Reason Roundup

Court Says Snapchat Can Be Sued for Deaths of Trio Using App During Fatal Crash

Plus: The challenges of free speech on Twitter, the case against baseball bailouts, and more...


Judges say Section 230 doesn't apply. It's a time-honored tradition for folks to blame new entertainment and communications mediums—rock music, rap music, video games, etc.—for the follies of the youth using them, and social media has been no exception. For years, parents, media, and authorities have been trying to hold popular apps accountable for a range of ills visited on young people using them.

For the most part, courts have rejected claims that the mere existence of these new mediums is responsible for people using them in ways that prove dangerous. In part, this is common sense; in part, it relies on Section 230, the federal communications law protecting digital services from some liability for the speech and action of their users. But now, a federal appeals court is taking a worrying step in the opposite direction.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the parents of three young people killed in a 2017 car crash could sue Snapchat because their kids had been using the app at the time of the crash.

The car carrying 17-year-olds Jason Davis and Hunter Morby and 20-year-old Landen Brown had hit a tree while going approximately 113 miles per hour, then burst into flames. Before the fatal accident, Brown had opened Snapchat and pulled up the app's speed filter, which shoots video while broadcasting how fast those using it are going.

Snapchat responded to their parents' lawsuit "by asserting that the company was protected by Section 230 because the Speed Filter is nothing more than a content creation tool within the platform that requires actual publishing to come from third-party users," notes Law & Crime:

In short, the company argued that holding it liable for creating the filter would in effect be making it liable for third-party content in violation of the law.

U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the Central District of California agreed, dismissing the case in March by reasoning that it sought to treat the company "as the publisher or speaker" of "information provided by another information content provider."

But a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday reversed Fitzgerald's decision, reasoning that the central issue in the case concerned Snapchat's product design, not whether it was responsible for content created and posted by users on the app.

According to the 9th Circuit's summary, "the duty that Snap, Inc. allegedly violated sprung from its distinct capacity as a product designer." The court called the crash one of the "predictable consequences of designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encouraged dangerous behavior" and wrote that, as such, Snapchat does "not enjoy immunity from this suit under § 230."

The product design versus content creation debate has come up in Section 230 cases before, as plaintiffs attempt to overcome Section 230's protections. For instance, this was the tack in a 2019 case concerning harassment on Grindr, in which the person suing Grindr argued that it wasn't trying to hold Grindr responsible for harassing third-party content but for designing its product in such a way that allowed it. Another federal appeals court—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit—rejected this claim.


Sarah McLaughlin of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education talks to Techdirt about "Twitter, free speech, and the challenge mob behavior presents to online discourse":


Against baseball bailouts. "Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D–Conn.) picked the perfect place to pitch a taxpayer-funded bailout for minor league baseball: A stadium that taxpayers already paid $66 million to build," writes Reason's Eric Boehm. Now Blumenthal wants more money for minor league baseball:

During a Monday press conference at Dunkin' Donuts Park in Hartford, Connecticut, Blumenthal said he would push for Congress to send $500 million to minor league clubs that are "on the verge of bankruptcy."

"Minor league baseball is in peril," Blumenthal said, according to the Hartford Courant.

"We need to come to their aide," he said. "We did it for restaurants, theater, live music. Baseball deserves it as much."

Blumenthal's not wrong about the financial problems that plague some minor league teams, but that's hardly a compelling reason for taxpayers to pick up the cost—especially when Blumenthal and others in Congress have opposed efforts by the baseball industry to address those issues privately.


•  Important SCOTUS case alert:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case involving sentencing disparities between people found guilty of possessing crack cocaine and those possessing powdered forms, and whether recent changes in federal law should apply retroactively to those given long prison terms for small amounts of crack.

• President Joe Biden still "has not caught up with most Americans on marijuana policy."

• Donald Trump has a new website:

After heated debate yesterday, a Louisiana bill to decriminalize prostitution has been put on hold:

FiveThirtyEight explores how "new examinations and other data tell a nuanced story about the role of race in the 2020 contest."

NEXT: Cops Who Killed a Man While Holding Him in a Hog-Tie Position Got Qualified Immunity. The Appeals Court Wasn't Having It.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. If I mute Fist, I get to be first.

      1. I knew someone would think of this.

        1. I am gonna enjoy the hell outta muting nearly EVERYONE, except for MEEEE and 2 or 3 others (mini-MEEES) who I know mostly agree with MEEEE!!!

          That's extra work though... Ideally we'd have a "mute everyone except this person here" button, for more efficiently creating an echo chamber!

            1. The silence is deafening.

            2. Are you gonna mute me Chuck?

              1. Mute the only guy I know reads everything I write? Never.

                CTSP + KAR = BBF

                If you get me your address, I can send you the special Book of Mormon with the unsealed pages about how to enchant your underwear, how to recruit an additional wife, and getting around that pesky 'age of consent'.

                1. I thought sealing was like something you did in a temple? Like you get sealed to your wife so you'll be together in the celestial heaven(sorry if I'm mixing up the different heavens)?

                  1. JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ 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 SW child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page.....VISIT HERE

    2. Aren't mutes a protected class? Doesn't the ADA require equal access for mutes? Where is the social justice?

      Mute Lives Matter!

      1. Private company - - - - - - - - - - - -

      2. The whole InnerToobz is Mute-Friendly, including podcasts via text-to-voice! WTF more could they want!?!?

    3. Did you notice you can mute yourself?

      1. Have you muted me yet Chuck?

        1. Replied above, buddy.

  1. +1 for the Mute User button.

      1. Racist!

        1. Homophobe!

          1. Yankees fan!

            1. How dare you!

            2. that's just mean.

    1. Now, if only we could mute some Emote writers.... 🙂

      1. As if anyone reads the articles.

        1. Mute button for articles?

      2. +100

    2. WIH does the Mute button do?

      1. It hides all that person's posts.

        If you don't want to see Shrike, you don't have to see Shrike.

        1. This is honestly just sad for a site like this. A site that pretends to care about intellectual bubbles (while participating in it by reposting the favorite Twitter narrative of the day). But where does the adjective reason imply shutting out voices you disagree with.

          1. Ignoring trolls isn't exactly living in a thought bubble, and this feature makes it easier to ignore the trolls.

            I'm still reading the posts of people who respond to me, so long as they aren't hopeless trolls who've convinced me over a period of months and years that they don't care whether they're right or wrong or why.

            Do you use an ad-blocker? This is like that. The advertisements don't have anything interesting to add to the conversation either.

            1. I won’t be muting anyone. I also rarely return to a thread to see if anyone has replied to one of my posts.

              It’s just not a big deal.

              1. So you’ll never know I muted you after this?

              2. I've replied to every post you've ever made...

              3. Too bad. I wanted to ask what your name means.

            2. Even the known trolls will have an actual argument once or twice a year. Also mocking terrible ideas is a good way to press those ideas away from mainstream discussion.

              It is easy to ignore voices you disagree with even without a mute button. This just allows people to presuppose an argument is invalid without thought.

      2. You can mute the spam bots once on one comment on one thread and it hides all their posts on every other thread.

        1. The bots reregister new names all the time.

          1. The obviously Millennial bot Brayson has been around awhile.

      3. It moots certain commenters..

    3. It does make you wonder how that function came about. My cynical guess is one of their IT people got tasked to look at the flagged posts, blanched at the sheer number, and quickly threw this script together to try and knock their workload down.

      Or amukadari got hired by Reason. W/e, I'll take it.

    4. Is there a way to un-mute someone? Because eventually I’m going to accidentally mute someone trying to close the pop-up video.

      1. Yes, there's an un-mute.

      2. It will drive Sarcasmic insane because it still tells him someone responded to him and gives him a way to unmute that post. You know his histrionic alcoholism will hit that link all the time.

        1. He’s so broken it’s cracking me up.

    5. The Mute User button could reduce postings by left wing propagandists and trolls, reduce unhelpful ad hominem attacks, and facilitate more rational and objective discussions by libertarians.

