guns he sold. If he didn’t know the guy he sold it to was planning to rob a liquor store and he didn’t participate in the robbery, then why would he be legally responsible?

            They don’t need special laws to protect people from criminal indictments that way because taking someone to trial when the prosecutor admits that the defendant didn’t commit the crime would just necessitate throwing the case out of court. That would be the same with libel suits if Section 230 would go away as well. It’s just that defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits is extremely expensive–more so than even a company with pockets as deep as Facebook’s and YouTube’s would be willing to pay.


            1. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment, libel law typically requires malice. It works like mens rea in a criminal case that way.

              So O’Keefe airing interviews with Facebook moderator staff and their outright admitting of censoring political speech they dislike, and political groups on their website being shadow banned against Facebook’s own terms of service, were just a few bad eggs after all.


              “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”

              I get it, you’re saying Facebook shouldn’t be liable. Whatever entity published it on Facebook should be liable. The reason for this is because Facebook is neutral, and just providing a space right?

              Yet that space is moderated by Facebook, and by that act they are editing content on their website and acting like a publisher.

              Essentially we are being asked to believe that moderating a thing and editing a thing are not equal actions. That’s true to an extent, but that argument basically rests on following a certain set of rules (I.E. Terms of Service) that are provably not being followed.

              So is Facebook liable for the actions of their employees, or can firing just the one’s who get caught on camera be enough. Answers will vary.

              1. “So O’Keefe airing interviews with Facebook moderator staff and their outright admitting of censoring political speech they dislike, and political groups on their website being shadow banned against Facebook’s own terms of service, were just a few bad eggs after all.”

                If someone gets shitty service at McDonalds because he’s wearing a MAGA hat, that doesn’t mean we should defy the First Amendment, change libel law so that it’s no longer in harmony with the First Amendment, or get rid of Section 230.

                1. So, again, yes the moderators on camera telling O’Keefe that’s how Facebook does moderation were just a few bad apples and after they are fired Facebook pinky swears they will follow their terms of service agreements. Because they always were, you see. Those moderators were all acting alone, collectively.

                  That is what I would have to believe.

                  And also, you need to work on your analogies. In your story above, McDonalds would advertise itself as open to all but if you wear a MAGA hat inside you’ll be forcibly expelled. At that point, you might wonder if they’re really open to all or if they’re actively lying about that selling point. Maybe even be tempted to sue them to accurately sell themselves as ‘open to everyone who agrees with us’.

              2. “I get it, you’re saying Facebook shouldn’t be liable. Whatever entity published it on Facebook should be liable. The reason for this is because Facebook is neutral, and just providing a space right?”

                The reason they shouldn’t be tried for robbing the bank is because they weren’t the ones who robbed the bank–according to the plaintiff.

                1. How could they have mens rea if they weren’t the ones who robbed the bank?

                  Even in cases of negligent homicide, you generally need to prove that the defendant willfully neglected someone’s safety.

                  Yeah, 20-30 people will die if we don’t do a recall, but paying out the plaintiffs will probably cost us less than the recall so–just let ’em die.

                2. Again with the bad analogy. Maybe they wouldn’t be tried for robbing the bank in that analogy, but do you get off scott free if you were the getaway driver or otherwise involved in the crime? Survey says no, but that’s a shit example using violent crime and outright theft.

                  Given your track record with relatable and clear analogies I think you should just give up. You’re either bad at them, or use them to cloud arguments. I honestly can’t tell which.

    3. I’ll just respond as I did earlier. 230 has been stretched beyond just the publisher doctrine.

      1. To whatever extent that’s true, I’m not sure the remedy to a well-written but misinterpreted law is to get rid of the law. Whatever bad decisions have been made need to be rectified either through appeals or rulings that outright overturn the misinterpretations. Regardless, the downsides of repealing Section 230 remain the same. If leaving Section 230 as it is inhibits free expression as many people experience it but repealing Section 230 would utterly destroy free expression, comparatively speaking, then if free expression is what we care about, keeping Section 230 in place makes sense.

        As that piece above shows, without Section 230, the people willing to sue the most in order to make online expression conform with the Civil Rights Act would probably dominate the public square. I still firmly believe that the freedom to voice awful and disgusting views is of great importance to a free society, and getting rid of Section 230 probably wouldn’t protect their speech the way a lot of people seem to assume. It appears that it would make things even worse for people with controversial views.

        1. It wasn’t well written. In fact is was the opposite of well written.

          It was contained in a piece of legislation that Congress intended to hobble the internet. It was by blind chance and congressional ineptitude that they accidentally turned out to be useful in ways they could not predict.

          So it was so badly written, in fact, that it did the opposite of their intent.

          The best argument against scrapping 230 and writing something that is well written is that it’s Congress, who will certainly fuck it up worse.

    4. When you make third parties respond to lawsuits for content they didn’t create, they simply start denying all content that is likely to get them sued.

      So, what you’re saying is, if we repealed section 230 platforms like Youtube and Facebook would have to be more up front about who they would and woudn’t allow in? That, turning it around in more accurate causal order, section 230 is the reason YT and FB can be cavalier and disingenuous with user-generated content.

