MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Jared Fogle's Child Porn Plea Deal Makes Sense

His sentence could have been much longer under federal law (and much shorter under state law).

Subway adSubway adFederal prosecutors in Indiana say former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle has agreed to plead guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography as well as having sex with minors. Unlike his associate Russell Taylor, who ran Fogle's charitable foundation, Fogle was not charged with producing child pornography, and the teenagers he reportedly had sex with at New York City hotels were 16 and 17. Under the plea deal he nevertheless faces at least five years in prison and could serve as long as 12 years.

That seems pretty steep, especially since the age of consent in New York is 17, which means only one of his liaisons was a crime under state law (leaving aside the question of whether money changed hands). For someone 21 or older, sex with a 16-year-old, a.k.a. "rape in the third degree," is a Class E felony in New York, punishable by anything from probation to four years in jail. In Indiana, where Fogle lives, possessing child pornography can be treated as a misdemeanor punishable by at least six months in jail or a felony punishable by up to three years in prison. Sharing child pornography, which Fogle also admitted doing, is a Class C felony punishable by two to eight years in prison.  

But Fogle was charged under federal law, so his deal makes sense. Under federal law, receiving child pornography, which could mean downloading a single image, triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of five years—the same as the penalty for distributing it. Merely looking at a picture can qualify someone for the same charge, assuming he does so deliberately and is aware that Web browsers automatically make copies of visited sites.

In practice, since the Internet is almost always the source of child pornography, this means that viewing and possession can be treated the same as trafficking. Fogle in any case also pled guilty to distribution, which includes any sort of online sharing. The maximum penalty for receiving or distributing child porn is 20 years, and federal sentencing guidelines recommend stiff enhancements based on factors that are extremely common in these cases, such as using a computer, possessing more than 600 images (with each video clip counted as 75 images), and exchanging photos for something of value, including other photos.

In short, while Fogle might have received a sentence as short as two years under state law, he was certain to get at least five years under federal law and might very well have ended up serving longer than the 151-month maximum specified in his plea deal, depending on the enhancements. As that gap illustrates, it is not at all obvious what penalties (if any) are appropriate for consumers of child pornography. While production typically* entails the sexual abuse of children, the injury inflicted by looking at and sharing these images is much harder to pin down, let alone measure. It is therefore troubling to see such offenses treated as severely as (or more severely than) violent crimes like robbery, rape, and manslaughter.

Although legislators seem to assume that no penalty for child pornography offenses is too harsh as far as voters are concerned, they may be wrong about that. In a recent federal case, the judge asked jurors what sentence they considered appropriate for a man they had convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography. The defendant was caught with 1,500 images, and he was charged with distribution because he also had peer-to-peer file sharing software. On average, the jurors recommended a prison term of 14 months—far shorter than the mandatory minimum (five years), the sentence recommended by prosecutors (20 years), or the term indicated by federal sentencing guidelines (27 years). 

Addendum: The press release about the case from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Indiana notes that "federal law provides strong punishment for engaging in commercial sex acts with minors under the age of 18 years," no matter what the age of consent is in the state where the sex acts occur. According to the charges against Fogle, he repeatedly received pornography produced by Taylor that involved minors ranging in age from "approximately 13-14 years old" to 16. The statement of charges says "the images or videos were produced using multiple hidden cameras concealed in clock radios positioned so that they would capture the minors changing clothes, showering, bathing, or engaging in other activities." Taylor also allegedly shared with Fogle "commercial child pornography" produced by others, and "on one occasion" Fogle "displayed to another person the commercial child pornography he obtained from Taylor on a thumb drive." That incident seems to be the basis for the distribution charge against Fogle.

Addendum II: Although Fogle's plea agreement reportedly mentions sex with a 16-year-old prostitute, the charges against him refer only to sex with a 17-year-old. ABC News says "federal prosecutors could not explain the discrepancy between the two documents."

* I originally said "necessarily," but that was too strong, since the hidden-camera material at issue in this case did not involve sexual abuse of children, and neither do nude pictures that teenagers take of themselves, which nevertheless legally qualify as child pornography.

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.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    OT: But I really wish Rand Paul knew how to campaign like Carly Fiorina.

    She's now trolling federal agencies on yelp.

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    I like her more and more.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Paul needs to release the Kraken. Call out the corruption, inefficiency, waste, and insane spending of the federal government, beat on the limited government and free market drums, and go at this thing like he's the only one really talking about actual, useful reform. The appetite for a real alternative to business as usual is there.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Still too early and anything substantive that requires more than two fully functioning brain cells to comprehend will get tossed in wake of TrumpZOMG™.

  • commodious spittoon||

    His dad did that for years. Nobody but us is listening, and we're nobodies. Trump is standing so tall because he's making the noises people want to hear: promising new and expanded bureaucracy to deal with a nonissue scapegoat.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    The Mexican rape epidemic is not a non-issue, you monster. I was raped by seven Mexicans on my way to work this morning.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Seven! What went wrong? Did the fourth Mexican refuse to come back for sloppy seconds?

  • Loki||

    Same reason Santa Ana only had 2,000 troops atthe Alamo:

    Their pickup truck broke down on the 2nd trip.

  • ||

    After the seventh time Irish showed back up, everyone agreed to stop calling it rape.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Oh, you would ignore the flagrant Irish menace, wouldn't you? What are you hiding?!