      We'll see.

      1. ..... and facilitate more rational and objective discussions by libertarians.
        All 3 of them.

  2. Sarah McLaughlin of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education talks to Techdirt about "Twitter, free speech, and the challenge mob behavior presents to online discourse"...

    Shut up and sing "I Will Remember You"!

  3. For years, parents, media, and authorities have been trying to hold popular apps accountable for a range of ills visited on young people using them.

    When, really, why aren't we just skipping the middleman and suing the youths?

    1. Because they don't have money, silly.

      1. ***rising intonation***

        What about their stimulus checks?

        1. I’m sure the youths already spent all their stimulus money on the marijuana.

    2. I would argue that this new medium is very, very different from traditional mediums.

      Social media companies have nearly admitted that they use AIs to ensure that people are continually engaged in their platforms. They learn your behaviors and actively push things to you that are intended to compel you to engage in the platform. The business model requires this. More engagement, more ad impressions, more revenue.

      A newspaper, broadcast, or musical medium is not backed by an active AI continually alerting you on a mobile device to engage with the medium. It shouldn't be difficult for the platform to disable alerts when the device is traveling faster than 10 MPH (or maybe 5MPH).

      A passenger can be liable for distracting a driver if there is an accident. Is it unreasonable to say that app developers and notifications are also distractions? And depending on the circumstances, these apps can be liable if in fact there are ways available to them to not distract drivers? It has less to do with the platform and messaging and more to do with the intent of the app, the method in which it engages in that intent, and it's affect on a person operating a motor vehicle in this case.

      Just a basic link about the liability of a passenger if they distract the driver:

  4. #BidenBoom update.

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 benefactor Charles Koch's net worth has increased by: $6.22 billion

    As impressive as that figure is, I know how we can do even better. We can respond to India's coronavirus crisis by inviting the country's 1.4 billion people to immigrate to the US. Just think of all the cost-effective labor this will provide for billionaire employers like Mr. Koch.


    1. Muted.

      1. Hey, that's your ally, steaming pile of lefty shit.

        1. I can't wait for sarcasmic to victim signal he has muted everyone but really doesn't so he can continue to be a victim.

      2. Nothing says "emotional and intellectual resiliency" like muting a parody account.

      3. It's in-name-only socialist's loss if he doesn't want to read facts about the Biden economy backed up by reliable sources.

  5. "Minor league baseball is in peril," Blumenthal said, according to the Hartford Courant.

    "We need to come to their aide," he said. "We did it for restaurants, theater, live music. Baseball deserves it as much."

    Grease up that slope with more taxpayer dollars that don't exist.

    1. If we don’t subsidize vibrant minor league baseball , grandma will die!

    2. Minor league baseball is in peril? That sounds serious. Peril? Really? Do they have an outrageously high suicide rate after serving their country in a war? Are they dying on waiting lists while waiting for appointments? Peril?

      1. Sorry, man. Didn't mean to flag your comment. God damn flag button is now out in the middle of the page. Kudos on the mute button though.

        1. "Kudos on the mute button though"

          Sqrlsy, KAR hardest hit. Thank goodness poor Hihn never lived to see this day.

          1. Making his list right before the end was a proud achievement.

          2. At least I don't have to read your lies anymore Mother

            1. Don't forget to mute me twice, nutbag.

    3. I'll say one thing for minor league baseball--it's a fantastically cheap way to spend a warm summer night if you're looking to get out of the house for a bit.

      I went to a AA game in Fayetteville, NC a couple years ago, and only paid something like $30 for a primo seat in the home plate section, a beer, and a hot dog. You can't get deals like that at the major league level even in the shitty nosebleed sections.

      1. Yeah, but you couldn't pay through the nose to watch a bunch of millionaires play a game.

        1. Fun fact about those salaries--the guys in the minors get paid absolute shit. Unless they're an upper-round draft pick that got a nice signing bonus, they're living on wages that aren't even subsistence at the A and AA levels. On top of that, they don't get paid for spring training or the camps that the club requires them to go to--they only get paid for the actual season. It's not until you hit the majors that the salaries shoot up, which is now about $85K a month after taxes for the minimum. But if you get sent back down, it's back to the Ramen noodle budget.

        2. When are they gonna start playing the Dominican National anthem?

      2. With the 2018 omnibus bill, Blumenthal et al voted to screw over Minor League Baseball players. They were in the midst of suing MLB over pay, but Congress was nice enough at the league's insistence to fold the Save America's Pastime Act into the bloated piece of shit bill, making the lawsuit moot.

        1. Haha, no shit? What a novel development--a Democrat offers a solution for a problem he helped cause.

          1. I'll add on that MiLB players got hung out to dry by the MLBPA on this, too. What happened to labor solidarity?

            1. You see what happened to Broncos RT Juwan James.
              NFLPA called for a boycott of voluntary team activities, so James tears his Achilles working out off site.
              If he'd been at the team facility, Denver would be on the hook for his $10m guaranteed contract, but since it was off site they can cut him without paying a dime of it.

              1. The nflpa is the most useless union this side of the pipe fitters union.

              2. Yeah, I saw that and laughed my ass off. The whole point of working out on site is so you're covered by workers compensation if you get hurt, AND you have the team doctors right there to get the medical treatments arranged.

                James was already an injury waiting to happen, and he just gift-wrapped the team a $10 million pay break that they can use to bring in a tackle that doesn't get hurt when he sneezes.

                The nflpa is the most useless union this side of the pipe fitters union.

                They're absolutely nutless. A few years ago, they were bitching about the replacement refs blowing calls, which is fine. But if they really believed that having these guys was a threat to player safety, they should have boycotted until the regular refs got back. But no one wanted to deal with the drama of trying to figure out how to cover their baby-mamma's Range Rover payments.

      3. I have fond memories of Frederick Keys games from my childhood

      4. What were you doing in Fayettenam? I lived there for 2 years in the oughts. I tried to get out of town anytime I had 2 days off in a row. Was back there for a funeral a few months ago. It has not improved.

        1. Visiting a buddy who worked did comm work for the 724 STG on the Pope side.

          I definitely wouldn't want to live there, but one cool thing I discovered was the remains of the old light rail line outside my hotel that was built in the 1920s to link the town with Ft. Bragg.

    4. If you ask restaurants, theater and live music what government did for them over the last year, I don't think their response will be "It came to our aid."

      1. Ask the Kennedy center..

  6. The court called the crash one of the "predictable consequences of designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encouraged dangerous behavior" and wrote that, as such, Snapchat does "not enjoy immunity"

    Cool! Now do Deficit Spending!

    1. The ruling is an astounding non-sequitur/straw man. "They should get S230 protections in a case that they shouldn't even be liable for in the first place."

      1. "shouldn't" dammit.

        edit button > mute button

  7. They each face a maximum 16-year sentence…. am I crazy for assuming this happened at every school and also thinking it really doesn't matter at all? Is homecoming even valuable on a resume?

    Like so many of them who participated the Capitol Riot Insurrection Overthrow, law enforcement just wants to stop the steal.

    1. It was a fortified election.

    2. So... Vote fraud is REAL after all! Personal-ID-confirming DNA tests are CLEARLY called for, for EVERYONE, before voting for homecoming queen! (More-complete, "destructive testing" then, will be needed for voters for national elections, of course. We can NEVER be too sure!).

  8. Section 230 does not protect against the search for deep pockets when trying to deflect responsibility for Darwin Award winners.

  9. Chauvin may get a new trial because of one of the jurors.

    "Mr. Mitchell was asked by the court in his questionnaire whether he had attended an anti-police rally in Minneapolis. He was also asked whether he had ever participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality. He told The Wall Street Journal he didn’t recall how he answered those questions . . . . .

    Mr. Mitchell appears in a photograph with two relatives in what appears to be a bar or restaurant the weekend of the march. He is wearing a T-shirt that says BLM, for Black Lives Matter, a picture of Dr. King and the words “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks.” Some organizers called the march the “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks Commitment March.”

