Reason Roundup

Abortion Ban To Take Effect in Texas on Wednesday

Plus: Kids got more obese during the pandemic, how Section 230 protects gun rights, and more...

|

Appeals court rejects emergency motion to block Texas law. A measure restricting most abortions in the state of Texas is set to take effect on Wednesday.

Passed in May, the law makes it illegal to perform an abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected. That starts six weeks into pregnancy, and about two weeks after a woman can tell she is pregnant.

What makes the measure (Senate Bill 8) more novel—and extreme—is that it also lets anyone (even people outside the state) sue anyone they think has violated the law by performing a prohibited abortion or aiding and abetting the provision of an illegal abortion. Among other things, aiding and abetting here includes "paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise," the law states.

A group of more than 20 abortion providers represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law, filing a lawsuit against it in federal court in July. The law "allows complete strangers, anti-abortion activists, to sue and interfere with the patient's decision. Those people may try to essentially hijack the courts for their ideological agenda," said Center for Reproductive Rights Senior Counsel Marc Hearron at the time. "If this is not blocked, if this is successful, it would set a truly dangerous precedent, because states could eviscerate their own citizens' federal constitutional rights by creating a private lawsuit to do what their own officials couldn't do."

The law is set to take effect on September 1.

On Saturday, abortion providers asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to intervene, filing an emergency motion "essentially asking it to send the case back to district court or for the appellate court itself to issue a stay that would temporarily block the law's enforcement," reports The Texas Tribune. "The 5th Circuit denied the emergency motions Sunday afternoon."

Another lawsuit against the bill has been filed in Texas state court.


FREE MINDS

A new study suggests the pandemic has been associated with significant weight gain among American kids. Published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, and based on data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health records, the research concluded that  "youths gained more weight during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic."

"The greatest change in the distance from the median BMI for age occurred among 5- through 11-year-olds," note the researchers. "Overweight or obesity increased among 5- through 11-year-olds from 36.2% to 45.7% during the pandemic, an absolute increase of 8.7% and relative increase of 23.8% compared with the reference period." Among 12–15-year-olds, the absolute increase in the percentage of overweight or obese children was 5.2 percent and the relative increase was 13.4 percent. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, it was 3.1 percent and 8.3 percent. "Most of the increase among youths aged 5 through 11 years and 12 through 15 years was due to an increase in obesity," the study says.


FREE MARKETS

Section 230 protects Second Amendment rights. "Debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 most often involves social media. But what about gun sales?" asks Gabriella Hoffman at the Washington Examiner:

The question is worth asking because if Senate Democrats get their way, they'll weaponize S230 reform to target online gun marketplaces. Conservatives urging repeal of Section 230 are playing right into their hands.

Section 230 enumerates in its "civil liability" clause that providers or users of an "interactive computer service" aren't liable for third-party content posted there. Just as Facebook and Twitter aren't liable for their users' slander or misinformation, sites such as Armslist.com (the gun owner's Craigslist) aren't liable for illegal gun sales.

That doesn't sit well with Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She recently introduced The Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act. If passed, her bill would "clarify" Section 230 to strip online firearms marketplaces, specifically Armslist.com, of immunity protections. "It's time to start holding accountable those who turn a blind eye to illegal gun sales on their platforms," Feinstein said.


QUICK HITS

• The U.S. is back up to an average of more than 100,000 daily hospitalizations from COVID-19. "That average, calculated over the last seven days, is higher than in any previous surge except last winter's, before most Americans were eligible to get vaccinated," according to The New York Times. And "deaths have risen to an average of more than 1,000 a day for the first time since March."

• "In what many say is the first ruling of its kind, a divorced Pilsen mother has had her child visitation revoked by a Cook County judge because she is not vaccinated against COVID-19," reports the Chicago Sun-Times.

• After reopening to American travelers in June, European Union countries are poised to again impose travel restrictions on people from the U.S.

• Immigration enforcement authorities are targeting protesters and activists.

• These are the most overvalued housing markets in the U.S.

NEXT: Immigration Activists Targeted for Deportation and Harassment

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

  1. The U.S. is back up to an average of more than 100,000 daily hospitalizations from COVID-19.

    From, with, it’s all the same.

    1. From, with, near, during, heard about…

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.AQz simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

        Click Below Webpage………….. VISIT HERE

      1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…DQa And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it!…….. VISIT HERE

    2. SF is requiring vax passports since we now have an infection rate of (wait for it………………………………………………)
      24/100,000.
      Yep a bit over 2 100ths of 1%!

      1. See? The passports are working!

      2. I keep mine up my rear, so feel free to scan it, stamp it, whatever. Shouldn’t be too bad – I had my sphincter bleach just for Covid.

        1. Wanted to caution you that it is San Francisco.

  2. In what many say is the first ruling of its kind, a divorced Pilsen mother has had her child visitation revoked by a Cook County judge because she is not vaccinated against COVID-19…

    The new normal.

    1. The new morality. Glad to see faith-based government making a comeback.

    2. Jslave gets a boner.

    3. That is utter insanity. The State will take our children from us?

      That crosses the line from legitimate, to illegitimate actions; that can and must be resisted. When a government resorts to illegitimate actions to achieve their ends, that government must go.

      1. It crossed the line when the judge thought that was a power within his authority and went much farther when he ruled on it. Courts need to be rejecting even consideration of things not within their jurisdiction or power.

    4. Her fault for sending them through Mexico and across the border with coyotes sans papers.

      Wait what? They were all American citizens?

      Well at least her kids aren’t locked in detention centers.

      1. Well at least she can probably adopt one of those sweet little untested illegal Mexican kids that Sleepy Joe is trucking to the interior. One kid’s as good as another.

  3. After reopening to American travelers in June, European Union countries are poised to again impose travel restrictions on people from the U.S.

    Ugly, unvaccinated Americans.

    1. Wow, your latest material is going to absolutely -_kill_ on the anti-vax rally opener circuit.

      1. Humor fail.

      2. Dee’s adding Fist to her attack list.

      3. Stupid WIN! Put your hands together for Mike, folks!

        1. I don’t wanna.

      1. Dance on the grave white Mike.

        1. “He deserves it!”

        2. One step closer to concentration camp guard ethics.

          1. Does anyone here doubt that our leftists and their allies – people like white Mike, collectivistjeff, sarcasmic, sqrlsy, sullum, echospinner, brandybuck, Tony, pod, etc – would enthusiastically volunteer for any job they could get at a concentration camp?

            1. It’s a step up from handing out free government cheese.

            2. They guy who regularly advocates murdering people he disagrees with is accusing people he wants to murder with of wanting to run a murder camp?

              That’s textbook projection if I’ve ever seen it.

              1. Not murdering, little bitch, but defense.
                Leave people the fuck alone, and do you.
                Try to impose totalitarianism upon us, attack us, and get fucking dropped like the mindless trash you are.

                1. Killing people based upon how you believe they voted is not self defense. It’s first degree murder. That’s what you cheer for every day on these comments. I figure you bloviate her because if you told the truth to a therapist or lawyer they’d be legally required to report you to the police.

                  1. Something that kamala, Obama, maxiene waters, and aoc all support

                  2. Not to worry, paranoia is often successfully treated with Clozapine.

                2. Hey Nardz: you’re free to go back to your former Soviet shithole if you don’t like how us Americans vote.

                  I would OF if I was a Nazi like you.

        3. Why not dance? The report is obviously a lie. He’s been kidnapped.

      2. Marc Bernier, a prominent conservative radio host from Daytona Beach, Florida, who was an outspoken opponent of COVID vaccines and mask mandates

        Was the lack of vaccination or the lack of mask that actually got him?

        1. Lack of vaccination, since vaccines offer significant protection and masks don’t.

      3. Again, I don’t want to “dance on his grave” or say he “deserved it”…but is it out of line or too soon to say: “Don’t be this guy?”

        People who support individual rights and limited government have done too much self-sabotage to their movements as it is. Do they have to sabotage their own health so they can’t live to fight another day too?

        If Antifa were murdering Conservative or Libertarian talk-show hosts or figureheads at the rate these past 3 Conservative talk-show hosts were dropping, we would all want to hunt Antifa to the ends of every Mother’s basement on Earth! Why not do the same with one of the tiniest of what aren’t even living things?