  • Calidissident||

    But were they drug-dealing Islamic terrorist Mexicans?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    From that Rio Grande ISIS camp that totally existed according to conservative media but which they stopped talking about due to the fact that it doesn't actually exist?

    Yes.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Did they figure out it's a forward base for the Jade Helm exercises?

  • Swiss Servator, Kaffee bitte!||

    Were they using weed?

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    So will your response be to drag a sombrero behind you everywhere you go?

    That would make a good performance art piece to raise awareness about this crisis.

  • ||

    You said rape twice.

  • DesigNate||

    That's how you know it was real rape.

  • ||

  • LynchPin1477||

    nonissue scapegoat

    See! This is proof that you hate hard working Americans and think borders are illegitimate and want to tell 50% of the country to fuck off and are just being used by progs because you're one of the stupidest people here.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Well, I agree with that last part.

  • ||

    Didn't work for Daniel-San at the dance.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ron has always come across as being a little too close to the fringe--Rand doesn't generally get viewed that way, except to some extent on foreign policy.

    I find the GOP's view of this election being more about foreign affairs than domestic issues troubling. We need to fix things at home, or World Cop won't be an option.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Other than Iran, what pressing foreign issues are there? ISIS? Russia? We're still talking about those?

  • sarcasmic||

    Everyone wants smaller government until someone starts suggesting specifics. That's when all hell breaks loose because no one wants to lose their job or benefit. Smaller government rhetoric is fine, but acting on it is political suicide.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I think people would surrender at least some of their "benefits" if they knew that everybody else was losing some too. The problem is that every proposal only affects a few, and they can't see why they should give something up when no one else does.

    It's that same old thing. Every benefits hurts everybody else so little and benefits the few so well that no one complains at the distributed loss they can't see but clamor for the targeted gain.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're doomed if we don't change. Really, the fact that we retain vestiges of something sometimes resembling a free market economy is all that's propping up the world economy right now. Without American production and consumption, bad shit is on the way.

  • JW||

    Don't be silly ProL. We'll just get a bailout from the Germans. They bail everyone out.

  • LynchPin1477||

    On the fiscal side the real threat is entitlements. Chipping away at the margins won't do anything.

  • Sudden||

    And yet Christie was the only one man enough to say it at the last debate.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

    Bastiat - 1848

    Some things will never change.

  • commodious spittoon||

    That's the genius behind the graduated income tax, though: half the country stands to benefit in no direct way from lowering rates. You can only go after their benefits, and at that point the usual lefty hysterics kick off. Even nominally universal benefits like the mortgage interest deduction are virtually untouchable.

  • Robert||

    But those benefits are so diluted over such a large #, why couldn't you win by the fanatic support you'd get from the few whose taxes you could reduce a lot, while the pennies the masses would lose, they'd hardly notice?

  • Robert||

    So why not turn that around? Get a multitude of little interest groups agitating for narrow tax relief; what the masses would lose from absence of those taxes is such a small benefit, there'd be little resistance. More & bigger loopholes for everybody; divide & conquer!

  • Harun||

    This is why you need a right wing Obama, who can be vague enough to not scare the LIV, but who you can be fairly sure secretly believes in cutting government.

    Example: Obama was against gay marriage in 2008. Did any of his base care? No. They knew it was wink-wink nudge-nudge.

  • Harun||

    and while I know everyone hates Trump, I suspect he might be the guy to chainsaw some government.

    He's the one guy who can say "tough!" to the whiners. And this is always the hard part for a politicians out for voters...who wants to say "sorry, you'll have to deal with it."

  • JW||

    But what does that have to do with building an impenetrable and fail-proof wall?

  • Sudden||

    Much as it pains me to say it, the only person that called out the elephant in the budget in the last debate was Chris Christie. It's entitlement spending that will doom this country and Christie was the only one with the balls to say it. It's my number 1 issue, so even while Christie is anathema to everything I believe on every other issue, he's got my attention for that alone.

  • grrizzly||

    This totally requires *narrows gaze*

  • ||

    Christie wants to replace the entitlement cuts with military growth, though. For that alone, he's a mendacious fat fuck.

  • Sudden||

    Like I said, anathema on every other single issue. Even went Ghouliani with his 9/11 paean.

    But growth in military spending would be dwarfed by savings in entitlements. I'm not saying I'd vote for Christie, and I think candidates like Paul and Fiorina probably understand with equal passion the looming threat of the entitlement state but don't wanna risk alienating elderly-skewing GOP primary voters. But I'm glad someone is willing to commit political suicide by telling the voters uncomfortable realities.

  • ThomasD||

    Soundbyte politics can be bootstrapped into in depth discussions.

    But Rand appears incapable of (or unwilling to learn) that form of politicking.

    Which is, perhaps to his personal credit, but unfortunately to our detriment.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I fear he peaked way too early.

  • RBS||

    He hasn't even begun to peak. And when he does, you'll know.

  • ||

    And it peaks back into you?

  • Pro Libertate||

    There's plenty of time, but he needs to stop trying to seem nonthreatening.

  • Idle Hands||

    Doesnt really matter because "deez nuts" is still outpolling here in Iowa.

    From ppp:

    and 6% each for Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker........

    Finally another declared independent candidate, Deez Nuts, polls at 9% in North Carolina to go along with his 8% in Minnesota and 7% in Iowa in our recent polling. Trump leads Clinton 40/38 when he's in the mix.
  • Idle Hands||

    Libertarian moment?