    If he told the court that he hadn't attended an anti-police rally in Minneapolis, because he was there to commemorate MLK, but he was actually found to be at a BLM march wearing a shirt that read, “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks", then Chauvin should get a new trial--according to the Sixth Amendment.

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense"

    ----Sixth Amendment

    1. I'll go out on a limb and say the probability of a retrial will be determined by, um, systemic racism.

    2. No wide-spread jury fraud.

      1. It's just one juror, not enough to affect the outcome.

    3. In the trial there was:

      a) refusal to relocate, allowing jurors to go through riots daily on the way to court
      b) a city settlement during jury selection
      c) prosecution misconduct where they introduced evidence after the judge said they could not
      d) a prosecution who themselves presented 3 different means of Floyd dying (reasonable doubt)
      e) a prosecution who themselves presented a police expert who said Chauvin could have elevated his response to a taser and was using non maximum allowed enforcement

      And now

      f) a juror saying they want people to get onto these trials to affect change

      1. Pffft! Harmless Error!


        In all seriousness though, and I certainly don't know how MN handles this, what is the standard for getting a new trial upon showing that a juror out-and-out lied on their questionnaire or during voir dire, concerning their biases?

        1. We don't know what he said to the court, but Chauvin's lawyer is citing this as evidence that Chauvin deserves a new trial--which highly suggests this information wasn't disclosed to the court.

          My understanding is that during voir dire, when the defense lawyer gets to reject people from the jury, the only information they have to go on is the answers to those questions. If the juror had answered accurately, the lawyer can argue that he would have excluded that member from the jury. And it only takes one out of twelve jurors to fail to convict.

          And it probably isn't about the laws in Minnesota. It's about the defense attorney getting an "impartial" jury for his client--as is required by the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment should trump the laws of Minnesota. How can the state of Minnesota claim that Chauvin had an impartial jury when one of the jurors attended the "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks Commitment March" and wore a "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" t-shirt?

          1. The juror said he had never participated in a protest on his form. He lied about it.

            But we have a recent example of this in D.C. where one of the Stone jurors (or was it Manafort), where a juror lied openly on her form saying she knew nothing of the person. After trial it was discovered she had multiple posts about Trump and the advisor in question. The judge stated it didn't matter, finding that information out was the duty of the defense attorney before selection, which is insane.

          2. Ken asked
            "How can the state of Minnesota claim that Chauvin had an impartial jury when one of the jurors attended the “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks Commitment March” and wore a “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks” t-shirt?"

            Don't expect honesty or objectivity from left wing MN AG Keith Ellison, who withheld the 20 minute police video (showing Floyd resisting arrest in the back seat of the police car repeatedly claiming "I can't breathe") until September (after rioters burned and looted dozens of large cities).

            Had Ellison immediately released that police video (the day George Floyd died), most Americans would have released Floyd was resisting arrest for a very long time (before the last 7 minutes), that Floyd was already overdosing on fentanyl and meth (which also makes people go crazy) while resisting arrest in a police car, and that police removed him from the car and laid him on the sidewalk where Chauvin restrained him per police policy and training).

            Nobody was more responsible for causing nationwide riots and mobilizing BLM than Keith Ellison, who won the MN AG election after his former staffer filed sexual assault charges against him (which the left wing news media didn't report because they were campaigning for Ellison).

            1. Keith Ellison wanted the rioting. It was a necessary step in removing Trump.

      2. Don't forget a US congresswoman threatening violence.

    4. From a strictly legal standpoint, Chauvin had legitimate grounds for a mistrial from the very beginning. This is just more fodder for that.

      Ulitimately, though, it doesn't matter. This is a political issue, not a legal one, and when you have seated Congressidiots like Waters inciting threats of violence if the outcome they want isn't provided, it isn't going to matter whether Chauvin can get all the appeal ducks in a row or not.

      Also, wasn't this Mitchell guy the one who went on TV saying that he was looking to get a guilty verdict from the beginning?

      1. We've seen that before, with the Rodney King trial being one example. The reason the cops in that trial were acquitted was probably because they changed the venue from Los Angeles, where the jury pool was more skeptical of the police, to Simi Valley, which was what you might call Daryl Gates country. I don't think there's much question but that the Chauvin trial might have had a different outcome in a different venue, and I don't think there's much question but that Chauvin probably can't get a fair trial in Minneapolis.

        The other aspect of this is that, just like in the Rodney King trial, the FBI is coming after Chauvin with federal charges for violating Floyd's civil rights. My bet is that Chauvin is convicted by the Feds before he gets a new trial in the state of Minneapolis, but he eventually does get a new trial in a different venue somewhere outside of Minneapolis but within Minnesota.

        Everyone from the Minneapolis police department to the National Guard was expecting a riot if Chauvin was acquitted. If the jury wasn't expecting a riot if they acquitted, then they were incredibly stupid. How could that not bias the jury?

        1. Yeah, it's real tough to get an untainted jury when you murder a guy on video and everyone sees it. Those poor, poor victim cops.

          1. Yes, ignore all evidence but the video. And especially push the narrative you can ignore all medical evidence and simply claim the knee on his shoulder blade is what killed him.

            You make a good useful idiot.

            1. I ignore all the evidence, other than the video, the medical examiner who called it a homicide, the paramedic who testified against Chauvin, 37 other witnesses who the prosecution brought, including 12 police officers who testified that Chauvin's use of force was excessive, and lastly, my own experience with using violence as a means to an end.

              You cling to one medical expert hired by the defense, a series of comforting editorials by agreeable partisan sources, and your unending "economic uncertainty" that motivates you to desire the oppression of people outside of your perceived tribe.

            2. When the Speaker of the House refers to the death of George Floyd as 'The Assassination', it tells us all we need to know about the narrative.

  10. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case involving sentencing disparities between people found guilty of possessing crack cocaine and those possessing powdered forms, and whether recent changes in federal law should apply retroactively to those given long prison terms for small amounts of crack.

    The branches of the federal government working at lightning speed to address this decades old problem. Biden was a young man of 44 when he created it.

    1. And it did nothing to deter his own kid from drugs.

      1. Back when Joseph Robinette Biden was working hard to make crack extra heinous for the benefit of police, prosecutors and prisons, President Carter was still roughly the same size as Dr. Jill Biden, MD.

        1. He’s half the man he used to be.

        2. That photo had to be photo-shopped, right?

          1. Fish-eye lens, I guess. Crazy to look at that product and think, Yeah, that's a keeper, and release it into the wild.

      2. Hunter only did parmesan cheese.

    2. Be assured that Biden’s name will never be mentioned by the MSM in connection with this case.

    3. And with the proposed menthol cigarettes ban is repeating the same problem.

      1. What about menthol crack?

        1. Worse than menthol powder!

        2. At this rate I'll be reduced to smoking Vicks Vaporub.

          1. I knew a guy in high school that dried out toothpaste and banana peels and smoke them. Not at the same time.

  11. President Joe Biden still "has not caught up with most Americans on marijuana policy."

    The Democrats didn't elect this of all tickets because they were serious about reform.

    1. Leading from behind.

        1. Reaching from around.

  12. Donald Trump has a new website...


    1. "Google Bans Searches Containing 'New Website'"

      1. It's amazing the differences you get searching American politics on Google vs Duckduckgo.

        1. The latter works very well with Brave, FWIW.

          1. I just use the actual ddg app as my browser.

        2. I was showing a coworker the other day with some of the common topics and he was astounded. Said he switched all his home computers that night.

  13. Can a car manufacturer be sued because the speedometer goes up to 120mph?

    1. "Do Not Attempt"

    2. why not just sue the manufacture of the phones that the app was on

      1. I blame the parents for buying the phones.

        1. I blame Communist China for making the phones - - - - - -

          1. I blame the tree.

  14. It was instant, overnight. We got thousands of applications," Maya Johnson, general manager of Klavon's Ice Cream Parlor in the Strip District, said. Here's how she and other Pittsburgh-area companies are getting workers in the door and onto payrolls.