      I doubt the comment section of a website like Reason would survive a slew of frivolous lawsuits by some political group who wanted to take them off the web,

      I would agree that Reason’s current comment section wouldn’t survive, but past comments sections have survived worse.

      Also, again, you’re assuming that there are masses of trolls out there waiting to descend and masses of courts willing to hear their cases out, all for little-to-no profit. And the only thing standing between the profitless oblivion that would ensue is Congress.

      Even if I buy into your story, it doesn’t make the trolls go away. It takes a civil judicial issue and converts it to a federal legislative one and predisposes other related issues to the same resolution. Instead of not answering to trolls in civil court, Zuckerberg is answering to Statesmen at Congressional hearings.

      1. “So, what you’re saying is, if we repealed section 230 platforms like Youtube and Facebook would have to be more up front about who they would and woudn’t allow in? That, turning it around in more accurate causal order, section 230 is the reason YT and FB can be cavalier and disingenuous with user-generated content.”

        The reason they can be cavalier and disingenuous is because their platform is private property. To whatever extent they have violated or abused the rights of content creators, they should be held to account for that by way of contract law. Section 230 isn’t the cause of that nor is repealing it the solution.

        And in terms of them being cavalier or arbitrary about the content they allow, making the trees all equal by hatchet, axe, and saw isn’t my idea of an improvement.

        1. You mean the contract laws that they’ve already managed to sidestep in actual court? Those contract laws?

        2. Section 230 isn’t the cause of that nor is repealing it the solution.

          Agreed that section 230 isn’t the cause but, per your own statements, it’s a hindrance.

  40. I doubt the comment section of a website like Reason would survive a slew of frivolous lawsuits

    A price I’m willing to pay to replace 230 with laws making websites 100% responsible for what goes out on them unless they are a “cater to all” operation like cell phone companies are.

    Kill Twitter, FB, all comment sections, etc. I don’t care.

    1. >>all comment sections

      Jeebus not this one! Don’t make me talk to coworkers.

      1. Think of the Jeff’s of the world who have no coworkers to talk to.

        1. …and his mom hasn’t said a peep since he shoved her down the stairs for forgetting the buy toaster strudel.

    2. I can’t believe anyone could look at the state of the US over the last 12 years or so and not come to the conclusion that social media is fucking poison. It’s a hive of intellectual inbreeding for the journalist class, who literally spend all day fucking around on Twitter and un-critically retweeting bullshit as if it was fact, but because they set the narrative and are almost entirely in the pocket of the Democratic party, they have no incentive to fix their shit.

      A lot of news sites have shut down their comment sections for the precise reason that they would get pushback on their propaganda. Reason’s one of the few places left that actually allows free expression, and considering how often the writers seem to crib article ideas from the comments, they clearly believe it’s more of a benefit to them than a detriment, even with all the shit they tend to get (in some cases, deservedly so). Keep in mind they could have easily, and with some justification, shut the comments section down after Woodchipper-gate, but they actually went to bat for us in that case and have kept things open.

      1. Luckily, social media has not saved the hack Propagandists. They all know the chopping block will soon be for them.

        As for unreason keeping comments open… There would likely be no unreason.com without fervent user interest with good discussions in the comments section.

      2. A lot of news sites have shut down their comment sections for the precise reason that they would get pushback on their propaganda.

        This is a good point which should be hilighted more often. Clearly, the media itself doesn’t think particularly highly of democratized, anything-goes speech, otherwise they wouldn’t be closing comment sections faster than peaceful protesters can burn a city block.

        I’m currently reading The Madness of Crowds in which Murray has some excellent insights into the phenomenon of social media. He notes that when all conversations become public, it has a way of deranging the discourse.

    3. I dont see why Reason comment section would automatically lose.
      Suit is brought against Reason for something said by commenter.
      Reason’s reaponse: “we don’t exercise editorial control over our comment section, other than to remove illegal posts or spam after it’s been brought to our attention. This is our sworn testimony.”
      Ok, then Reason is clearly not acting as publisher with regard to their comment section. Case dismissed.
      Whereas Facebook, Twitter, Google could not make that same claim. They would have to lie under oath. Thus a case against them could proceed, and a jury could determine whether or not they should be liable in said case.
      This isn’t rocket surgery – the level of control one exerts over something changes one’s responsibility for that something.

      1. Reason’s reaponse: “we don’t exercise editorial control over our comment section, other than to remove illegal posts or spam after it’s been brought to our attention. This is our sworn testimony.”

        Right. Not to mention that their commitment to their commentors is stated on every page and the license agreements and monetization of commentors content is pretty transparent. Even somebody as trollific as Tony, chemjeff, Hihn, or JFree has a superficially different case from Reason than somebody like Alex Jones has with YouTube.

        It would be hilarious to see a ruling where the plaintiff is awarded some percentage of the revenue generated by the comment section and, when the math is all said and done, the plaintiffs ended up owing Reason.

  41. I do not understand how the Nunes Cow lawsuit is even a thing. This clearly falls into the realm of political commentary. The “NunesMom”, maybe I could see being potentially confusing (though I doubt anyone believes it is his real mother), but the one purporting to be his cow is so absurd that anyone with the capability of reading the tweets will believe it is real. When there is no possibility of damage, there is no defamation.