    2. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/569921-texas-anti-mask-movement-leader-dies-of-covid-19

      “He initially refused to go to the hospital and get tested for the virus, instead opting to take ivermectin – an anti-parasite medication used mostly in livestock that the Food and Drug Administration recently urged people not to take to treat COVID-19 – along with high doses of Vitamin C, zinc aspirin and an inhaler.”

      1. Dance more white Mike.

        1. At least he died while doing what he loved!

          1. It’s especially dumb for an anti-mask activist to not get vaccinated, since being vaccinated is one of the strongest arguments against anyone telling you to keep wearing a mask.

            1. Yeah that explains why the CDC says people who are vaccinated no longer have to wear a mask. Oh wait, the CDC says that vaccinated people still need to wear a mask?

              Aww, shit Mike. I thought you were pro SCIENCE! ™ and here you are trafficking in misinformation. Or are you allowed to sound like a condescending dick while contradicting the narrative as long as it is trying to shit on conservatives?

              1. Umm, the CDC notoriously has said a lot of things, some of them not actually following the science very well.

              2. And you are the first person to bring up the CDC and conservatism.

                1. But you are not the first person to act smuggly like you have the science on your side while saying absolutely unscientific bullshit like,

                  “being vaccinated is one of the strongest arguments against anyone telling you to keep wearing a mask.”

                  Because…you know…the very serious SCIENCE! ™ based people at the CDC are saying exactly the opposite: that vaccinated people STILL ought to wear a mask.

                  But you keep being inconsistently shrill you.

                  1. Can you point to one comment I ever made where I advocated for mask mandates, or quoted the CDC as an argument for doing so?

                    You are lumping me into some partisan group you presume I belong to, and then arguing against that straw man.

                    1. Lol, had to come back to see if you really were continuing this farce. Holy shit you are.

                      You, Mike Laursen, were the one who condescended on anti-vaxxers. You called them DUMB for not vaccinating because it was an “argument” against masking. So yes, Mike. Like most insufferable liberals out there who think they somehow have a monopoly on the facts, you are insisting that you know better than those dumb anti-vaxxers. Unfortunately, the argument you make for their dumbness is already proven to be wrong because the “argument” that vaxxers don’t need to mask was invalidated weeks ago by the CDC.

            2. Cite?

            3. “it is absolutely dumb for a person to evaluate their own risk profile instead of blindly following the state” – White Mike

            4. Does this logic also apply to people who may die from the hurricane that didn’t move out even though they knew there was a chance of death?

              1. What in the world is the relevance of talking about hurricane risk in a conversation about COVID risk?

                1. If you’re under 65 your risk of covid death is less than aightening strike dummy. Maybe nobody should ever go outside?

            5. George Floyd took wrong drugs and that resulted in his death. Don’t recall folks dancing on his grave.

            6. It’s especially dumb for an anti-mask activist to not get vaccinated, since being vaccinated is one of the strongest arguments against anyone telling you to keep wearing a mask.

              “If only that argument were strong enough”, I say as I sit here, fully vaccinated and forced to wear a mask by government.

              1. Sorry you are being subjected to a mask mandate. Not sure why you are laying it at my feet. I’m not responsible for it in any way.

            7. None of your business, steaming pile of lefty shit.

      2. Well, if he wasn’t vaccinated, the hospital would have justly turned him away.
        “He deserves it!”

      3. He needs looser pants to conceal his hate boner.

        1. Where is there any evidence for hatefulness in repeating a news story about a foolish anti-vaxxer? Pointing out foolishness is not hate.

          1. Lol. Youre so full of shit.

      4. Another notch on Fauci’s belt.

      5. Nearly 30 fully vaccinated Louisiana residents have died with COVID-19

        Nearly 30 people in Louisiana who received full doses of COVID-19 vaccinations have died with the coronavirus, according to the Louisiana Department of Health. It said the deaths were caused by the virus, not a reaction to the vaccine, which provides 94 to 95% protection against coronavirus.

        Dr. Joseph Kanter, who is Louisiana Department of Health’s state health officer and medical director, said 27 people in the state died with coronavirus more than two weeks after they were fully vaccinated. Kanter said the deaths were among people ages 28 to 93 years old.

        1. People are constantly using single stats to “prove” their point, and it’s happening on both sides of any of the arguments out there, but in fact are just trying to win the argument, not promulgate honest discussion. Gotta love it when people say “majority”, as though 50.1% and 99.9% are the same thing. 95% protection from what exactly? Are you protected from getting it, from getting really sick, or are you protected from dying? Quite a range there.

          Second, when releasing numbers of deaths, no correlating facts are EVER used other than age. If someone who is on chemo and 6 weeks from death, a lupus patient or a 500# diabetic smoker who has kidney failure dies, it shouldn’t even count. If people who were going to die in 2021 are the new version of 2020 nursing home patients, it’s a different story than if 20-60 yr old healthy people are just randomly dying.

          Even people using age ranges are bullshitting. 28-93 means what exactly? If you have one 28 yr old and everyone else is 90-93, than that’s your range, but the range attempts to equate and normalize the anomaly. If that 28 yr old was an obese lupus patient with kidney disease and cancer, it’s just purely opportunism there.

        2. What percentage of Louisiana Covid deaths are those thirty?

      6. I would never say: “Dance on his grave” or “He deserved it” in a case like this…but you’d think that pro-freedom, limited-government ideals worth fighting for are equally worth living for as well.

  4. Social credit score is slowly migrating into the US. In the last week Berenson was booted off Twitter, gateway pubdit was removed from absence, and Flynn had his credit cards rescinded from chase bank due to reputation risk. All 3 were removed for dubious and seemingly political reasons.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/cancel-culture-chooses-news-filled-weekend-unleash-its-power

    Berenson removed for stating current CDC guidance.

    Gateway pundit not given a reason aside from misinformation but no actual examples.

    Flynn not for lack of payment or credit but because activists threatened chase Bank.

    Welcome to China.

    1. Gateway pundit should not be kicked off absence, but all that said, those assholes make the job of censors easier. They aren’t pundits, but just right-wing click-whores. During the whole election debacle, I was nearly convinced that they were left-wing plants trying to discredit the election skeptics, but I just don’t think the left is that clever.

      1. We should still have the freedom to speak like assholes.

        1. Not any more. Since words are violence, sedition, or just contradictory to the goals of the State and Party, we will have to give up freedom of speech. For the common good.

        2. At some point, Wendy’s asks the deranged homeless person to leave.

        3. “Let them speak, so the world may know them mad”
          Still the best movie quote ever.

      2. They have plenty of legitimate articles and are a top 50 website per the article. Why should they be removed because someone disagrees. Just don’t go to their page.

        1. I mean Twitter is way worse overall.

        2. Yes I agree with this. They shouldn’t have been removed. I would caution anyone against defending the content of their articles. The argument should be that even lying assholes should be allowed to speak. Even misinformation- and they were straight up posting debunked misinformation- should be allowed.

          1. Can I ask how many articles you read over there to make such a statement? I don’t go there but people have sent me shit from them. They aren’t pure click bait anymore than Kos or other political sites are.

            1. I don’t know if you recall that at the beginning of the election, I was extremely skeptical of the election results. I was calling out people like Boehm for just broadly asserting that the election was great.

              But by December it was clear that sites like TGP were just throwing anything against the wall and declaring it “DNA Fingerprint” of fraud. I cannot find the article any more, but it was the article that made me realize they weren’t interested in the truth, so much as whipping up a storm. In the comments of their article, a few hours after they posted it, someone had debunked their math. Nevertheless, they left that article up for weeks, and linked to it over and over again, never once correcting themselves. I tried searching for the article, but it has since disappeared or the title changed. I notice also that comments for those articles have since all been removed.

              When someone does that, they are liars and cannot be trusted for any of their content. *shrug*

              1. Ahah- here is the article:
                https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/we-caught-them-part-4-we-were-able-to-replicate-same-impossible-ballot-ratio-found-in-michigans-kent-county-as-reported-by-dr-shiva-20000-votes-switched-from-trump-to-biden/

                That article specifically refers to that Dr Shiva guy, and his statistical proof of malfeasance. That video they link to was thoroughly debunked. They totally fucked up the math. Yet to this day Gateway Pundit has that article up, without correction.

              2. So your entire basis is based on links from reason? Seems like a selective basis. Likewise they reported on all of the court cases factually unlike CNN and others.

          2. Is their record better or worse than the msm?

            1. “Gateway Pundit. Their as bad as the MSM”.