  • The Shrubber's Woodchipper||

    -Who are you voting for in the primary?

    -Deez Nuts! *while performing a crotch chop gesture*

  • ||

    A good illustration of the accuracy and importance of polls.

  • Loki||

    Said a blog post today on the Yelp website:
    We are excited to announce that Yelp has concluded an agreement with the federal government that will allow federal agencies and offices to claim their Yelp pages, read and respond to reviews, and incorporate that feedback into service improvements.

    No way that could blow up in their retarded faces. I'm betting the bureaucrats actually think they'll be getting rave reviews from grateful proles. This could get interesting.

    *puts bag of popcorn in microwave*

    Although something tells me when they say "incorporate that feedback into service improvements" what they really mean is "have the NSA get the IP addresses of negative reviewers so they can be added to the disposition matrix."

  • RBS||

    getting rave reviews

    Well, DC is filled with interns during the summer, so...

  • ||

    Haven't been there in a while, but the TSA blog used to be in interesting (if infuriating) read. It was depressing the number of posts that read something like, "Yesterday at the airport I had my genitals groped, and missed my flight due to the security line, but thank you heroes for keeping me safe!"

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    His sentence could have been much longer under federal law (and much shorter under state law).

    So you're LITERALLY saying, "that's the long and the short of it."

    LITERALLY

  • ||

    You've got to admire Jared's constant drive to get into smaller and smaller pants.

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    SHUT DOWN THE THREAD!!

    We have a winner.

    It's all over, lads - pack up the truck and let's go home.

  • WTF||

    The internets will now be closed for the rest of the day.

  • sarcasmic||

    I guess no one told him that the pants should be his own.

  • R C Dean||

    Most excellent.

    And, mad props on your handle, Cheradenine.

  • ||

    Goddamn Zakalwe.

    Perfect. Ten.

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    Ten? Along with The Outfield, Jared likes his kids a little bit older.

  • mrvco||

    Drop the mic!

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    OH! Not answered (that I can see) - were any of his....encounters....with Mexicans? And was pot involved?

    Cause we could have the Quadfecta® here (I'm stipulating the "gay" and "ass sex").

  • Swiss Servator, Kaffee bitte!||

    "Try the new Subway Cheesy Cannabis Melt!"

  • RBS||

    That sounds delicious.

  • 68Whiskey||

    Breaking news: Jared Fogle offers free 6" to children everywhere.

  • Swiss Servator, Kaffee bitte!||

    *narrows gaze*

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    I don't know why everyone's surprised given that he spent years trying to get into smaller pants.

    /joke I stole

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Fuck, I just realized this joke was made earlier in this very thread.

    At least I admitted it was stolen, unlike the unrepentant joke thief up above who tried to pass it off as his own.

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    Oh, sure, so - like the Australian download thieves - you think you can just put it back on the shelf and not pay??

  • Just Jason||

    This deserves a standing ovation.

  • WTF||

    Breaking news: Jared Fogle offers free 6" to children everywhere.

    How do you know it wasn't a five dollar foot long? He is a pretty big guy.

  • Zeb||

    Weird. Maybe I'll get lunch at Subway today.

  • Karl Hungus||

    That actually does sound good. I'm partial to the Spice Italian with provolone. I usually ask them to put a little marinara on it, too.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Subway 'food' is distillate of disappointment. Go to a real sub shop.

  • WTF||

    ^This. They make crappy skimpy sandwiches with hardly any meat and cheese. How do you think a giant fatty like Jared was could lose weight eating them?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Subway is to a real deli as deep dish is to real pizza.

    People in NJ know better than to eat at a Subway. That's all we know, but it is something.

  • WTF||

    Any corner deli in NJ will make a far better sub than the shit they sell at Subway.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm headed to New Jersey next week. I lead a glamorous life.

  • WTF||

    NJ is a great place, it's just that too many ignorant people think it is only what you can see from the Turnpike.

  • ||

    No, I also think it's what I can see from the GSP and Route 17.

  • WTF||

    So, you get credit for being half-ignorant.

  • *GILMORE*||

    Its also what I see from Ikea, or flying into Newark, then taking the train the hell out ASAP

  • ||

    A week from Friday, it will be what I can see from my motel room after dark (either Route 17, or the parking lot behind the motel, I'm guessing)

  • ||

    High taxes, shitty weather, most expensive car insurance in the nation, no guns, Crispy Creme...

    No thanks.

  • WTF||

    Those are mostly proggie things that suck. And the weather is far from shitty - summer is hot like it's supposed to be when you are enjoying the shore, winter is cold and has snow like it should, and of course fall and spring are awesome. Krispy Kreme? Meh. It also has mountains, lakes, a fantastic shore, close proximity to two great cities with all the culinary, entertainment and cultural benefits that entails, the world's best pizza, bagels, Taylor Ham, etc. etc. If it wasn't for the proggie rule, it would be paradise.

  • Lord at War||

    Mountains? in Jersey? That's what everyone else calls "hills".

    Atlantic City has a nice shore... it's everything more than 1 block west that sucks.

    Close proximity to two great cities... that aren't in Jersey. Meanwhile, Compton.

    Bagels? Also known as "polack bread". Because who else is stupid enough to boil bread dough?

    And Taylor Ham? Also known as Spam...