    1. Like I’m gonna click on a link that looks like that.

      1. Touche. Biz raised starting pay from $7.25 to $15 an hour and Americans were knocking down the door to get that job.

        1. Oh damn, sorry. I flagged you as spam.

        2. "...Biz raised starting pay from $7.25 to $15 an hour and Americans were knocking down the door to get that job..."

          What's your point? Or did you have one?

          1. It’s on the top of his head.

          2. His point is that markets work. Wait, that can't be it.

            1. That does seem to be the point. A lot of employers lately are complaining that people would rather be on unemployment than take their open positions. This shows that people will be motivated to work, if the pay is right.

              1. Having to pay people more to work than the government is paying them to not work is not the free market.

                1. That's been the system since UI became a thing, in what, the 30's? It's about as free market as anything else.

                  1. No, it literally hasn't. You are free to research or read up on any employer saying they can't hire people because of the increased unemployment benefits from the various covid bills. But you won't.

                    1. I don't doubt that increased benefits makes low pay jobs less motivating for people at the margins. But that just means they have to offer higher pay. The market wage floor has moved up, and some people are not adjusting.

                      People are motivated to work for commensurate pay. If no one shows up for your advertised wage, but do show up for a higher wage, then your offered wage is too low. And that is that.

        3. So, how much did the price of a cone increase?

          1. It is just "transitory inflation" per the WH.

            1. Or is is "racial justice inflation"? Are black and brown people better off with $10 ice cream cones?

              1. Government will subsidize them.

          2. You think a propaganda piece like that is gonna do a followup on how the place went bust? Ha and ha.
            Nor an article on the competition who said 'screw it', and automated at lower costs.
            Nor will they do a piece on how unemployment benes have distorted the market such that you can make that much sitting on your ass (at our expense)
            Lefty shit would have to *think* to realize those issues and thinking is hard for some scumbag in his third year of 6th grade.

        4. Biz

          I don't think I've worked at a business that paid less than $50K/yr. to start since I was in college.

          1. Kinda the main point of college.

  15. ...I think it's kinda cool in that it shows that everyone can speak on their own websites and don't *need* social media to speak.

    I think we've taking this free internet thing too far.

    1. ...and Substack needs to be the first to go. What's the point of canceling badspeakers if they won't stay canceled?

    2. Odds that whoever hosts the site ends up dropping it under threat from liberals?

      1. One hundred million percent. And if somehow that mysteriously can't happen, the providers will have to block it.

      2. Nothing is stopping one of Trump's cult from starting their own web hosting service. Amazon did not invent web hosting or data centers.

        1. It is amazing that you think this is the solution. Bifurcate the country. Just sad.

          1. Wasn't my idea to fill 1/3 of the country's heads full of ridiculous fantasies. That was your cult daddy.

            1. CUUUUULLLTTTTTTTt!!!!!!!!!


  16. the terms of service on his site are fun

    Well, there is this:


    1. Now do bookface.

    2. That doesn't seem so weird. I don't know if websites normally include that in their TOS, but plenty of meatspace service providers have arbitration clauses in their contracts. Not sure how common the class action clause is either, but by the nature of service contracts being between two parties it seems less relevant in their cases while a website would benefit from that clause.

      1. That's pretty much TOS boilerplate now.

  17. After heated debate yesterday, a Louisiana bill to decriminalize prostitution has been put on hold...

    Whether they finish or not, legislators still owe for the hour. Put the money on the dresser.

  18. FiveThirtyEight explores how "new examinations and other data tell a nuanced story about the role of race in the 2020 contest."

    Nuance in racial matters should be an automatic cancellation.

    1. Yep. Nothing screams "Microaggression!" like "nuance".

  19. Post vaccine, we're using a PCR replication cycle of 28 to test for the coof:

    Investigate SARS-CoV-2 infections among people who received COVID-19 vaccine to identify trends or
    clustering in demographic, the administered vaccine, or the infecting virus.
    Case definition
    A person who has SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after
    completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine

    ...Respiratory specimen for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing
    • Specimen selection
    o Clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28.
    o If a Ct value is not available, specimens that are positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen by
    another testing modality may be sent.

    1. During the Trump years, we used 40 cycles:

      The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.

      For example, North Carolina’s state lab uses the Thermo Fisher coronavirus test, which automatically classifies results based on a cutoff of 37 cycles. A spokeswoman for the lab said testers did not have access to the precise numbers.

      This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.

      “It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

      “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added.

      Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

      With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

      In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

      Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

      “I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”

      1. St Fauci himself, at the 3 min mark

        1. Earlier FDA, during the Trump years:

          When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered negative if all
          2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves DO NOT cross the threshold line
          within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct) AND the RNase P growth curve DOES cross the threshold line
          within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct).
          • When all controls exhibit the expected performance, a specimen is considered positive for 2019-
          nCoV if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line
          within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct). The RNase P may or may not be positive as described above, but
          the 2019-nCoV result is still valid.
          • When all controls exhibit the expected performance and the growth curves for the 2019-nCoV
          markers (N1, N2) AND the RNase P marker DO NOT cross the cycle threshold growth curve within
          40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct), the result is invalid. The extracted RNA from the specimen should be retested. If residual RNA is not available, re-extract RNA from residual specimen and re-test. If the
          re-tested sample is negative for all markers and RNase P, the result is invalid and collection of a
          new specimen from the patient should be considered.
          • When all controls exhibit the expected performance and the cycle threshold growth curve for any
          one marker (N1 or N2, but not both markers) crosses the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (<
          40.00 Ct) the result is inconclusive. The extracted RNA should be retested. If residual RNA is not
          available, re-extract RNA from residual specimen and re-test. If the same result is obtained,
          report the inconclusive result. Consult with your state public health laboratory or CDC, as
          appropriate, to request guidance and/or to coordinate transfer of the specimen for additional

          1. Did you see the Stanford study showing once again how masks are largely useless?

            Stanford was forced to retract it due to political pressure I believe.

            1. Are you referring to “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis,” by Baruch Vainshelboim? First published in the journal "Medical Hypothesis"?

              If so, both Stanford and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System denied he works for them. That led to the MedHyp journal yanking the paper from its website, in part because "our strict editorial policy is that we do not publish misleading or inaccurate citations to advance any hypotheses." The note also went to: "A broader review of existing scientific evidence clearly shows that approved masks with correct certification, and worn in compliance with guidelines, are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission"

              If you've got a link about Stanford retracting the paper due to political pressure, please share.

              1. Lol. Misinformed but definitely still correct Jesse strikes again.

                1. Hey dummy... the new report was published last month not last year. God damn man, way to clown yourself.

              2. That led to the MedHyp journal yanking the paper from its website, in part because “our strict editorial policy is that we do not publish misleading or inaccurate citations to advance any hypotheses.”


                "Well, aside from the standard background of ~50% of academic research that can't be replicated that is. And, even then, just as with this case, we publish it without even the slightest trace of background check and then retract it post hoc."

                1. Peer review worked as intended, albeit late. The article was pulled and not endorsed. The 50% failure to replicate is in social sciences, not hard sciences. Medical science has a 16% contradiction rate so far.


                  1. You are arguing peer review of papers largely based on models, not based on data or experimentation.

                    You really don't understand science.

              3. No, that was the one from last year, there was one released this month. Which of course people like DoL are ignorant to.

                But nice of you to run to the partisan fact checkers from last year, lol.

  20. When it begins to even dawn on the Marxists that the left has become actually fascist.

    A Marxist critique of the left:

    "The left is + always will be a class-collaborationist project, one where bourgeois leftists lie to workers to solicit their votes & money in order to control them. The left only exists to drag working people into exploitative, abusive dead-end brutality eg: Joe Biden, war, BLM, etc.

    Every academic in every university is paid by bourgeoisie to help mystify basic class relations. That's the role of the university within state capitalism. Labor management discourses. Propaganda techniques. Control. Weapons research. Social engineering. Brutality.