              Not exactly a ringing endorsement. And FWIW, at least MSM can be shamed into correcting their articles. Not so much for Gateway Pundit.

              1. I’m not endorsing them, I’m pointing out the double standard.
                And no, the msm has only issued corrections for a tiny percentage of their outright falsehoods, while still pushing the majority.

              2. When have they ever been shamed for lying?

              3. “And FWIW, at least MSM can be shamed into correcting their articles. Not so much for Gateway Pundit.”

                Gonna disagree. Rarely does any media source correct their past columns. If they do anything at all, they will defend them [even wrong statements of fact] as opinions, make minor notes at the bottom [rarely], or at most write a back-page correction, rarely seen. Conversely, I’ve seen plenty of times that media sources such as NYT make edits to the original article when they are caught in deception or “selective editing”. I have however, seen follow up articles by some of these by the same authors complaining that people misunderstood the point just because a few facts were wrong.

                Not that they are alone. I’ve also seen this on supposed supposed peer reviewed websites so long as the submission supports something that sounds like the popular propaganda du jour. Google “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct”. Even after outed as a joke, the journal left it live and uncorrected for 6 months.

                Of course one can also say the same thing about this website. There is great tolerance here among authors for logical fallacy, ignoring exonerating or contradictory evidence, and just political derangement syndrome. All without apology, though I’ve seen some of the authors complain other places that they were harshly criticized.

      3. Hmm, there was Stephen Colbert, and, some would say, Michael Savage.

      4. Is Gateway Pundit even that influential? I don’t recall hearing much of this guy since the late-2000s, after the great blog explosion that took place earlier in the decade.

        I’m amazed Instapundit is still going, to be honest.

        1. Yes they were all over during the post election. Every right wing site was linking to them. I got on Instapundit (a site I still visit) for linking to them- even they I think figured out that TGP was not helping the cause.

  5. https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1432138811023106049?s=19

    Elizabeth Bruenig, Sophie Lewis and Noah Berlatsky perform an oppositional pantomime in the discourse, but it’s all kayfabe, they share the same #NamblaLeftist politics. Bruenig advocated “ethical porn consumption for children” in a mainstream liberal publication two months ago.

    1. Isn’t Bruenig the one who kept pushing pro-pedophilia articles in Salon?

      1. Buttplug should know.

  6. FBI forgot to tell the courts it had paid a racist CI over 100k as it issues warrants based on CI statements.

    https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/monfbi-suffers-another-black-eye-admits-it-hid-payments-informant-white

    1. The headline includes black eye.

    2. It’s nice to see the FBI endorsing free speech and diversity of opinion.

  7. “Appeals court rejects emergency motion to block Texas law. A measure restricting most abortions in the state of Texas is set to take effect on Wednesday.

    Passed in May, the law makes it illegal to perform an abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected. That starts six weeks into pregnancy, and about two weeks after a woman can tell she is pregnant.”

    So it doesn’t ban abortion

    1. No, but it clearly violates long established constitutional law. These lower court judges (conservative activist judges) are supposed to follow Supreme Court precedent.

      1. Do you even know what the precedence says?

      2. The constitutional law that says anything not mentioned to the constitution is left to the states to decide? Which ammendment is the abortion amendment?

      3. I’m curious. Which SCOTUS decision requires access to unlimited and unfettered abortion?

        I realize that actually knowing anything about what you’re commenting on isn’t your thing, but talking about “long established constitutional law”, what constitutes an “activist judge” and following “Supreme Court precedent” is more than just your daily forage into the big dark woods without a compass or flashlight.

    2. Not all of them. Just most of them.

      1. My uncle, a heavy smoker and consumer of fried foods, died from a massive heart mass of cells attack.

  8. From all the huffing and puffing, it sounds like this law poses a “dangerous” risk of protecting unborn babies’ lives.

    “the law makes it illegal to perform an abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected”

    “fetal cardiac activity” is also known as a fetal heartbeat, but “heartbeat” is too explicit for the exponents of the culture of death.

    The “reproductive rights activists” like to use euphemisms in hopes of dulling the public sensitivity to what abortionists actually do. They don’t perform abortions or kill fetuses, they perform “procedures.” An abortuary isn’t an abortuary, it’s a “medical facility.”

    There was a time when the euphemizers got to work on slavery: “other persons,” “domestic institutions,” etc.

    It’s a sign that they don’t want to describe to the public, in plan language, exactly what they’re doing.

    1. Once again, lawmakers know the science!
      Sadly, no mention about when the soul enters the body.

      1. They deliberately avoid that topic.

      2. If by soul you mean qualification for government entitlement programs, then 1 nanosecond after birth.

        1. Though birth isn’t necessarily required to qualify for government entitlement programs.

      3. The soul is a matter of religious discussion as it cannot be measured, directly or indirectly. Since there is a strong debate about when or even if fetuses have them (God is omniscient with perfect foresight. Why would he give a soul to something that will never use it?), we need to focus on things that we actually can measure.

        1. We don’t do that anymore.
          See “cloth face coverings”.

          1. Or systemic racism.
            Or white supremacy.
            Or right wing extremism.
            Or climate change.
            Or democracy.
            Or public health.

        2. Setting aside the soul, is a fetus a living member of homo sapiens, or not?

          What other definition would you use of a person with rights. Or do you think there are “lives unworthy of life”?

          1. Well, Cal. Pregnancy is the process where an excretion becomes a person. The process is continuous, so there’s five hard lines I can see: conception, heartbeat, quickening, viability, and birth. I cannot scientifically raise one of these dividing lines above the others to be THE clear distinction. Thus, it goes into philosophy, which is the entire point of the debate.

        3. So what is the criteria for measuring personhood in order to determine which classes of human beings will receive protection under law?

          1. Curiously, the killer of a pregnant woman can be charged with double homicide, accounting for the unborn child in addition to the pregnant woman.
            Not sure if there is a legal threshold that determines whether it is or isn’t applied.

        4. We need to focus on things that actually exist, first and foremost with concern for actual, viable, living human beings. FTFY.

          1. Anyone who discusses the merits of their unborn baby based on whether they are viable or not is seriously challenging their own status in humanity.

    2. They’re not “unborn babies” you retard, they’re fetuses. You can’t deny women’s rights to do what they want with their body. This will be challenged and throw out in court very shortly lol

      1. Do people now have fetus showers?

      2. So no vaccine mandates then.

      3. They’re not “unborn babies” you retard, they’re fetuses.

        Which is a distinction without a difference. Your appeal to scientific language is fallacious. ‘Fetus’ is just a stage of human maturation that takes place within the womb and being ‘born’ is an arbitrary threshold in terms of survivability. If you just admit that abortion is the cessation of an immature human life, we can skip to the real argument about whether or not the government has an enumerated power that allows interference.

        You can’t deny women’s rights to do what they want with their body.

        What I would like to know is why assholes like you are too cowardly to admit that the pro-choice argument reduces a human child to a parasite. Nobody has a problem with a woman ridding her body of a parasite.

      4. For someone who is humorously attempting [but failing on so many levels] to insult someone’s intelligence, you spend great effort to conflate terms you know nothing about.

      5. Doesn’t the latin for fetus just mean baby?

    3. Progressives don’t have the heart mass of cells to call things how they are.

    4. Ethical question for anyone who is in favor of interfering in a woman’s life to force her to bring a fetus to term. Do you see any ethical obligation on your part, since you interfered in her life, to make sure her child is well taken care of, such as providing financial assistance if she needs it?

      1. What if the father of the unborn child wants to do all of the things you suggest? Does he get the choice?
        If he raises the child exclusively should she be compelled to provide additional support to him until the child is at least 18?

        1. The equity answer would be that if the father had no say in killing the unborn child then he should have no financial obligation should the child be born.

        2. I’m not sure how common such a scenario is, but I’d listen to an argument that a mother should have to bear the child if the father will swear to take responsibility for it.

          1. As long as the status quo didn’t change. We know.

          2. Not sure how common either. I do know a person who was faced with that scenario. The father. He had no say. She aborted.

      2. Do you see any ethical obligation for a woman to take one of the several readily available precautions against getting pregnant if she does not want to have a clump of cells growing inside of her at that point in her life?

  9. Immigration enforcement authorities are targeting protesters and activists.

    Demonstrators are the new meat processing plant workers?

    1. Too stupid to keep quiet after jumping the fence.

    2. Can’t be. Demonstrators already have a “productive” career. And they should be paid some multiple of a living wage, since they are doing righteous work, right?