  • ||

    This is why I'm baffled by people who think DC is a great "food town". We have pretty much delis, shitty pizza (Pomodoro in BFE Fairfax excepted), and shitty Chinese. You can't be a great "food town" without the fucking basics.

  • RBS||

    Does Pizza Boli still exist? That place had the strangest wing flavor.

  • ||

    (I meant "pretty much no delis")

    Pizza Bolis is still around. I haven't eaten there since college.

    To me, the weirdest pizza in DC is Armand's. Not quite Chicago, not quite NY. Just a metric shit-ton of dough.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, Bolis was a pretty quick walk from my place when I lived on 8th ST, so I ate their food a lot on my way home from the Ugly Mug.

  • dantheserene||

    According to Google Maps, I live 15 minutes from Fairfax Towne Center. I've never been to the place, though.

  • ||

    It's pretty much the only acceptable NY style pizza in all of DC. I used to work across the street from there. Nom.

  • Suicidy||

    You live in Jersey? What exit?

  • Jerryskids||

    Eat me.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Bastiat would have a heyday with this.

  • Karl Hungus||

    Subway is to a real sub shop what McDonald's is to Five Guys: sure, it's pretty shitty by comparison, but it's quick, easy, and somewhat tasty if you know what yo'ure ordering.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, that. I also like to go to McDonald's sometimes even though I don't think they are a good hamburger restaurant. It's sort of its own thing.

  • Zeb||

    It's only disappointing if you expect something else.

    It's definitely not a great sandwich shop, but is an inexpensive and not terrible option from time to time.

  • brady949||

    I did. There was no one else there. Yay fast!

  • Another David||

    Bear in mind that he didn't just download pictures off the Internet -- per the plea agreement, he was also receiving material he knew had been produced by Taylor via hidden cameras he set up in properties he owned for the specific purpose of filming kids with their clothes off. So he was complicit in its creation rather than a passive recipient.

    Plus "In some cases, the Defendant [Fogle] met the minors [filmed by Taylor] during social events in Indiana," which...well, that's not a sentence that fills me with confidence in those "social events."

  • Hicks||

    He should have stayed with 14 yo Mexican girls. There're all virgins.

  • ||

    7 times

  • Robert||

    But all they were was nude, which they would've been anyway. If nobody'd told them afterward about the pix, how would they have been harmed? Seems the police caused all the harm here. If you don't know somebody's looking at you naked, what's the difference if they are? It's all in your head.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Well there is this thing called an expectation of privacy. Your argument is like saying the NSA reading all our e-mails is fine, so long as we don't get told about it. These people didn't want to be seen in a state of undress and thus were only in that state in a location where they believed no one would see.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    He also offered "numerous prostitutes" — apparently adults — with whom he had sex a finder's fee for access to minors he could pay for sex.

    Did he want to get caught?

    "Hey, random prostitute I just met, let me tell you all about how I'd like you to supply me with illegally young poontang. Maybe I shouldn't be telling this to an acquaintance I only know because I'm paying her for sex, but you seem trustworthy."

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    You were talking about the harm from possession of child pornography being hard to determine. How about the harm from a personal journal containing stories about the same? Well Brian Dalton was actually sentenced to 7 years in prison for graphic writings about sex with minors which led to him being charged with possession of child pornography. Looks like he spent a couple of years in prison before his appeals worked through, eventually resulting in a dismissal of the charges.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Dalton

    Can you say "thought crime?"

  • commodious spittoon||

    Thought on crime.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I wrote a couple of columns about that Dalton case. Probably one of the reasons I'm now a travel writer.

  • JW||

    I thought it was the Mai Tai per diem.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    They cut that out years ago. (It now gets listed as "tolls")

  • SoCal Deathmarch||

    "Federal prosecutors in Indiana say former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle has agreed to plead guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography as well as having sex with minors."

    Eat Fresh?

  • Just Jason||

    I was just wondering if they were going to have to change their slogan.

  • Just Jason||

    What would that board meeting sound like?

    [room full of dejected, morose men and women in suits around a large conference table--a poster on a stand at one end of the room, and a man with a pointer]

    "Well ladies, gentlemen...we're going to have to change our image...'Eat Fresh' we knew that wasn't working. ..everyone knows we're even worse than TOGO's. And now THIS!?!?!? OUR EMPIRE IS CRUMBLING!!!"

    I miss "The Kids in the Hall." I can just see Mark McKinney screaming about this.

  • ||

    +1 New Snake

  • Tommy_Grand||

    "is aware that Web browsers automatically make copies of visited sites."

    oh you just HAD to do that, Sullum

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    OT, Laura Poitras has a big problem with Hillary wiping her server.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....under.html

    I think a former Secretary of State having government diplomatic emails on her personal server is a really frightening precedent. I think it’s crazy. In terms of basic security, who is managing that server? And how is it possible? Everybody who was emailing her knew that it was not going to a .gov email address, so why was this not a story in all the years she was Secretary of State? And the idea that she had to delete 30,000 emails because they had… her yoga schedule in them? I can’t buy this.

    It’s completely outrageous. It’s the culture of secrecy and being above the law.

  • Mrs. Premise||

    Ladies, always wipe your server from front to back.

  • lafe.long||

    *applause*

  • R C Dean||

    Everybody who was emailing her knew that it was not going to a .gov email address,

    That may be the most chilling part of this whole episode. Hundreds of federal employees who knew better violated the law, and the very few who complained were shut down. Whether any tried to go to the media, we'll never know, but for whatever reason this never showed up while she was in office, even though hundreds knew about it.