    Everything that comes out of academy is useless or hostile to working people.
    Every leftist, especially the "class reductionist", variety, is lying to exploit you. "Baby come back, I won't hit you again, I didn't mean it." Don't go back to a serial abuser. Have some self-respect.

    This is bullshit. The only Marxist critique of the left is one of demolition.
    You should leave leftists uncomfortable and defensive. Confused.
    Leftists are the class enemy of workers everywhere, not our problematic friends. No exceptions. Every leftist. Every institution."

  21. Did you all hear the one about how avoiding runaway inflation is racist?

    "Yellen called the impact on women and minorities from Covid-19 “absolutely tragic.” She has repeatedly rejected concerns that Biden’s stimulus is excessive given the economy’s signs of recovery, and that run-away inflation could damage the economy . . . .

    The unemployment rate for Blacks, who have a disproportionate share of lower-wage jobs and of union membership, was double that of Whites during much of the past 50 years in part because policy makers historically pulled back support just as the benefits of growth started reaching lower-income workers — to avoid runaway inflation.


    Yes, avoiding runaway inflation is racist, and it is not enough not to be racist. One must be anti-racist.

    1. Don't you think it's like their objection to voter ID though? The stated reason is "voter ID is racist", even though it's demonstrably false, only because the real reason is more insidious. My guess is it's part of their plan to get rid of cash once and for all.

      1. If there's a real insidious aspect to this, it's trying to equate opposition to their stimulus bills, Green New Deal bill, etc. with racism. The reason you oppose those bills isn't because you're legitimately concerned about all that spending igniting runaway inflation. You only oppose us because you're a racist.

    2. Inflation today, inflation tomorrow, inflation forever!

    3. That's not what that article says. Read it for yourselves.

  22. Canada:

    The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

    1. More Canada:

      Carvin said in light of CSIS and other security agencies naming state actors like China as direct threats to Canada’s sovereignty, there has been pressure to adopt an Australian-style law to address any gaps in the National Security Act.

      Australia’s “Espionage and Foreign Interference Act” which was brought into parliament in 2018, strengthened their existing laws and introduced new offences for being “knowingly” funding or being funded by a foreign intelligence agency.

      Burton thinks Canada “ought to initiate such legislation,” but warned that it would be very hard for political parties to initiate it as it “could lead to exposure of prominent…and very senior Canadian officials” who are implicated in CCP influence operations.

      “There’s a tendency to turn a blind eye to this kind of activity,” Burton said, adding the fact that the federal government hasn’t censured any Chinese diplomats or arrested anyone involved in the harassment of people in Canada “on behalf of the Chinese regime is pretty telling.”

      1. "but warned that it would be very hard for political parties to initiate it as it “could lead to exposure of prominent…and very senior Canadian officials” who are implicated in CCP influence operations."

        The biggest open secret in years.

        And with this much Chinese involvement in a country that hardly matters in the big scheme of things, imagine what it's like in one that does; like America.

        1. Wait until China takes British Columbia.

          1. Lol, that happened 30 years ago my friend... well, the lower mainland anyway.

    2. You do realize that we get all our "good" ideas from the blue states, right?

      Isn't it sickening, virologists criticizing bureaucrats on virology is "misinformation".

      1. Do you want science or "Science!"?

  23. A Record 34% Of All Household Income In The US Now Comes From The Government

    1. That is insanity... but open up the borders.

  24. Overheard somewhere:

    "My son fell in love with rock and roll and purchased a Stratocaster, which led him to experiment with drugs and, finally, an overdose. Can I sue Fender guitars?"

    1. I blame Trump.

      1. Ok. Good one. That almost made me spill my coffee.

  25. "But muh private corporationz!!!"

    Biden team may partner with private firms to monitor extremist chatter online

    But the department has considered partnering with research firms who have more visibility in this space, though it has not done so to this point, the sources said. If that ultimately happens, DHS could produce information that would likely be beneficial to both it and the FBI, which can't monitor US citizens in this way without first getting a warrant or having the pretext of an ongoing investigation. The CIA and NSA are also limited on collecting intelligence domestically.

    1. It's not fascism if it is private corporations doing the government's bidding! wait a minute...


    Fauci, mid-November 2020: “I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now, because each of our countries have that independent spirit. I can understand that, but now is the time to do what you’re told.”

  27. "The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
    -- Aldous Huxley "Crome Yellow"

  28. “The car carrying 17-year-olds Jason Davis and Hunter Morby and 20-year-old Landen Brown had hit a tree while going approximately 113 miles per hour, then burst into flames.”

    Back Darwin, and you’ll seldom be disappointed.

    1. I would like to sue Maybelline and Revlon

  29. Social media, not dingos, killed my baby!

    Also, judges unclear on the concept of plugins. A third party plugin is not something designed by the hosting application.

    1. Is it a third party plug in or something created by snap chat?

      1. I thought it was third party, but reading closer it may be part of Snapchat.

        Regardless, it's a stupid lawsuit. The accident was not the fault of Snapchat but of the driver. Next we get to sue Apple because someone crashed their car at 113 mph while trying to record his stunt on an iPhone. Same thing. The plugin isn't at fault, it's the driver.

        I hope the judge deep sixes this lawsuit and bitchslaps the plaintiff's lawyer.

        But he won't. This society has degenerated to the level that we need warning stickers on power outlets to tell toddlers not to stick forks in them.

        1. This actually seems to follow closely the "guilt" of McDonalds in the hot coffee case. The proximate cause of the injury was removing the top to add sugar. So "big sugar" should have paid not poor old MickyD. Since the app simply allows social media broadcast of the speedometer, it is the car manufactures that should be liable.
          Same as using a car as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery - - - - -

  30. p.s. Nice mute feature. I mute one poster and half the comments instantly disappear.

    p.p.s. Now if only the flag button would actually flag posts and Reason would start dumping the spammers, scammers, and qanon shits.

    1. No more Sevo, Mother's lament, R Mac, JesseAz, etc....

      Ahhh, satisfying like taking a huge shit.

      1. LOL.

        May.5.2021 at 10:52 am
        Flag Comment Mute User
        I can’t wait for sarcasmic to victim signal he has muted everyone but really doesn’t so he can continue to be a victim.

      2. Oh, look. A troll dropped a turd on my comment. But now instead of reading it before flagging it, it's already blocked!

        Woo hoo!

        Thank you Reason!

        1. So you won’t see me calling you broken, but every one else will. Works for me.

        2. Another turd blocked so I don't have to read it! This function is awesome!

          1. Another blocked turd! Sweet!

              1. He can't help but victim signal. It is sad.

                1. I’m just curious how many times he’s going to remind us that he’s muted us at this point. Sort of a social experiment.

                  1. It is all he has. When have you ever seen a substantive or useful comment from him?

                  2. sarc's victimhood is an infinite regression. White Knight will look that up and use it incorrectly later.

                    1. I thought I was WK. And jeff. And squirrely. Can't you guys make up your minds?

                    2. I see it's R Mac without having to read the blocked comment.

                      I'm almost tempted to Unmute to see if there is something worth responding to, but I know it will be a mistake. I'm not-seeing some snide, personal insult.

                      And I like it that way. Who wouldn't?

                    3. I see it’s R Mac without having to read the blocked comment.

                      Um, we can all see how it works. The posters name is also blocked unless you choose to see it.

                      BTW, he replied to me. I get that you want it to be all about you, but it's not.

                    4. See, he can't help himself but to respond about his victim signaling.

                    5. After this comment, you know he’s unmuted someone at least once. He didn’t even make it a whole day, lol.

                  3. This is pathetic. I've flagged frequently and at length, while occasionally asking some of you why you persist in arguing with professional (or at least, paid) trolls. I like the new mute feature.

                    What I don't do is go and repeatedly talk to those I've muted, bragging that I'm flagging them. I mean, seriously? Fifth-graders think this is childish.