      1. In America even a lowly community organizer can someday become president!

  10. A short run down over everything wrong with Off Byrds interview given for shotting an unarmed protestor.

    https://pjmedia.com/columns/jack-dunphy/2021/08/29/lieutenant-byrd-speaks-but-shouldnt-have-n1474053

    Of course the leftists here will ignore it as they did the actual video and claim she fully deserved a death sentence for vandalism and trespassing.

    1. Interesting. Is there any indication that the wrongful death suit is definitely coming?

      1. Already filed by the family

        1. It will be thrown out as a moot case because punishing the stasi won’t bring her back

    2. Lon Huriuchi had the decency to go into hiding. This prick is simply sending a message.

  11. “‘In what many say is the first ruling of its kind, a divorced Pilsen mother has had her child visitation revoked by a Cook County judge because she is not vaccinated against COVID-19,’ reports the Chicago Sun-Times.”

    Good.

    #MyBodyMyChoice
    #(Sometimes)

    1. If she only had aborted them when she had the chance. Now even the slightest risk of harm to these 4th or 5th trimester clumps must be outlawed.

    2. LITERALLY the Handmaid’s Tale. She will now be sent to the Red Center to be reeducated and learn to love The Science.

  12. Section 230 protects Second Amendment rights.

    NOW YOU HAVE MY ATTENTION.

    1. Section 230 is necessary to shield Amazon delivering all the guns to their Prime members in IL within the 3 day waiting period.

  13. White house promises Britain that Biden has a long memory and won’t forget the disrespect shown to him over the last week from British politicians.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-will-remember-u-k-politicians-offensive-remarks-on-his-mental-acuity-with-his-long-memory-report

    1. SleepyJoe “remembers “ the last time we fought the British.
      He thinks he was there.
      With corn pop.

      1. Was that before or after Hitler bombed Pearl Harbor?

    2. White House promises that Biden has a long memory the Administration has a long memory the party has a long memory there is no shadow government.

    3. What a pussy. Thatcher got more shit from these guys during her time as PM than Biden’s gotten in 50 years as a mostly useless pit of taxpayer dollars.

      Britain doesn’t have much to worry about, the only things the senile old coot actually remembers these days are his daily ice cream run and Beau.

    4. “The Brits have their view. But they should be careful. What’s been said is offensive and he will remember it. He actually has a long memory,” a U.S. source claimed

      Dude, I was just fucking around when I told them that.

    1. Some people did some things.

      1. Mostly peaceful.

        1. Just pilot error.

          1. Occupational licensing reform to keep unqualified pilots from crashing.

            1. The lack of training equity resulted in them only learning how to take off and fly; the instructors wouldn’t teach them how to land due to Islamophobia.

              1. White supremacy is always the culprit.

        2. A religion of peace.

  14. A new study suggests the pandemic has been associated with significant weight gain among American kids.

    Good thing it was the response to the pandemic that caused this, or we’d all have some introspecting on our mitigation advocacies to do.

    1. Introspection chambers brought to you by Grubhub.

    2. This is merely a testimony to the heroic efforts to maintain the school lunch program during a crisis.

    3. Given the obesity of those who were loudest – and the complete lack of anyone advocating stuff like exercise or healthy food etc – it’s a safe bet that obesity (and the subsequent mortality) was the outcome regardless.

      1. “They deserved it!”

        1. Not ‘they’. Only you. Because you’re special.

          1. Not nearly as special as you, cowardly piece of lefty shit.

      2. Right on, Newsom’s policy of arresting people for paddle boarding had nothing to do with this. Or Phil Murphy, sending the cops to shut down gyms.

        1. You commenters are always such whiny victims with no agency. Well Caleb Wallace, Marc Bernier, Phil Valentine, Dick Farrel, etc – all at least had agency, recognized that, and helped create a little anti-reality information bubble for all of your ilk. And instead of looking in the mirror and seeing a relevant problem, they chose to piss into the wind about non-relevant problems. Now – they have no agency.

      3. “and the complete lack of anyone advocating stuff like exercise or healthy food etc”

        Liar.

        1. Says the guy who accuses others of being “whiny victims with no agency”.

          Haha. I can’t even….

    4. It’s also nice to know that’s one of the risk factors vaccinated or not for Covid bad outcomes. We do a good job of making the virus worse!

  15. I knew the Biden Era would be awesome. I just didn’t know it would be THIS awesome.

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

    In 2021 the 10 richest Americans have gained a combined: $241 billion

    See what happens when competent adults are running things?

    #AmericaIsBack
    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. “See what happens when competent adults are running things?”

      No. I’ll get back to you when I see any competent adults in DC.

      1. We’ll miss you, Matt.

  16. This is where the Republican Politicians lose me.

    That’s not your body when it comes to reproduction … that body belongs to the ‘feds’. Ironically, all this does is dictates a cancellation of the health services industry. Abortion is *still* the right of the woman – they can’t stop that; just like they can’t stop suicide. Neither of which is ANY OF THEIR BUSINESS!

    Pray to the Gov-Gods… Ask the Gov-Gods to punish your neighbors with the fiery wrath of Gov-Gods dictation.

    This is such B.S.

    1. Some libertarians do recognize a unique human with unique DNA also having rights.

      1. But entitlements don’t kick in until one second after birth.

        1. Or at least give the girl 21-weeks (as ruled in Roe v Wade). At that point she can still have her own body-rights within reason and the state can try to incubate the infant into a human if they really believe such is so important and so choose to fund the resources for it.

          This legislation is like making adoption illegal. You got pregnant the Gov-Gods will enslave and be sure you raise your child till it’s 18. Giving away one’s own rights to their body is just far too much of a squeeze for the juice. What will be next? Nutrient controls? It’s just NOT a place for Government to be no matter how one feels about it. It’s Family or Gods territory and let your neighbors be judged by God if that’s how one feels about it.

          1. “This legislation is like making adoption illegal.”
            Except in this case, it’s a choice between the child living or getting ripped to pieces and sold for spare parts.

            1. Abortion doesn’t *have* to happen that way but science nor support for resources isn’t far enough to incubate the stage at which the abortion happens having a ZERO chance of survival isn’t “murder”.

              Speaking clearly; The amount of personal dictation in Pro-Life is astonishing. “Your body will host that pregnancy”, say the Gov-Gods. It’s just not any of governments business. It’s sticking government in gods territory.

        2. … As the U.S. Constitution is written –
          ‘born’ is the word used.

    2. It’s not you body when it comes to vaccinations .

      1. … And that’s the path we want to go down?

        1. You wouldn’t, obviously. The science is settled when it clearly favors progressive policy.

          1. Since when did “settled science” justify tyrannical dictation?

    3. TJJ, let me put it in a different perspective. You might not agree with it, but you won’t understand the pro-life position until you at least can academically think the way they do.

      The reasoning is thus: “It’s a baby. We don’t murder babies”

      Your “abortion is a right” falls on deaf ears, and your concerns about the rights of the mother are considered as invalid as the young women who abandon their newborns in trash cans. Yes, their background makes them subjects of pity and charity, but their action to kill their child is inexcusable.

      The idea of “my body my choice” is considered as bad as any deadbeat father who refuses to pay child support (but, worse because of the murder). It’s considered a selfish action because it ignores the fact that there is a child involved.

      Again, you might not agree. I certainly don’t. However, the reasoning isn’t hard to understand, and its simplicity makes it much harder to refute than pro-choice activists like to pretend.

      1. Republicans love to watch out “for the baby” when the woman is pregnant and then happily kick it to the curb when it is born and they don’t give a fuck any longer. It’s just they figure it’s alright to push their “bible” values on other people to the point of autocratic tactics like texas is doing while claiming to be the party of individual rights. It’s why I choose to be libertarian rather than be a two faced piece of shit republican. They’re as bad as the leftists.

        1. You are a liar or an ignoramus. Pro-Life organizations do plenty of charity work supporting women and children, or does it only count if the state does it?

          1. “You are a liar or an ignoramus.”

            Embrace the power of “AND”!
            (read it here yesterday)

        2. So you either didn’t read or understand Ben’s post, or you’re another dishonest lefty troll.

          “and then happily kick it to the curb when it is born and they don’t give a fuck any longer.”

          Honestly curious wtf you’re referring to here?