  • John||

    Sure they did. And they all knew that saying anything would get them fired and likely thrown in jail. Remember, once they had the classified info on their computers, they were guilty too. If you were them, what would you have done? Run to the cops? Ha, that would just get you indicted sooner. Run to the media? Good luck with that.

  • Jerryskids||

    That's the most annoying part of the ongoing story of the State Department looking into the issue - these are her fucking once-and-future minions looking into the issue. How hard do you think they're looking at what's under the rock knowing that whatever squirms out is something the woman who once was their boss, and may very well be their next Big Boss, doesn't want them looking at at all? Looking at the timeline of the IJ lawsuit on the FOIA request, it's pretty difficult to believe State didn't know a long time ago that there was something very wrong going on. (And now we have a story of a judge issuing the Stern Lecture to State and threatening them that if they keep stonewalling on this shit he may have to hit them with the Stern Lecture Featuring Vigorous Finger-Wagging or perhaps even as much as the dreaded Written Reprimand With Frowny-Face.)

  • John||

    The only thing keeping Hillary out of prison is the threat that she will some day be President. Take that away, and she is just another crooked politician, being a woman and a Democrat won't save her. This is what puts Democrats in such a bind. Hillary can't walk away from the campaign for the good of the party. The moment she does that she no longer has the power to keep her many enemies at bay and to force DOJ to cover up her crimes. She is done at that point.

    Meanwhile, this thing gets worse by the day and she looks increasingly unelectable. Since she is still their only viable candidate and she will always have a lot of die hard supporters, they can't just throw her aside. They might well be fucked on this deal and end up with her as a nominee.

  • R C Dean||

    I wonder if a deal is being discussed where Obama issues a pre-emptive pardon if she drops out of the race and supports . . . who? Bernie? Fauxcahontas? Crazy Uncle Joe?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Obama third term?

  • ||

    That is probably the only way that this happens.

  • Suicidy||

    Obama's acenedence to emperor?

  • John||

    I don't think so. She is too ambitious. Why would she do that? She has them as much as they have her. Why should she drop out? Why can't they not pursue the charges?

  • ||

    That's likely why we now see the Biden/Warren pitches coming out.

  • Robert||

    You're forgetting another factor enormously in her favor: being married to Bill.

  • Harun||

    I think this all peaked too soon.

    I'd have rather had this come out after she won a primary or two.

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    Hundreds of federal employees who knew better violated the law, and the very few who complained were shut down.

    I bet if you could search through the senders' email servers you'd find emails to their bosses questioning this and some not very bright bosses telling them to just do it. The brighter bosses would do the same through a non-recorded method.

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    "Hey little boy - wanna five dollar foot long?"

  • Rhywun||

    This does raise the question of whether Subway can maybe sue the shit out of him for basically ruining their "image" for the next generation - assuming they survive that long.

  • WTF||

    What could they possibly gain in the suit?

  • Rhywun||

    Whatever money he has left + the satisfaction of ruining him?

  • WTF||

    Except he's already ruined, and he already won't have any money left after paying the court-ordered restitution. Not that a couple million is even significant to an outfit as big as Subway, anyway.

  • ||

    "On Italian Cheese please."

  • Mike M.||

    My theory is the reason he lost all that weight is that Subway makes possibly the shittiest sandwiches on earth.

  • Just Jason||

    Thank you. Thank you. It needed to be said.

  • ||

    You have clearly never been to Arby's.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Motherfuckers always be trying to steal my groove.

  • commodious spittoon||

  • RBS||

    What do you expect from a guy who bounced around the league before being spit out of the CFL?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, he did lead his team--rather, he didn't interfere with the defense leading his team--to an NFC championship game.

  • ||

    There isn't a knife sharp enough to cut through the guilt.

  • Seamus||

    I've always wondered whether Scarecrow was the brother that Fraser and Niles never talked about.

  • commodious spittoon||

    He often struggles when asked to recall basic facts about his own life. For instance, in August 2014, King wrote on Twitter that he was father to three “black girls,” while, six months earlier, he claimed to be father to four.

    Progressives really are the biggest racists.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Maybe a paternity test came back negative.

  • Zeb||

    Who can really keep track of how many kids they have anyway?

  • John||

    It is fun watching the Prog hive eat itself. The dumb mother fuckers didn't get the memo that you can't have a racially obsessed and race based society if you allow intermarriage. You have to wonder how many other people out there are passing as black and cashing in on the SJW goodies.

  • Mike M.||

    If Obama can get away with passing himself off as a black guy from the streets of Chicago when he was completely raised by his all white upper middle class maternal side of the family in the most elite prep school in Hawaii and the Ivy Leagues, I don't see why anyone else can't perform the same stupid schtick.

  • John||

    You just have to tell them what they want to hear. Do that and they will believe anything.

  • WTF||

    So if minorities are really so oppressed, and white people have all the 'privilege', why would white people pretend to be minorities? Unless maybe there was actually some advantage in doing so.

  • SimonJester||

    This!^^

    How long before I can start self-identifying as a multi-ethnic disabled lesbian stuck in the wrong body? I am MUCH more likely to get a promotion at my extra-large-company if I am no longer a straight able white male.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "I had a dozen fights my freshman year, had a jar of tobacco spit thrown on me in the middle of the school day, and came a few feet away from being run over by a pickup truck full of guys who chased me down and nearly mauled me as I walked home from a school dance," King wrote. "I reported it to the school, having saw each guy in the car, but they did nothing about it."