                    Some people just want attention, I guess, even if it makes them unhappy.

                    1. What is pathetic is the trolls having a conversation about being ignored.

                      I think this mute function is awesome. R Mac and JesseAz have never added anything to a conversation except personal insults. Now I don't even have to read their bullshit.

                      It's, to quote Tony the Tiger, IT'S GRRRREAT!!!

                    2. Look, sarcasmic is a victim again, and lying about others to satiate his own inadequacies.

        3. LOL. Just straight pathetic.

      3. Remember to mute me twice, sarcasmic, you pathetic, drunken fuck.

    2. Rev. Who?

    3. "...and qanon shits."

      Betting that includes anyone not afflicted with TDS.

      1. TDS--the disease to bear with righteous pride! Or at least neurotic paranoia.

        1. So pernicious it continues long after the T has been removed.

          1. Long TDS.

      2. No, only those actively fellating the ex-potus.

        1. Citation? You guys have claimed this for years now, but never actually have proven anyone doing this. Your proof is that someone didn't actively attack Trump with every comment. That's your TDS, not others.

      3. There are no actual Qanon people here. It's the new "alt-right"

        Actual Qanon believers are harmless, but mentally unbalanced people who think that a military coup is going to save us from the communist revolution that is occurring now.

        1. You sure Nardz isn't Qanon?

          1. I've only ever seen him post actual news. Qanon-ers get their news from shady social media posts.

          2. But he's not a troll guys. Sarcasmic is not a troll, he only offers substantive commentary. LOL.

            1. All those promises that he was leaving for the Glibertarians for good, but he's still attention whoring here.

              I guess being ignored by the Glibs was worse than being bullied here. Negative attention is still attention.

          3. They have the opposite function. QAnon's purpose was to reassure disaffected people on the Right that someone, anyone, in a position of power had their backs, and was secretly working to fix the situation. Therefore, those disaffected people wouldn't feel obligated to organize and start thinking about how they were going to be have to fix things.

            Nardz's posts, or at least the more glowing of them, are to induce a rash response from people. To get them to do something, anything, right fucking now. Instead of organizing, planning, and 'walking down there to fuck all of the cows...'

            1. I never followed his links. If I wanted to fill my head with that crap I'd put Hannity on the radio.

              1. Mostly obscure twitter accounts and zerohedge posts. You know, the site that has been claiming there is an imminent collapse of the US banking system since 2009.

            2. My posts are rhetorical (otherwise I wouldn't be around to post), and one should always consider one's goals and the likelihood of achieving those goals before any action in one's life.
              But the longer people keep their heads buried in the sand, the less hope they have.

              1. You're obviously correct about qanon, and my main point is that there isn't some secret savior out there who's going to stop the Global Socialist Woke Party from achieving totalitarian power and ruining your (all of you) life.

            3. Therefore, those disaffected people wouldn’t feel obligated to organize and start thinking about how they were going to be have to fix things.

              Yeah, people who think slacktivism isn't as much an issue on the right as it is on the left are kidding themselves.

  31. Sec 230, good that the website doesn't get to hide behind sec 230 when it creates and publishes a product. Rejecting companies arguements when they unreasonably claim they didn't create the content they created, is a positive sign.

    Boo on holding the company responsible for what someone else did. If someone shouts do it before someone jumps off a ledge, they shouldn't be held responsible for the jumpers actions.

    Also, for the people who don't understand nuance in the room. The way sec 230 has been being applied, is the digital equivalent of saying that those old timey ransom notes made from cutting out words from newspapers and pasting them on a page aren't content made by the kidnapper but instead the newspapers.

  32. “The car carrying 17-year-olds Jason Davis and Hunter Morby and 20-year-old Landen Brown had hit a tree while going approximately 113 miles per hour...”

    The car did that? All by itself?

    I guess you’re right, people do love to hold tech responsible when kids make bad decisions.

    1. Was it an assault car? Was it black with the thing that goes up? Why can people buy these killing machines?

    2. I don't blame the parents. Parental brains shut off when their children are killed. Rather, I blame the scumbag lawyers who know better. Where are the woodchippers when you need them?

      1. "Where are the woodchippers when you need them?"

        Backordered since January due to "unusually high demand".

        1. Who knew the new woodchippers used computer chips?

    3. "I guess you’re right, people do love to hold tech responsible when kids make bad decisions."

      It's a long-time habit, especially when Tech has big pockets. One trial report I remember reading about in Texas, involved a wrongful death verdict for something in the mid-20s of millions, for a drunk nursing student who managed to back her Honda down a boat ramp into the water. She and her friend were trying to see a Ghost figure that's supposed to be on the side of a UTMB-Galveston medical building. The headlights on the car weren't reaching high enough on the side of the building, but A-Ha!, there's the boat ramp into Galveston Harbor right there!

      She backed the car down, the headlights rose, she lost control (easy to do, at a 0.23% BAC), and the car went in the water. The car had motorized seat belt anchors---a somewhat common feature on 90s cars, she couldn't figure out how to get out of the car, and she drowned.

      Totally not enough of her fault to save Honda Motor Corporation.


    She wisely deleted this tweet but I would love to hear the explanation for why this NPR journalist apparently feels she needs to traverse around America wearing a bulletproof vest [screenshot]

    1. In case she gets pulled over?

    2. Early adopter?

      1. Coming soon to a suburb near you!

        But she needs to learn how to write.

        1. What part of 'works for NPR' did you miss?

    3. There could be a legitimate reason she's wearing it, say she decides to go hang out in Minneapolis, St. Louis, or Chicago on a Friday night. But her reason is probably more like "I'm going undercover to a church picnic in rural Texas and if the white supremacists decide to carry out one of their lynchings I'll need to be ready"

      1. I too can make up some assumptions and then make fun of the assumptions I just made in my head.

        1. Yes but when you do it you’re being an asshole, he was being funny.

    4. "He's wearing body armor in the HQ... and that should tell you everything you need to know about the CIA."

      1. Make it an anti-stab vest, and definitely don't skimp on the back plate.

        1. Heh.


    This is repulsive. The Intercept was founded during the Snowden story to defend privacy rights & oppose the security state. Now, the liberal DNC hacks who "edit" it are boasting they got personal data from Gab users & are sorting through it, doing FBI's work to find "extremists." [Screenshot]

    Bold Adversarial Journalism: serving as mouthpieces for the CIA and acting as monitoring cops for the FBI. Liberal political hacks ruin everything. The Intercept is shit.

    The people who run the Intercept now had nothing to do with its founding -- they just leech off those who did -- and are authoritarian shit liberals so this is what they do. They only saving grace is that outside like 3 writers, nobody reads that rag:

  35. "...for a range of ills visited on young people..."

    In this case, the ills were not visited upon them, they were the direct results of the kids' activities.

    1. I blame Newton.


    There was one Capitol Police officer murdered this year. The media completely stopped talking about it. It happened less than a month ago.

    1. And was committed by an avowed enemy, not zealous supportive opposition.

      1. Imagine trying the French at Nuremburg for cowardice and letting the Nazis go free.

  37. I think I’m just going to mute everyone here except for Tony. It will make my experience here in the comments much better and, at this point in my life, I’m all about good times and ease. Thank you.

    1. And miss out on Chemjeff's insights?

      1. Insights, sophistry... it's all relative.

    2. Good.
      Oh, and please make the world a better place: fuck off and die.

    3. Am Soc, the champion of ideological (and party) purity.

      1. If anyone in this thread has shown to be the champion, it isn't amsoc.

    4. Fuckin' LOL at this fragile motherfucker here.

    5. Haha. Yeah, when I think of “good times and ease”, I think of tony, the most bitter, angry, resentful person who posts here or anywhere else.

      You two make a cute couple.

      1. I see you didn't mention me.

        Does that mean we are buds?