        3. You guys ignore a couple of other factors in your over-simplified diatribe against Rs.

          1. The majority of abortions are not young mothers on the verge of abandoning their newborns in trashcans, nor the result of rape, nor the result of incest. Those are scare words to validate the practice. More often than not abortions are performed as birth control for young people that – oops I got pregnant, well that’s going to mess with my life and career. We validate the irresponsibility with the exceptions instead of promoting a more self-controlled behavior.

          2. The father has no rights to his child. Again, most often portrayed as the ‘Dead-Beat Dad’ in arguments for. But the rights of the father are thus:
          Watch the mother abort the child, even if he wants it.
          Be on the hook for the full support of the child if she wants it and he doesn’t
          Be a criminal if he doesn’t go along with her wishes.

          It’s a far more complicated issue than Bible Thumping control freaks vs. My Body my Choice Womyn.

          1. Josey, there are a few issues I have with your post. Most notably, I trust precisely none of the “studies” done. The most well known study, from Florida abortion center surveys, had “elective abortion” essentially as an “other/no answer”. The other options were disclosing very large, personal information to someone whom they are certain was judging them.

            Direct surveys on controversial topics are fraught with bias. Even more so when they are on personal emotional subjects or the interviewee believes they are being judged. There is little that is more emotional than being in an abortion clinic.

            Finally, this isn’t about “Bible thumping”, as the Hippocratic Oath bans abortion as a type of deadly medicine. Since that oath is sworn to Apollo, it is certainly not only a Christian position.

        4. Actually you’re wrong. Polls show just about as many lefties are Pro-Life as are Republicans and vice versa. There’s really no massive partisan split. But the party alignment makes it seem different in Congress.

        5. This is about as leftist of an argument as I’ve ever read on this site. I’ve never heard anyone make this argument that wasn’t a radical progressive or a union stooge.

      2. The reasoning is thus: “It’s a baby. We don’t murder babies”
        And the reasoning is deceptive.

        An apple seed is not an apple tree.

        1. You can believe it’s wrong, but that is what they believe.

          You can either move that belief, which is a nigh-impossible task or make an argument to practicality that abortion bans are somehow even worse.

          Or you can just yell, talk in circles, ignore their core point, and accomplish nothing. Your choice.

    4. No Republican wants the feds in charge of reproduction, so you failed miserably out of the gate with your hot take

      1. If that were true there wouldn’t be this legislation. Reproduction occurs in various stages not just the very first attempt at it.

  17. https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/1431689413172543488?s=19

    “Physics classes will include discussions of social justice such as kneeling during the national anthem, title IX, and paying college athletes while learning about concepts such as Newton’s Laws of Motion.”
    [Link]

    1. I’m pretty sure that is pushing the center of gravity past the pivot point.

      1. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

        1. Close, “for every action there is an equal and opposite overreaction

        2. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

          And a Pikey reaction… is quite a fucking thing.

      2. Gives new meaning to them ‘Libertarian Moment’

        Hopefully an engineer will get that

  18. On Saturday, abortion providers asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to intervene, filing an emergency motion

    One wonders if abortion anytime anywhere activists had agreed to 20 week bans like most of Europe and 3/4ths of the US agree to, this wouldn’t have been pushed to roughly 8 weeks (6 weeks is on the early side).

    1. Now they just need to combine this with a waiting period (similar to gun purchases).

  19. “A new study suggests the pandemic has been associated with significant weight gain among American kids.”

    Since COVID prefers fatties, can we assume that the lockdown bureaucrats are actually working for the virus?

    1. Now we are going to have to vaccinate them all – given that they are all high risk fatties.

  20. A new study suggests the pandemic has been associated with significant weight gain among American kids. Published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, and based on data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health records, the research concluded that “youths gained more weight during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic.”

    The irony of the lockdown solution putting kids at greater risk since covid deaths are heavily correlated with obesity.

    1. Trust the experts.

    2. I’d imagine its led to weight gain among a lot more people than kids, but most adults don’t have the government weighing them annually like school kids do

  21. “That starts six weeks into pregnancy, and about two weeks after a woman can tell she is pregnant.”

    Ooooooooh, a rare mistake from ENB in her usually excellent abortion advocacy.

    That cisnormative language erases transmen and nonbinary people who need to access abortion care. A more intersectional and inclusive sentence would be “That starts six weeks into pregnancy, and about two weeks after a ciswoman or transman or nonbinary uterus owner can tell she or he or they are pregnant.”

    Do better, Liz.

    #IntersectionalFeminism

    1. But what is the proper pronoun for the fetus?

      1. If it’s a female, the name is “take”
        Miss Take.

        1. Plural is clumpsters.

          1. I forgot the plural slash everyone seems to use, clump/clumps. What is the slash about?

            1. The slash is from Dr Kebortkian’s scalpel.

    2. Next step they will introduce a 2 week waiting period on abortion purchases.

    3. “…..nonbinary uterus owner…..”

      OBL is on his game. Lol.

    4. We’ll just call them birthing people.

      1. I eagerly await the next revision of the Newspeak Dictionary.

  22. Section 230 protects Second Amendment rights. “

    Guns were banned from the internet prior to 230? Your own writeup even says 230 will be weaponized. What bullshit is this? Manufacturers are already under liability protections for misuse of their goods. 230 does nothing to those protections. Stop justifying you being okay with mass censorship.

    1. “[Dianne Feinstein] recently introduced The Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act. If passed, her bill would “clarify” Section 230 to strip online firearms marketplaces, specifically Armslist.com, of immunity protections.”

      I don’t see what’s wrong with reporting this fact.

      1. It is the framing. It says 230 protects the speech and then in the second statement says 230mis weaponized against it. Just remove 230. Let standard protections apply. 230 doesn’t protect against the weaponization of 230. It is dishonest framing.

        1. The point is that anti-gun rights people will do everything they can to shut down Armslist.com (and other similar sites) with frivolous lawsuits at first opportunity.

          And, no, gun marketplaces like that didn’t really exist online before Section 230 in 1996. Netscape didn’t go public until 1995, and before that, few Americans even knew what a browser was, what it did, or why. Of the few Americans who were online, most of them thought AOL’s website was the entirety of the internet.

          We’ve never seen the internet as we know it without Section 230 in the USA. And if the anti-gun rights activists could destroy the online gun markets as easily as filing a bunch of frivolous lawsuits, they’d do it in a heartbeat. And they don’t even need to win. You can go bankrupt winning lawsuits.

          1. 230 hardly protects against frivolous lawsuits. It isnt the panacea you think it is.

            230 gave the government a good in the door to decide or favor some forms of speech over others. In this case online speech. Id rather government have no feet in than slowly push their way in and weapons it like democrats are seeking to do.

            Manufacturer liability precedence has existed for 30 years and those industries still get sued all the time by gun activists. Youre simply not paying attention if you think 230 stops anything Ken.

            1. A foot in the door*

            2. “230 hardly protects against frivolous lawsuits.”

              All lawsuits holding third parties responsible for someone else’s speech are necessarily frivolous, and this law, that Dianne Feinstein has apparently introduced, is meant to bankrupt sites like Armslist.com with frivolous lawsuits as I just defined them.

              1. Who decides what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit?

                My copy of The Constitution specifically says not Congress. Just as importantly, it says it in the same sentence as free speech and association. The overt implication being that, otherwise, Congress can decide what constitutes frivolous speech and frivolous association.

                Go ahead, tell me I’m arguing in bad faith.

                1. “Who decides what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit?

                  My copy of The Constitution specifically says not Congress. ”

                  So in your opinion laws like the PLCAA is unconstitutional? Because it directs courts to reject lawsuits based on how a weapon is used after its sold

                  1. So in your opinion laws like the PLCAA is unconstitutional? Because it directs courts to reject lawsuits based on how a weapon is used after its sold

                    So you’re OK with Congress protecting Facebook?
                    So you’re OK with Facebook owning other peoples’ property?
                    So you’re OK with Gun Manufacturer’s being told who they can and can’t sell to and that they can’t rescind ownership from but you are with Facebook?

                    You’re usually above this sophistry Ken. Especially in defense of Feinstein, Cox, Wyden, Hawley, etc.

                    1. It’s Kevin, not Ken.

                2. “Who decides what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit?”

                  I gave you the definition I’m using here.

                  When I sue you for something you didn’t do–by my own admission–that’s a frivolous lawsuit.

                  1. Even in cases of negligence, I’m suing you for something you neglected to do–not for something someone else neglected to do.