    King said he missed over a semester of school after one attack, which required a long recovery process and three spinal surgeries.

    See, if liberals weren't willing to believe anything bad that gets said about white people, this would have set off alarm bells immediately. So random racists attacked him a dozen times, tried to run him over with a car, and hospitalized him. This sounds unlikely.

  • John||

    No shit. He was in high school when? Late 90s maybe early 2000s? That was post internet and 24 hour cable news. No fucking way does a black student getting treated like that not make national news.

  • RBS||

    came a few feet away from being run over by a pickup truck full of guys who chased me down and nearly mauled me as I walked home from

    He knows Forest Gump is a movie a lot of people have seen right?

  • John||

    +1 Stupid is as Stupid does.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Jesus, the idiot also claimed it was the first hate crime ever registered in Kentucky.

    If it turns out he is lying about everything, he has to be the biggest moron ever to invent lies that big. We're not talking about minor lies, he's making massive lies that can be easily checked and disproven.

  • John||

    Once you start lying and people believe it, it gets addictive I guess.

  • tarran||

    I don’t think it’s because it’s addictive for most pathological liars.

    In the case of my ex, for example, she would tell lies that would get people to give her what she wanted. Sometimes the lies were big. Sometimes the lies were small. Sometimes the time between her telling the lie and the targets figuring it out was on the order of years. Other times that expected time was minutes or even seconds.

    People who haven’t really experienced or observed first hand the wantonness of the pathological liar are like lambs to the slaughter for the liar. To the neophyte, if someone says “I was the victim of the first crime investigated as a hate crime in Kentucky”, they assume that it must be the truth; who would lie about something so big and easily checked.

    And that’s why these people tell such lies. They work. They go right up to the limit of what will successfully gull people. And, often, they rely on it because they really don’t have any other tools of persuasion. They only know how to lie.

  • John||

    I agree. And that sounds like addictive behavior to me. They get addicted to the thrill and the sense of power lying gives to them. The bigger the lie the bigger the thrill and sense of power you get from telling it.

  • AlexInCT||

    In my experience John I often found that these liars did this because they lacked self esteem and telling these lies bought them brownie points with certain "in" entities. Maybe there was a thrill component, but I often found these people desperate to not admit their lives were meaningless and their beliefs were vapid nonsense.

  • ||

    In my experience John I often found that these liars did this because they lacked self esteem and telling these lies bought them brownie points with certain "in" entities. Maybe there was a thrill component, but I often found these people desperate to not admit their lives were meaningless and their beliefs were vapid nonsense.

    I agree. My guess is this dude maybe perceived black dudes as cooler, more confident. Maybe the black dudes in his high school got laid a lot. So, boring, run-of-the-mill, anonymous white dude makes himself over.

  • ||

    I once had a good friend who turned out to be a serial liar...

    when I finally caught him at it, and busted him for it - he suddenly got all defensive.

    The problem with continually lying is keeping track of your fabrications. It just isn't worth it in the long run.

  • ||

    "If it turns out he is lying..."

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/08.....g-article/

    SJW. Writes for Kos.

    Need I say more?

  • ||

    Good grief. Tobacco spit? A pickup full of white guys? No one is calling this asshole out on not just his lies but the fact that they are chock full of racist stereotypes?

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Shaun King looks like he bathes in bleach yet apparently nearly everyone has mistaken him for being black. i haz confuse.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Shuan King is the authentic voice of black folk over at the Daily Kos.

    http://www.dailykos.com/user/Shaun King

  • Jerryskids||

    Did Black Lives Matter Organizer Shaun King Mislead Oprah Winfrey By Pretending To Be Biracial?

    You know what they say about headlines put in the form of a question.

    A checkbox on a form also 'proves' that Jeb Bush is a Mexican. And women never lie when they put down on the birth certificate who the biological father is, especially a southern white woman giving birth to a black man's baby.

    Is the guy a lying douchebag? Sure. Is he bi-racial? Maybe. Does Breitbart actually have any proof that he's not bi-racial? No.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Does Breitbart actually have any proof that he's not bi-racial?

    There is his white mother and white father.

  • Jerryskids||

    Where is his white father? Admittedly I don't read Breitbart any closer than the Daily Mail or World Weekly News, but skimming the article seemed to indicate there was a white guy's name on the birth certificate rather than that there was a white guy at the wedding and a white guy at the house and at his son's little league games and PTA meetings and so forth - like the guy maybe didn't really know who his real father was.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    His dad's in jail. There's a mugshot of him. Shaun's brother is also white and confirmed the white trash deadbeat is their dad.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Just because the father was a deadbeat (which his record does seem to indicate) doesn't change the genetic contribution made. They found the guy and re-verified the link through King's brother, who doesn't make any claims to being black. Unless someone does turn up a black guy who had an affair with the mother, there's no evidence of a mixed heritage. But there is plenty of evidence of a caucasian heritage.

  • WTF||

    So, in light of this and the Rachel Dolezal affair, can we all agree that the concept of race is just bullshit and do away with all the racial bean-counting and grievance-mongering?