    1. Yeah, it’s an election year. Everyone’s trying to make the headlines. Social media companies are among the least popular entities in our society, so you can’t buy the kind of advertising a story like this gives to someone who’s trying to make himself look like a would-be dragon slayer.

      1. Performative politics is so much more entertaining than actual responsible, adult governance.

    2. He based his lawsuit on theory of negligence, the accounts are against the ToS. Yet twitter is refusing to enforce their moderation against the accounts.

      1. Again, I don’t know why more lawsuits under this umbrella aren’t filed. It doesn’t have to be a section 230 thing, it’s a contract violation.

  42. I’m out of ashen gray and jaundice yellow What’s a good crayola substitute for Sexy Joe Biden?

    1. Sunday’s Bubba Wallace Parade all for naught?

      1. wrong place, sorry.

    2. Looks like fap material for the party’s twinks.

  43. Nationwide, cases are up 30% compared to the beginning of this month

    This is a meaningless metric. What are the number of positive cases per people tested compared to the beginning of the month? What is the number of serious cases that require hospitalization?

  44. Someone is suing Twitch because women on it are too sexy. And here are the (NSFW) “harms” he describes.

    Tulpa!

  45. I wonder if unreason staff shit themselves when the SCOTUS decision was released that gives the Executive Branch massive powers to deport illegals who claim asylum like their piece of shit lawyers told them to.

    Being scared of persecution back in your shithole is not a valid reason for asylum.

    Im being persecuted for wanting freedom here in the USA, so fuck those foreign Socialists wanting to vote Democrat.

    1. Do you think the government should accept or reject asylum seekers based on their political beliefs?

      1. That is a very reasonable question. Speaking for myself, I’ve never been comfortable applying a political or philosophical test for asylum seekers– or immigrants in general.

        However, this is one of those areas that’s extremely ripe for people who SAY they’re against a political-belief test, but will quickly reverse themselves the moment people of a particularly “wrong” belief were found to be seeking asylum.

        1. Really? It would have never occurred to me, given the foundational principles of this country and the freedom of thought that is supposed to be championed in Western democracies.

          1. I didn’t mean to suggest YOU would, I’m merely suggesting that I can see a situation where lots of people would, because we’ve already seen examples of 180 degree flips on freedom of speech, once it was realized what could be said in a fully free-speech environment.

            For instance: Human Rights Watch reported in 2017 that “it is difficult to overstate just how vulnerable LGBT people are in Chechnya, where homophobia is intense and rampant. LGBT people are in danger not only of persecution by the authorities but also of falling victim to ‘honour killings’ by their own relatives for tarnishing family honor.”

            Recently, Chechnya has come into the news lately for its population’s strongly anti-gay sentiments.

            Let’s say there was a civil war or systemic collapse in Chechnya *cough*a predominantly Muslim country*cough and a group of activists became concerned that we’d be granting a large number of violently anti-gay people into the country.

            1. That’s what reeducation camps are for. Don’t worry, ours come with glitter. Mandatory glitter.

              1. Way better reeducation camps than the one’s our preferred trading partners use. Yuge!

                Right? I’m sure you refuse to buy any product made in a nation that actively uses no-shit concentration camps on ethnic minorities and dissidents since you’re so against the imaginary ones here.

                No Chinese goods in Tony’s home, no sir!

          2. Really? It would have never occurred to me, given the foundational principles of this country and the freedom of thought that is supposed to be championed in Western democracies.

            Open borders and unlimited migration of asylum seekers was never a foundational principle. That’s a myth based off of Emma Lazarus’ overrated poem, not reality.

            1. And even if it was a foundational principle, one might notice that our relationship to government and it’s extent have drastically changed since then. Ironically because of a whole lot of preferred leftist programs that make unlimited entry impossible. You’ll note that it’s tough to find an open borders nut who also thinks the minimum wage should be torched in leftist circles. Go figure, they just want cheap maids. Not even joking.

      2. Yes, actually, because if someone believes that Totalitarianism is the best government type on the planet maybe they should stay right the fuck where they are.

        That this isn’t obvious means you’re not thinking very clearly.

        Could it be misused? Probably, but why should a government of citizens, by citizens, and for citizens concern itself with…non-citizens that don’t even live in the same geographic region? Our laws have just about zero effect on them until they’re here.

        And if you want to switch that to ‘people’ instead of ‘citizen’ and assume that means all people in the world why should a totalitarian in Iran have say over what our laws are here in the U.S.? That’s just stupid.

        1. And as we know, would-be immigrants are incapable of lying about their beliefs.

          Jerkoff up there wants to ban entry to anyone who would vote for Democrats. That cool with you too?

          1. Then you straight up admit it has no effect at worst, so shitting your pants over it is a massive waste of time.

            As for banning people over how they plan to vote once they become citizens? Well, to use your own argument, who cares because they can lie.

  46. My mother texted me about the Nunes cow thing. He Streisanded the fuck out of himself.

  47. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page… http://www.Topcitypay.com

Please to post comments