                    The idea that I’d sue you for something you didn’t even write–by your own admission–is absurdly frivolous.

              2. So you agree that Section 230 isn’t protecting them then. Glad we are in agreement.

          2. Ken “I duct taped a Pepsi bottle to the muzzle. Now what?” Schultz

            1. I don’t get what you’re saying here, but I would have use an oil filter.

              https://www.wideopenspaces.com/oil-filter-silencer-myth-buster/

              1. I don’t get what you’re saying here

                Self-evident. Anyone who thinks guns weren’t sold or transferred over the internet prior to 1996 wouldn’t get it. It’s an old alt.guns Usenet joke.

                1. There were very few people who were aware of it in 1996, and Section 230 was on the books before most people knew what was happening–for good reason.

                  1. So few people were aware of it that we had legions of lawsuits necessitating protection?

                    You don’t even know how many guns were sold over the internet prior to section 230&emdash;for good reason.

                    1. It was a preventative thing that made the internet vastly more open than it would have been otherwise–no doubt.

                      Regardless, here are some interesting statistics about the interactivity of newspapers, specifically, published in 1999.

                      “Ninety-two out of 100 online newspapers offered no synchronous chat at all (Q 4). Three provided a direct link to another chat provider. Only five newspapers in the sample offered their own chat rooms. None of these papers fell into the smallest circulation category.”

                      https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/5/1/JCMC513/4584183

                      The newspapers of the time published their print editions online, but you couldn’t post your own comments.

                      No doubt in my mind that, circa 1996, Section 230 was looking to the future. People couldn’t even imagine something like Facebook emerging.

                      MySpace didn’t exist until 2003.

                    2. It was a preventative thing that made the internet vastly more open than it would have been otherwise–no doubt.

                      I have plenty of considerable doubt. Cubby v. Compuserve had already been decided before Cox and Wyden put pen to paper on S230.

                      I’m not wrong in that fact, but even if I am, you’re making a pretty good case that the propaganda machine we currently know as the internet today couldn’t have existed if Congress didn’t decide (and couldn’t regulate) what constitutes frivolous or indecent speech up front. And that you support their ability to do so.

          3. “Let standard protections apply.”

            What standard protections apply to gunbroker.com? The same that applied to craigslist and backpage?

            1. So you’re saying S230 didn’t protect craigslist and backpage?

              1. This is my argument as well. People are acting like 230 protects anything more than censorship at this point. It protects only what the government wants it to protect at this point. So why have it?

                1. Section 230 of the Constitution is a Suprecedent that shall not be infringed lest democracy die in darkness. It is the only thing holding our country together and preventing the zombie apocalypse

                  1. Only the zombies of Good Samaritans would be allowed to be Senators or President.

      2. Heavily correlated? Heavily corrolated?

        Yeah, he didn’t critize the statement of the facts. He criticized the further extension of section 230 as the 1A BOR of the internet.

        As I said above, section 230 doesn’t protect Amazon from shipping guns within any given 3 day waiting period. Further, it doesn’t protect armslist.com from having any given 3-day waiting period levied against it. Even further, it doesn’t protect either armslist.com or the NRA or anyone else from having spurious lawsuits filed against them.

        1. “Even further, it doesn’t protect either armslist.com or the NRA or anyone else from having spurious lawsuits filed against them.”

          You cannot introduce a suit against one of those websites for the statements made by third parties on their platform. You need to go after the person who made the statement. If you believe this isn’t the way it should be, you’re wrong about that, and if you don’t think anti-gun rights activists would shut down gunbroker.com in a heartbeat if they could, you’re nuts.

          Because you guys don’t want these things to be true, doesn’t make them false.

          Frivolous lawsuits would become the cancel culture weapon of choice. Anti-abortion activists, trans activists, environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, historical preservation societies, and stolen valor activists would all start legal support operations–that did nothing but direct people towards which websites and organizations to target. The risk/reward and cost/benefit analysis would all turn sharply away from allowing comments and towards premoderated comments for organizations large enough to afford full time moderators.

          It would totally suck.

          And ENB is right to bring attention to Feinstein’s awful bill.

          Jesus Christ, do you realize you’re apologizing Dianne Feinstein and gun control? How much further are you willing to go? If AOC backed a bill to kill Section 230 protections for libertarian magazines, would that give you pause? What if Preet Bahara, in private practice, were the one coming after Reason for what you said?

          1. Frivolous lawsuits would become the cancel culture weapon of choice.

            It would totally suck.

            Worse than riots and 30-yr.-old assault allegations?

            Jesus Christ, do you realize you’re apologizing Dianne Feinstein and gun control? How much further are you willing to go? If AOC backed a bill to kill Section 230 protections for libertarian magazines, would that give you pause? What if Preet Bahara, in private practice, were the one coming after Reason for what you said?

            Remind me again what court Preet Bahara brought suit in and what the outcome was?

            If there were no section 230, there would be no section 230 for Feinstein to weaponize. I’m not apologizing, Congress overtly uses the section 230 to determine what constitutes good faith speech. You’re the one insisting it applies to gun sales too.

            1. “Remind me again what court Preet Bahara brought suit in and what the outcome was?

              He was at the U.S Attorney’s office, and he wasn’t in private practice suing on behalf of somebody.

              If Section 230 were repealed, Reason would have been flooded with suits over comments already.

              They wouldn’t have any choice but to close comments down. No way they could afford to premoderate comments before posting them.

              1. He was at the U.S Attorney’s office, and he wasn’t in private practice suing on behalf of somebody.

                So, rather definitively, section 230 doesn’t protect private actors from censorship by their government.

                If Section 230 were repealed, Reason would have been flooded with suits over comments already.

                So you’ve got the docket of cases that were lined up waiting to happen if the CDA didn’t pass? Go ahead, prove the negative.

                1. “So, rather definitively, section 230 doesn’t protect private actors from censorship by their government.”

                  Civil courts are still the government. The judges are appointed or elected, the judgements are enforced by the police, the courts are paid for by the taxpayers, etc.

                  1. Civil courts are still the government.

                    So libertarians don’t distinguish between the county, city, state, and federal government anymore? Don’t distinguish between tort law and criminal law? Section 230 is proving to be far more destructive than I imagined.

                2. Understanding the likely consequences of our actions often doesn’t require psychic abilities. An understanding of how the world works and why is more than sufficient.

                  Knowing that Hugo Chavez’s nationalization of food production and distribution would result in widespread hunger in Venezuela didn’t require any psychic abilities at all.

                  If Palin’s Buttplug could sue Reason because John called him a pedophile, he probably would, and all these trolls you see here who spend all day every day trolling comments because they hate libertarianism and capitalism, plenty of them would sue Reason if they could.

                  That woman people used to call Mary Stack? Wasn’t she cataloging our comments at one point for later use? Yes, I have little or no doubt but that plenty of people would sue Reason for the comments we post here if they could.

                  1. Understanding the likely consequences of our actions often doesn’t require psychic abilities.

                    I agree. Recognizing that S230 is a law passed by Congress regulating free speech requires zero psychic abilities. The thing is named “Protection For ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material” for chrissakes.

                    Libertarians for government screening of offensive material and protecting the people that do!

                  2. It’s the Good Samaritan clause that’s the problem, but everyone always talks like 230 as a whole is inviolable, and we can’t keep the good parts if we turf the stupid one or fix it.

                    1. There are no good parts. It itself was a part of a terrible law that was struck down and even it requires a counterfactual or interpretation via gaslight in order to have freedom projected on it.

            2. “If there were no section 230, there would be no section 230 for Feinstein to weaponize. ”

              Why do you think Feinstein is looking to strip 230 protections from only Firearms websites, mc? What do you think she intends to happen?

              You guys are crazy here.

              1. Why do you think Feinstein is looking to strip 230 protections from only Firearms websites, mc? What do you think she intends to happen?

                I think she intends to use the Communications Decency Act to decide what constitutes indecent speech. Entirely within the bounds of the CDA/S230 (but not the 1A).

                Otherwise, she’d have to expend personal or campaign $ to file a frivolous suit (that arguably still violates the 1 and maybe 2A) against Armslist.com in Oklahoma.

                Remind me again how S230 protected Defense Distributed from frivolous suits when they were distributing gun-related data online. Remind me again how the courts got it wrong and we really need section 230 to continue to not protect gun-related internet data providers like DD.

          2. You cannot introduce a suit against one of those websites for the statements made by third parties on their platform.

            Yes they can. Or they can go after the banks/websites/backends/etc.