  • UnCivilServant||

    can we all agree that the concept of race is just bullshit

    No. There are genetic and cultural factors that are connected with it. While the grievence industry needs to die, there are collections of genetic traits that cluster within given racial groups that at the very least make it medically relevent. Plus, as a visual species, we're never not going to see the differences in external traits, no matter how ambiguous those get (this case in point).

  • Illocust||

    If his mother had done that he would have used it to prove how racist his home town was. Just like all the other stories.

  • ||

    Troll level: waaaay beyond master. Dude looks like a white guy with just enough ambiguous features to allow him to "pass".

  • *GILMORE*||

    whut?

    Another one? really?

  • *GILMORE*||

    groan.

    "AND FOR MY NEXT TRICK"....

    Shaun King
    ‏@ShaunKing

    It's going to me a second, but let me show you, on my terms, in my way, that what is happening today is a white supremacist conspiracy.""

  • ||

    Am I the only one that imagines our very own Tony as a Jared Fogel look-alike? (I had this thought well before Mr. Fogle's infamy)

  • LynchPin1477||

    I've always pictured him more like this

  • John Titor||

    I think you're giving Tony too much credit, considering Anubis was supported to be an 'ascended' being. An asshole, but an ascended asshole.

  • CampingInYourPark||

  • ||

    Nah, that guy doesn't have that creepy and unwarranted self-confidence that Jared/Tony have.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • See Double You||

    Only one question needs to be asked: what does child pornography have to do with interstate commerce?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Mann Act?

  • See Double You||

    They should have named it the Womann act, amirite?

  • kinnath||

    whoa man

  • ||

    What does growing wheat for your own consumption have to do with interstate commerce?

    FTFY

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    It could otherwise be made into a Subway bun? SELFISH!!

  • ||

    five years in prison and could serve as long as 12

    aka a five dollar foot long

  • Karl Hungus||

    I think "foot-long" is about to take on a slightly different meaning for him.

  • Just Jason||

    And on a more positive note, he won't be forced to eat those nasty, nasty sandwiches while he's in prison, so he's got that going for him. I mean, pretending to like them must be exhausting.

  • WTF||

    he won't be forced to eat those nasty, nasty sandwiches while he's in prison,

    But I bet he'll be tossing some salads.

  • John||

    Yesterday Cytoxic was lecturing RC and me about how much freer we are today because we have government sanctioned ass sex and Irish can get gay S&M porn from Amazon. Meanwhile, we send people to federal prison for decades and mark them on the same list as child rapist for the crime of looking at the wrong picture. Pictures that are ubiquitous on the internet, that can be downloaded by accident and in an environment where cyber security is so horrible it is very easy to frame someone for it.

    Yeah, it is a Libertarian moment we live in. Fuck, if you have gay marriage and access to endless porn, who gives a shit if accidentally looking at the wrong porn can get you ten years in federal prison? That is so much better than the dark ages when you couldn't buy Henry James at the local book store and gays couldn't have pride parades or wear assless chaps in public.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Meanwhile, we send people to federal prison for decades and mark them on the same list as child rapist for the crime of looking at the wrong picture.

    I agree that is wrong. That is, instead of 7 years, the sentence should be 7 bullets to the brain. If a society doesn't decisively deal with individuals whose minds are so irreparably broken, that society turns into Pakistan.

  • Los Doyers||

    If HM himself thinks it's reprehensible, that's when you know you're fucked.

  • John||

    Just remember this thread and how I am seriously arguing for repealing the child porn laws the next time some half wit says I am a SOCON. Yeah, I am a real SOCON. Jesus sets perverts free I guess.

  • John||

    That is insane. If you want to throw actual rapists in jail, go for it. But punishing people for looking at pictures is a thought crime. We at least used to be a civilized people. And civilized people punish people for acts not thoughts.

    Our society has become so sex obsessed and broken. The same society that sells pants that say "juicy" on the ass and lingerie to seven year old girls, wants to shoot some old pervert quietly looking at pictures in his home. It is the same mentality that drove people to burn witches. People can't face up to their own sickness and moral responsibilities, so they project all of that on a designated scape goat.

  • ||

    "We at least used to be a civilized people."

    There is no evidence of that.

  • John||

    I think the existence of our institutions and structures shows that. Someone built all of this shit and they were most certainly civilized.

  • blcartwright||

    and from what I read here, it was not pictures of minors having sex, or forced to have sex, but possibly (through the hidden cameras) looking at minors who were undressed, doing anything but sexual things. Non-sexual naked pics are porn? They better take 'Pretty Baby' off Amazon.

  • commodious spittoon||

    We need to invest in Total Recall technology: implanted and excised memories.

  • sasob||

    We did - don't you remember? :-)

  • See Double You||

    I kinda hope you're joking, HM.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Some people are unfixable like kid diddlers. Castration might be an option.

  • John||

    How about we punish people for their actions rather than their thoughts?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    I'm talking specifically about crimes against children. Unless photoshop was used, porn photos of children means they were abused. If you're using kiddie porn you're supporting child molestation. This is a stand alone category - not like adult porn where consent can be given.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What's your stance on prose works and digitally generated content? Two things which require only a lonely pervert and their computer to create.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    No child was abused so no crime.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    I write erotica as a hobby. I was banned from a site, retroactively (they changed their policies) because my fiction depicted consensual acts between a 19 year old male and a 13 year old female. It's well within their right to set their own terms of use, but the reasoning is that they might run afoul of porn laws.