    NEW - #Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated more of its population against #COVID19 than any other country, has closed schools and canceled sporting activities for two weeks as infections surge (Bloomberg)

    1. Have they told the tourists (that underwrite their economy) to take a hike?

      1. I imagine they did that awhile ago.
        Not like economies are real anymore anyway


    At this point he had already decided to shoot someone. He just hadn’t picked the person yet. [Video]

    1. (The tweet is about the killing of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol Building, FWIW.)

      I don't agree with that interpretation. I see a cop who was in an incredibly stressful situation, who hadn't had trained out of him, that reflex of placing the index finger on the trigger before committing to shoot. I don't see in those gestures, someone wanting to kill.

      Bringing in my own thoughts of what his instructions were, I see someone trying to determine if anyone is actually crossing that door. And if they are, then he'll shoot them. As he did.

      1. At the point a single person crosses the door, they have more cops than people at that point. On the other side of the door there were also cops. There was no raging mob at the door, but a handful of people per the video.

        it was the wrong decision to shoot.

        1. Completely agree. But that's what I think his orders were: shoot anyone who comes through that door. Which shouldn't have to be explained to anyone here, is an illegal order, and not a justification for using deadly force.

          Yet here we are.

      2. Anyone who says she was murdered is a loony Trumpista who will forever enshrine her name as that of a martyr who tried to prevent Biden from stealing the election.

        1. She was executed by an agent of the state who broke every rule of engagement in establishing an arbitrary line at which he would engage in lethal force instead of attempting to subdue an unarmed person.

          She is not a martyr, but she is a victim of state violence every bit as much as Floyd.

          1. If she was by herself then I'd totally agree with you. But she wasn't. She was part of an angry mob that had already assaulted police and destroyed property. The cop was likely terrified, and rightfully so considering what he was facing. It wasn't like she was completely outnumbered and slowly murdered by a callous piece of shit. She was part of the vanguard of a riotous mob trying to "stop the steal."

            Apples and oranges, dude.

            1. The cop was likely terrified

              If so, he choose the wrong profession.

              There were three cops behind her with rifles who didn't feel that she was a threat. They were there within seconds and were calling 'active shooter' on the radio. Probably because they couldn't believe anyone would feel threatened enough by the slowly milling 'mob' to take a shot an unarmed 100 pound woman.

              1. I'll admit I don't know many of the details, and I'm not defending the cop, other than to say there's a big difference between facing a mob and slowly extinguishing the life from someone who is prone and restrained.

                Comparing the her death to that of Floyd is laughable.

                1. Comparing the her death to that of Floyd is laughable.

                  Not if you watch the video. It's a fucking execution. But please, keep emoting.

                  1. You keep using the word "execution" and I'm the one who is emoting?

                    Reality check, dude.

                    1. and I’m the one who is emoting?

                      Yes. When an agent of the state commits a sanctioned murder, it is by definition an execution.

                2. Agreed. It's likely Babbitt would've lived another 20-40 yrs. without getting shot. Probably without committing a crime no worse than trespassing. The odds of Floyd living another 20 min. after the cuffs were placed on him is questionable and, given his ongoing drug abuse criminal history, even if he had lived it's not likely he would've avoided the exact same situation again in the near future.

                  1. + 1 on the sarcasm.

          2. He did not break any rule of engagement. Stop or I will shoot is a valid order. You guys are just telling on yourselves as being traitorous idiots when you hold up Ashli Babbit, traitor. You are telling on yourselves as being racist cop suckers when you simultaneously defend Chauvin et al while demanding this cop's head.

            1. Stop or I will shoot is a valid order.

              Only in a combat zone. Courts have been crystal clear that police are required to assess threats. They don't have to get it right, but they can't arbitrarily draw a line.

              Since I think Chauvin's jury reached the correct verdict, guilty on all levels, you are telling on yourself as being a racist cocksucker.

            2. How many civilians did you or soldiers under your command shoot in or out of a combat zone?

              1. Sorry, *unarmed* civiilans.

                1. A mob is not unarmed.

                  1. Yeah, they had a couple of flags, a handful of zipties one of them had grabbed off a desk and a fire extinguisher.

                    Practically AK-47s... stupid fuck.

              2. You’re talking to someone that admitted he fantasizes about mowing down civilians with an Apache helicopter. You probably don’t want to know the answer to this question.

                1. You are lying again. And why do you never criticize Nardz for his many explicit death threats? Hypocrite.

                  1. Nardz tells you that you should kill yourself, he doesn't threaten to kill you, you dishonest fuck.

                    It's good advice BTW.

        2. LOL. Wow, that is just sad. But totally not a leftist guys.

        3. Wow.

          Lazy and broken. Piss off.

          1. I'm lazy and broken while the conservative milling about moaning "His Her name is Robert Paulson Ashli Babbit" are the sane ones.


            1. Sarc is big on shooting dissidents and protesters.

              Say sarc, shouldn't you be fucking off to the Glibs. Tell them how keen you are on cops shooting unarmed women and see how that works out for you.

        4. She was dramatically more "murdered" than George Floyd.

          Just sayin'.

        5. Haha. Well, if anyone would know a thing or two about turning an idiot into a martyr, it’s the loony left.

      3. I don’t agree with that interpretation. I see a cop who was in an incredibly stressful situation, who hadn’t had trained out of him, that reflex of placing the index finger on the trigger before committing to shoot.

        If he was carrying a Glock, I could see it being an accident because of their stupid trigger safety mechanism. For something like a Beretta, though, you have to deliberately take the safety off, and if none of the other cops had done so, then I could see there being grounds for a wrongful death judgement.

        1. I just bought a Glock and while there's no external safety, you've still got to be pretty deliberate to make it go bang.

          1. Invite him to your half million dollar lakehouse you rented for the weekend

            1. I figured sarc just bought it. With cash!

              1. Like his bottom shelf gin?

                1. I gave up bottom shelf a long time ago.

        2. God knows there have been enough sympathetic hand squeezes that have led to an unintentional/negligent discharge with that system. But it happens with other firearms' safety systems too. That dentist in VA running either a poker game or bookmaking operation, back when Radley was still here, he was killed by a cop who accidentally bumped his rifle, which caused his hand to clench, and a bullet to go downrange. And that rifle has a manual safety.

          I don't think this was an ND. Just an example of poor training and then, execution of an illegal order.

          1. Oh, and of course there's a wrongful death judgment here. There usually is after an unjustifiable criminal homicide like the murder this officer committed.

        3. That is not the whole video. Moore is showing the point at which he clearly decided he was going to shoot. When he does, he walks forward and shoots her right in the throat from just a few feet away. There is no chance he made an assessment of the threat the person coming through the window posed, as the one thing he never does is make a move suggestive of putting the gun away.

          I would guess the guy isn't even a cop. He steps out of cover to shoot and not many cops wear a suit and a shirt with French cuffs. The shadows are bad in Moore's clip, because when he shoots you can see he is a white guy with grey hair and glasses in a mask.

          1. So consistently wrong.

            1. So consistently lacking in any concrete argument. Call me out on specifics or piss off.

          2. ???

            I'd thought it was an African-American officer, David something-or-other? Same hands, same set of beads around one wrist.

            The video I've seen, he's very decisive, once he sees someone come past that door. He steps forward, sets, aims, shoots. His lethal force decision tree is shorter than what you sound like you're expecting from your post. He's not evaluating whether there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third party. You're right, I don't think he has the time or the relevant facts to make that determination.

            He's evaluating instead whether they crossed the door.

            1. I am not getting anything from other sites, so I really don't know what anybody else is claiming.


              This clip can be paused and slid forward frame by frame. Go to 1:39. As I said, the lighting is bad. The French cuffs with cufflinks are clearly visible. Hands look dark in the first part, but not so much after he steps forward.

        4. A mob is a weapon. A mob is armed. There is no such thing as an unarmed mob.

          She was warned, repeatedly. He even waived the gun around a little to make sure people saw it. And they did see it. The other traitors say, "he's gonna shoot" and they get off the door frame. Not Babbit, though. She's hardcore, and she gets it hardcore. The end.