            Noting stops frivolous suits. See manufacturers liability exemptions.

            1. Your suit will be dismissed.

              There won’t even be a court date set.

              Find the person who wrote the comment.

            2. Jesse-

              So why then do you think Feinstein is passing this legislation? She obviously thinks it will be harmful to the firearms platforms, else she wouldn’t have bothered. What end game do you think she has for firearms platforms?

              1. On what grounds does Feinstein derive the authority to decide what constitutes indecent, frivolous, or bad faith speech on the internet one way or the other?

              2. Lawa modify laws all the time. She is speaking of amending 230 to her whims. Her foot is in the door and youre failing to recognize it. You’ve supported government deciding what is allowed as speech under the support for 230 instead of letting it remain under the domain of 1a. You’ve weakened protections as shown by democrats now altering the law. This isn’t difficult overt.

  23. Xi’s China is the culmination of a mature progressive state. I read a couple of stories this morning that really drove the point home.

    1) Xi’s war on Chinese tech is at least partially about fighting income inequality.

    Following the high-profile crackdown on tech firms like Alibaba and Meituan, an Aug. 17 speech from President Xi Jinping on “common prosperity” caught investors’ attention. Mr. Xi called for rationally “adjusting” excessive incomes and for high-income individuals and companies to contribute more to society. He also called for more aggressive measures to expand the middle class and the social safety net, including health and elderly care.

    China has long been one of the most unequal major economies in the world, with one common measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient, at 0.465 in 2019 according to official data out of a possible 1.0. Wealth inequality is higher: The top 1% hold 30.6% of the country’s wealth according to Credit Suisse data, below the U.S. at 35.3% but well above the U.K., Japan and Italy.

    “Common Prosperity: Decoding China’s New Populism”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/common-prosperity-decoding-chinas-new-populism-11630159381?

    2) Xi is restricting the hours children can play video games.

    China has a new rule for the country’s hundreds of millions of young gamers: No videogames during the school week, and one hour a day on Fridays, weekends and public holidays.

    “China Limits Videogames to Three Hours a Week for Young People”

    —–Link Below

    Using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for their own good and the good of others is what American progressivism is all about, too. In China, though, the progressives don’t need to worry about average people and elections getting in the way of their big plans, and they have really tight controls on social media and the media generally, so there’s no danger of misinformation becoming a big problem.

    There are some problems, however, and they’re the same problems progressives face in the USA. For one thing, consumer technology is a major engine of economic growth, and no matter how powerful the government is in enforcing its delusions, Xi can’t escape the negative consequences of destroying the engine of growth any more than progressives in the USA. Progressives everywhere have a hard time dealing with reality.

    When their laws don’t reflect reality, progressives everywhere just close their eyes and lean-in. This won’t end well for China or American progressives, but since China is more progressive and more able to inflict their progressive ideals on the unwilling, we may see them make all these mistakes first. Purposely strangling the consumer technology business to death is something American progressives might only do by accident, but the results will be the same.

    1. OMG, Ken, the Chinese government are not progressives. They are communists.

      1. So tell us of all the Progressive goals and ethics that are not about promoting communalism?

      2. The Chinese govt shares more in common with rightwing authoritarian govts. They masquerade as populists but rule as conservative authoritarians.

          1. Who knew stroodle was a comic.

            1. You guys are the clowns.

              1. He’s not a comic. He’s a ignorant pile of lefty shit.

              2. Youre essentially a religious fundamentalist. Anything you dislike is simply right wing just like fundamentalists blame everything they dislike on the devil.

        1. I gave two examples of how Xi is like American progressives, and I made allusions to more.

          You’ve responded with a vague assertion that doesn’t address any of the facts I brought up or include any facts of your own.

          Do you see the difference?

          Xi is addressing income inequality and vigorously combats “misinformation” online–just like American progressives.

          Now you either explain why that isn’t what Xi is really doing, isn’t what progressives care about, supply facts of your own to show that he’s more like Republicans than progressives, and do so without invoking the tu quoque fallacy.

          Go ahead. We all want you to teach us something.

          1. “…Do you see the difference?…”

            Mike? Are you kidding?
            Mike is among those you’ve commented on; yes, he’s dishonest, but that is only a symptom.
            Mike is entirely too stupid to recognize his dishonesty. He’ll post a lie, get called on it, and post the same lie an hour, a day or a week later.

          2. That Chinese government, totally like progressives in every way:

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

              1. Lol. Because either isn’t the left pushing racial segregation?

              1. You sure are dense Dee. You’re clearly not reading Ken’s posts before you squawk in response.

      3. Communists are no different than progressives.

        1. The Chinese regime is a socially conservative hypernationalist authoritarian govt. They share alot in common with rightwingers.

          1. Lord of Shit?
            Hint: When you make up definitions, try something within your mental capabilities, which leaves out any reference to political arrangements.
            IOWs, STFU, ignorant pile of lefty shit.

          2. The devil is responsible said the fundamentalist.

          3. Do you understand the difference between premises and conclusions?

            Because both China and Republicans seek to do what’s best for their respective countries doesn’t necessarily mean they’re both nationalists in the sense you mean. Because progressives want to force people to make sacrifices for the common good, as they see it, doesn’t make progressives nationalists either. I don’t remember any progressive stating that forced sacrifice for the common good of the nation made progressives nationalists. Is that the standard you’re using? Whatever standard you’re using for nationalism seems too broad if you’re lumping fundamentalist Christians who are afraid of the government (as the means to the apocalypse) in with the Chinese Communist Party because they both want what’s good fort their respective countries.

            1. Ken, this is Jacob Sullum (aka Lord of Strazele) we are talking about = Do you understand the difference between premises and conclusions?

              One might ask Sullum if he knows the difference between journalism and propaganda. The distinction is lost with him.

        2. Communism is a type of progressivism.

          Tree:
          Collectivism > progressivism > theocracy (>islamism), marxism (>communism, fascism, nazism, socialism)

          Progressivism: top-down authoritarian central planning to create New Man via social engineering

      4. Potato patayo

      5. “OMG, Ken, the Chinese government are not progressives. ”

        You might want to tell Krugman that, as well.

        1. I’d say that while the Chinese Communist Party is more extreme than American progressives, no doubt, just because one flavor of strawberry is more intense than another doesn’t mean they aren’t both strawberry flavored.

          The Chinese Communist Party forcibly holds the people of Xinjiang in reeducation camps for political and cultural indoctrination. American progressives inflict Critical Race Theory on the children of unwilling parents, which isn’t as extreme as reeducation camps.

          But we’re still talking about using the coercive power of government to inflict state ideology.

          1. Which American major party favors imposing flag salutes and school prayers?

            1. Did you see the link earlier to the proggy teacher forcing kids to pledge allegiance to a gay pride flag?

              1. My question still stands. I was, of course, referring to a traditional Pledge of Alegiance.

        2. From several comments you have made today, I get the idea you think I am a liberal or progressive. I am not; I am a libertarian, who voted for Jo in the most recent election. I’m not a fan of Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Obama, the Clintons, or of Krugman.

          1. Then maybe you ought to stop defending progressives. Because ideologically, the progressives are following the exact same playbook as the Maoist Chinese. And for you to stand up and try to dispute that- especially when you claim not to be a progressive- is odd to say the least.

            1. Mike Liarson is only lying when she says she’s not a liberal. Want evidence? Read her posts.

            2. Point to one comment I made today, here on this thread, where I defended progressives.

      6. More Kenis envy from Magic Mike.

    2. The Squad just had an orgasm.

        1. Wait till you hear their new podcast, Coming Together.

  24. https://twitter.com/emilymiller/status/1432204208195969024?s=19

    EMAIL FROM RETIRED SPECIAL OPERATOR IN THE U.S. OVERSEEING TEAMS IN AFGHANISTAN (thread)

    Fellow Americans — we need a significant movement to take place to save the poor Afghan people and stranded American citizens.

    (continued)

    There are several groups of retired special operations guys and other veterans who have gathered significant private funding and moved lots of assets to begin rescuing people from Afghanistan since our Government refuses to do their job.

    These groups have sent private planes into Kabul and been told they could not.

    They have shuttled busses of American citizens to the Kabul airport and at have been told to leave and that the were not allowed to fly out.

    Some of these other groups have been granted access to fly into neighboring countries to launch tactical flights to recover personnel just to have the @StateDept come behind them and shut the door.

    The U.S. Government has given rosters with the names of all our Afghan partners and American citizens to the Taliban, saying “we did it so the Taliban would allow them in.” We all know that’s not the real reason, and who would be that stupid anyway!

    The stats they are pushing on the news are false. There are many more American citizens who want to escape but have no option because our own government keeps halting all actions.

    We who are trying to save these people have run into roadblock after roadblock.

    Everyone can understand that this is an embarrassment to the current administration but that’s no reason to stop these valiant acts of selfless service.

    If you believe in the sanctity of human life then you need to make your voice heard as loud as possible.

    This is the worst disaster in American history and being magnified by this pure evil attempt to stop the actions of those who truly care. This must stop!

    “The only way to put and end to this is if everyone will band together and make your voice heard in person and through every platform available. Go to your State Capitols! Call every politician you know!”

    (I forgot quotation marks until now, but thread is still the email at top)

    “Let them know this entire @JoeBiden admin needs to be removed from the top down, including @SecDef, @thejointstaff, @SecBlinken and everyone else involved in this despicable coverup that will cost the lives of many Americans, and our loyal Afghan partners! -Ret. Special Ops” #

    1. “This is the worst disaster in American history”

      You guys are lunatics. Keep eating your Covid and horse pills!

      1. True. It’s not as bad as the 1-6 insurrection.

        1. If only LT Byrd was there. He could save countless lives.

          Thank Science for LT Byrd.

          1. “Shooting an unarmed girl in the head saved America. Thank you Michael Byrd.” – Love & Kisses, White Mike Laursen

          2. Byrds can never be overly cawtious.

      2. You should go to Kabul and nag the Taliban about wearing masks.

        1. Go? Shit they got Taliban like mfers here in Louisiana.

          1. Well then, start with them. And ask them for money to support your Afghanistan program.

      3. Lord of Shit hope denying something will make that thing disappear. He’s taking lessons from droolin’ Joe and CNNCBSMSNBCPBSNYTWAPO.
        They’re all convinced that if it isn’t reported, it isn’t happening.

  25. Can’t wait until every little beta bitch at Reason gets what’s coming to them. Fucking iNazi scumbags.

    https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1432341603000147977?s=19

    Alex Berenson is a crackpot. When we appeared together on TV and he whined about being canceled, I told him he deserved it. His statements on vaccines are totally wrong.

    I still don’t think Twitter should have banned him.

    1. Robby literally said Alex is someone Twitter should look at and he deserved it. And now is claiming he didn’t mean it?

      Alex’s tweet didn’t say anything in contradiction to the CDC.

      1. Apparently Robbie is an “expert” on vaccines now.

        1. Well… he does have Twitter.

        2. Must be taking lesson from Bailey, the science reporting pretender.

  26. “‘It’s time to start holding accountable those who turn a blind eye to illegal gun sales on their platforms,” Feinstein said.”‘

    Does Feinstein even realize that there is a difference between a “sale” and the “transfer” of firearms?

    Next up: Holding those accountable who turn a blind eye to sales of automobiles, which are estimated to be used in about one-half of violent crimes.

    1. Next next up: Providing tax breaks to felons who use electric cars during crimes.

      1. Some felon, somewhere, I am sure, probably purchased an automobile which qualifies for a tax break. Therefore, background checks will be performed on all new vehicle transfers. Of course, there are “straw buyers,” too, which is problem which must be addressed, as well.

        1. OMG, I totally straw purchased vehicles for my kids. Do I need to turn myself in?

          1. But did you straw purchase non-biodegradable straws? Why do you hate sea turtles?

  27. https://twitter.com/FanaTeresafana/status/1432352043998629889?s=19

    F*CKIN TERRORISTS ???????????????? Probably an American on that rope thanks to Biden and cronies

    ????⚠️Breaking: ????Video Showing Taliban Fly One Of The Captured UH-60A Black Hawk Helicopters With What Looks Like Someone Hanging From A Rope Underneath

    #Kandahar | #Afghanistan
    [video]

    1. *crosses name off list*

      “One less translator with COVID to rescue.” – Mike Laursen

      1. Probably wasn’t vaccinated, he deserves it.

        1. He was told to leave MONTHS AGO. His fault for not listening.

      2. “How do we even know that was the Taliban flying the helicopter and a person dangling? For all we know from that admittedly short video it could’ve been the Irish and a surprising manlike bear. I’m not going to rush to condemn Biden on what might be a TikTok video taken in Poughkeepsie” – also Mike Laursen

        1. “I won’t believe any of it until I see both a notarized Taliban membership card and a notarized vaccination passport.”

      3. I’ll take things Mike Laursen would never say for $1000, LeVar.

        1. Jeopardy ended halfway through your nap, Mike. You’re watching “Whose Line Is It Anyway?”

        2. Poor Dee doesn’t understand what’s happening again.

        3. You have cawntrol of the board. Please select a cawtegory.

  28. Tomorrow’s droolin’ Joe’s deadline, and we know there are only 4 or 5 US/allies left in Afghanistan, right?

  29. ENB’s biggest headline is an abortion law in Texas. Nothing else going on right now, huh.

    Anyway as per usual, fuck the left, fuck all democrats, and fuck the federal government to hell.

  30. Abortion Ban To Take Effect in Texas on Wednesday

    Oh no, you’ve only got two days left to kill your late-term kid in Texas. Lazier sluts better get off your asses.

    “If this is not blocked, if this is successful, it would set a truly dangerous precedent”

    Dangerous for who? Seems to be markedly less dangerous for millions of kids.
    Pretty gutsy to talk about safety when your whole goal is to butcher people.

  31. What makes the measure (Senate Bill 8) more novel—and extreme—is that it also lets anyone (even people outside the state) sue anyone they think has violated the law by performing a prohibited abortion or aiding and abetting the provision of an illegal abortion.

    This is novel, yes, but it’s hardly more extreme than the fact that Texas law already establishes “the right of any one who may consider himself aggrieved by the actual or supposed commission of a crime to call the matter to the attention of the grand jury for investigation and action.” Hott v. Yarbrough (1922), affirmed in Smith v. Hightower (1982).

  32. The European Union has officially banned non-essentially travel from the United States because of Covid.

    Where’s the outrage?

    I remember when someone else banned travel from countries where Covid was spreading out of control.

    There was plenty of outrage then.

  33. The European Union has officially banned non-essentially travel from the United States because of Covid.

    Where’s the outrage?

    I remember when someone else banned travel from countries where Covid was spreading out of control.

    There was plenty of outrage then.

    1. And none of those outraged people are among the regular commenters here.

  34. “A new study suggests the pandemic has been associated with significant weight gain among American kids.”

    It is likely that responses to covid by the WHO, Fauci, CDC, nearly all Democrat governors and several GOP governors have increased the adult obesity rate above 50% (from 42% in 2018).

    And yet, obesity is the leading risk factor (besides old age) for being hospitalized and dying from covid.

  35. >>fetal cardiac activity is detected

    life. choose life.


  36. Section 230 protects Second Amendment rights.

    Am I the only crazy one here that thinks an amendment to the U.S. Constitution should maybe carry more weight than…legislation? If legislation protects us, but an amendment does not, we’re at a retarded place in history.

  37. But Section 230 is a SUPERLAW

  38. Consider Wells Fargo one of Warren Buffett’s favorites. Five years ago, you could have bought the stock for less than $25 per share, but at the moment the price is over $55. Not only would you have more than doubled your money, but you would have collected dividends along the way — tthe stock currently pays about 2.6%.

    Click This Link… http://www.flyerbank4.com

  39. Getting closer to respecting the inalienable right to life.

    A detectable heartbeat is not a criteria for the definition of life.

    1. An ‘inalienable right to life’ doesn’t thwart every other inalienable right. Defying laws can end the ‘right to life’. Threatening another life can end the ‘right to life’. Being in someone else’s house and refusing to leave without their approval can end the ‘right to life’.

      But to some I guess being inside someone else’s body without their approval is obviously not a right big enough to end the ‘inalienable right to life’ for some. I guess rape would be legal on that basis.

      Dear Women; Please do not shoot your rapists. Their right to be inside your body thwarts your own rights to your own body. Just let them rape you and deal with the consequences. Especially if they are mentally retarded and coherently innocent.

      Would Pro-Life be satisfied with legislated late-term C-Section premature delivery? That I could support as it doesn’t cancel people’s rights to their own body.

Please to post comments