          That shooting was justified. Using live ammo the second the traitors breached the outer doors would have been justified. No government in the world is going to let a mob come after the political leadership while simply laying down their weapons and letting it happen. It is idiotic to suggest that the one traitor killed is too many. Lethal force should have been used much earlier, and that is the main error of that day.

          1. Fuck off, you lefty apologist. If a Guardsman had done this, he would have been court martialed and you know it.

          2. It is idiotic to suggest that the one traitor killed is too many. Lethal force should have been used much earlier, and that is the main error of that day.

            I'm sure there were folks that felt the same way about Kent State, but state agents opening fire on unarmed people, no matter how spastic they are acting, is never good optics. That's why no one got shot when the BLMers were trying to break through the fence complex to the White House last summer.

            1. Remind me, how many of the nation's elected leadership was at risk at Kent state?

              1. Same number as on January 6th.

              2. Not as many as the riots in DC last summer, but the principle still holds. Even Kent State was something of an anomaly, because the military hadn't been particularly trigger-happy during events of civil unrest since the labor wars of the late 19th/early 20th century. Usually their presence alone is enough to keep things from getting spicy.

          3. How many mobs of unarmed civilians did you or soldiers under your command kill in or outside of a combat zone?

            1. I have never faced a mob.

              1. Except in your fantasies, amiright?

          4. "Traitors"

            Lysander Spooner's ghost chuckles.


    The tawdry sneering and defamation emanating from the pulpit of a powerful media corporation, directed at a member of the public for opposing CRT, should make us all feel deeply uncomfortable. [Link]

  41. Teach your children better. And also don't care about social media companies run by amoral billionaires.

    1. But, but what if your cult leader tells you to care deeply about his personal account status on social media? What then?

      1. I must've missed the part where he said anything about Trump.

        Give it up dude, he's not going to let you suck his dick.

        1. I think DOL has become just as broken as sarc.

        2. This is all in reference to the above link about Trump's facebook account.

          No doubt you'd like to just move on now that Trump has forced you all to argue against the free market, making your hypocrisy even more apparent, and got you nothing to show for it.

          1. No it’s not dummy. Try harder.

  42. "On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the parents of three young people killed in a 2017 car crash could sue Snapchat because their kids had been using the app at the time of the crash."

    How about we sue the parents for raising such dumb-ass children, who clearly are (were) a menace to society?

    1. Oompa, loompa, doopity doo, We'vegot another puzzle for you...

    1. I miss all of the Andrew Yang memes...

      Lobster Girl's certainly changed over the years.

      1. I don't know the back story on JP's lobster thing, but it's definitely working for his daughter

        1. Or, his daughter is definitely making it work


    Critical Race Theory is the biggest threat to Jews in America today. [Link]

    1. yikes dude crazy shit.

      1. But not a violation of Twitters terms.

        1. reads like Misek fan-fiction

    2. Maybe schools went overboard teaching kids about the holocaust all of those years, (I was a kid in the 90s and it seems like every year we were assigned a different Holocaust book) but I'd take that any day over CRT. Within a generation or two we'll probably have schools teaching the whole thing was anti-Palestinian propaganda.

    1. Child abuse.

  44. I'll say this about the new "mute user" button. 130 posts and not one spammer, and I never even had to use the button. Not even a single Brayson Trey. Well done.

  45. weaponized comments lol. I already assume nobody reads me.

    if I'm using a GPS app and crash is that company liable too?

    1. I don’t read you, but it’s very important to me that I tell you that I don’t read you.

      1. lol good to get it off your chest. repression sucks.

        1. No no, I’m going to need to remind you every time you post that I don’t read you. I’ll never get it off my chest.

    2. "if I’m using a GPS app and crash is that company liable too?"

      I wonder just how much Google had to shell out for that hapless Yahoo VP, who managed to get his family and their Subaru, marooned in snow in deep SW Oregon a few years ago? IIRC, he was using Google Maps to guide him between 5 and Gold Beach, and Maps sent him down a summer-only Forest Service road. (It helped that some locals had smashed open the closed gate blocking the road, probably because it was messing with their snowmobiling.) Anyway, he got stuck, they stayed with the car for a week, he tried to hike out, and died. His wife and two kids made it, I think.

      1. yikes. want to make jokes but not at dead guy's expense.

        1. Once thawed, there's no point in letting it go to waste.

          1. lol Donner, party of four

        2. Incident in question:

          Over 14 years ago. Holy shit, where does the time go?

          1. we spend inordinate amount of it here

  46. Sarah McLaughlin of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education talks to Techdirt about "Twitter, free speech, and the challenge mob behavior presents to online discourse":

    Is this the female singer in Lilith Fair from back in the Nineties?

    1. +1 dusty room during that SPCA commercial.

      1. commercial evoked an automatic channel change @mi casa.

  47. So, in the latest news out of the Highest State, some urbanite tard race-liberation group called Black Hammer bought about 200K acres for $65,000 somewhere in the Colorado mountains. This system won't let me post links so you'll have to do a search for it, but the laughs here are endless.

    They talk about they have "a river and three lakes" to draw water from plus "rich soil." Now, you might be wondering (or not), how does a group manage to buy all this land, with easy water access, so cheaply when the state real estate market is hotter than Satan's nutsack?

    The answer is that they bought this land at 10,000 feet elevation. They don't mention the exact location, but it's probably somewhere near one of the ski towns in the central Rockies. There's no such thing as "rich soil" at 10,000 feet--it's all pine scrub and there's about four months out of the year when the temperatures don't get down in the 40s or below. On top of that, Colorado is a prior appropriation state, so unless they got senior water rights along with the land--which is HIGHLY unlikely at that price point, since water is like gold in that state--they're going to get rolled by the state water commission for violating the rights of downstream water users.

    They said they bought the land to "liberate it," which tells me they probably got the idea from watching that Yellowstone tv series, where the Indian tribal elder uses the money from the reservation casino to buy land and incorporate that into the reservation boundaries.

    Anyway, between this and that stupid "Love Has Won" cult that lost their cult leader recently, it's nice to see Colorado is doing its best to catch up with California as the most lunatic state in the union.

    1. I can tell others from experience that water rights in Colorado are no joke. Completely indecipherable to people who aren't very specialized lawyers with a lot of experience in the local area so that they know the long history of claims and indian treaties and "types" of water (alfalfa water, gen. use, etc.). It is the most esoteric portion of law that I have ever had to deal with, thankfully only as a consultant to other people's projects.

      1. Yeah, they take that shit very, VERY seriously. There's currently a ton of heartburn over plans for a new dam on Homestake Creek to provide more water for Aurora and the Springs. All the Western Slope state reps are fit to be tied about it, and there's potential impacts to the Colorado River Compact as well, because that creek drains into a watershed that already can't meet its established appropriation requirements to the rest of the states in the basin.

    2. I did hear about that. Sounds very San Juan Valley-y. Nothing grows up there, except pinon and maybe quinoa? And meth, of course. I guess you could try to run goats?

      But anyway, odds that a CO state agency would actually enforce riparian rights against 'A Community Of Color?'

      1. I suppose it could also be in the San Juan area, but without some additional powerleveling on their part, it's hard to tell. Based on the pictures I saw, they aren't growing shit there except maybe for onions. Pretty much everything they try to grow will fucking freeze and die, if they can get anything edible in that crappy soil to take root at all.

        But anyway, odds that a CO state agency would actually enforce riparian rights against ‘A Community Of Color?’

        Riparian is different from prior appropriation, but I get your meaning. Like DOL said above, water rights in CO are serious business. In some areas, those claims go back to the gold rush days, and for a long time, it was illegal to put in a rain barrel on your property because that rainfall is meant to go into the watershed for downstream senior rights holders. If they started siphoning off water for their own use without a senior right, it seriously won't matter how dark their skin is, the state will cornhole them.

  48. When I read that a federal appeals court made this ruling I figured it had to be the 9th circuit, the dumbest court in the land.

  49. Side effects of social media

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.