  • RBS||

    How are you defining "children"?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Under the age of consent so 18. We're talking about real porn, though, not just 15 year olds texting dick pics.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Under the age of consent so 18. We're talking about real porn, though, not just 15 year olds texting dick pics.

    That raises an interesting point. With the ubiquity and inexpesniveness of modern video equipment, what about the case where a set of sixteen-year olds decide to film themselves. They cant rationally be said to be victimising themselves. Also, what about states where the age of concent is lower, such as New York, where it's 17? How does such a standard get applied?

  • ||

    "Under the age of consent so 18." Do you actually believe that people under 18 cognitively can't consent to sex? That'd be ridiculous.

  • John||

    Then go after the abuser. Looking at a picture of the abuse is not abusing them. If it were, then my watching a film of someone being murdered is the same as murdering them.

    The idea that looking at a picture "victimizes" the person in it is totally irrational. First, the person in it is only victimized if they know it happened. And how does some girl in Eastern Europe know some guy in America is looking at pictures taken of her 20 years ago?

    Second, if looking at the photo victimizes them, then every cop, juror or prosecutor who looks at these pictures is assaulting the victims one more time. If that is true, then even prosecuting these cases is impossible and immoral. We wouldn't prosecute assault cases if doing so meant letting the judge and jury beat up the victim, would we?

    Third, if looking at these photos harms the people in them, then why doesn't that principle apply to every other photo? For example, why was it okay to show the film of Ray Rice hitting his wife? Isn't looking at that film just victimizing her? If not, why not?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I'm with you, John. It's thought crime.

    If someone is raping children, lock them up and throw away the key. If they are looking at pictures (or even more ridiculous, writing or reading dirty stories), they aren't hurting anyone.

  • ||

    The reasoning is that by consuming whatever product you signal (future) demand. That's a market-wide thing. You don't influence the production of the very product you consume, but you do influence future production, by some - possibly different - producer. The question, it seems to me, is whether miniscule influence is to be punished. Besides, it's worth noting that you're not the last cause, the person who immediately and ultimately causes harm. It's entirely up to the producer. (The same goes for hiring hitmen, by the way. Hitmen are "producers".)

  • Robert||

    So secretly seeing you naked is abusing you? A strange form of abuse it is that you don't even notice!

  • DenverJ||

    Not picking a side visa vi the kiddie pics, but you're telling me that if you found out someone had installed cameras in your bathroom, you wouldn't feel as if your privacy had been violated? Isn't privacy a big thing for libertarians?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Yesterday Cytoxic was lecturing RC and me about how much freer we are today because we have government sanctioned ass sex and Irish can get gay S&M porn from Amazon.

    John, I gave you specific examples of how obscenity laws were used to shut down magazines and censor books, but you continue pretending that I was just talking about pornography.

    You'd be less irritating if you'd deal with the actual point rather than pretending I was just talking about porn. People used to go to prison for sending information about birth control through the post office, so if you think that issue only had to do with porn, I don't know what to tell you.

  • Los Doyers||

    This meme was made for Johnsanity and Co.
    http://dangerousminds.net/cont.....071515.jpg

  • John||

    And that was not good. What happens today, however is worse. And lets not forget today we don't just criminalize porn. We criminalize political speech. Try running for office or participating in the political process without hiring a skilled lawyer sometime. It will land you in the cell next to this guy. People can and are sent to jail in this country for the crime of running a political campaign and not reporting their activities sufficiently to the government.

    And somehow you think things are better because pornographers no longer have to worry about being shut down, unless of course the are in LA and don't use condoms.

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    MCCAIN FEINGOLD, BITCHEZ!

  • John||

    It went on before that. That just made it worse. The real crime started in 73 with the original campaign finance reform act. Denish Desousa is now a felon because he committed the crime of giving too much money to his preferred candidate. How anyone can not find that an outrage to free society and liberty is beyond me.

  • Calidissident||

    Political speech was criminalized in this country as far back as the late 1800s.

    "And somehow you think things are better because pornographers no longer have to worry about being shut down, unless of course the are in LA and don't use condoms."

    Jesus Christ, Irish explicitly called you out on using this tactic of misrepresenting his argument, and then you immediately go right back to it.

  • John||

    Were you born without a sense of humor and completely lacking the ability to comprehend hyperbole and irony or did you learn that way?

    Seriously, how can you read the sentence about pornographers in LA and not understand it is hyperbole? I don't know how to write to someone who is that dense. I really don't.

    And other than under Adams and during the civil war was political speech ever criminalized in this country? I will give you the Alien and Sedition Acts and some of the things Lincoln did. But other than those I would like to hear your examples. Otherwise, you are pointing to outliers that were quickly repealed. Now we have a perminent system of political speech repression.

    Seriously, are you so emotionally committed to gay rights that it renders you incapable of admitting that things really suck right now for fear of it somehow detracting from the gay rights victory? How can you possibly think the country isn't unfree in all kinds of horrible ways today that it wasn't in the past?

  • Calidissident||

    "Seriously, how can you read the sentence about pornographers in LA and not understand it is hyperbole? I don't know how to write to someone who is that dense. I really don't."

    You're completely missing the point. You're misrepresenting his argument by focusing on pornographers and ignoring all the other examples he cites of blatant fundamental violations of free speech.

    Regarding the rest of your post:

    "Beginning in the 1830s, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to allow the mails to carry abolition pamphlets to the South. Northern teachers suspected of abolitionism were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned ... In 1835 alone abolitionists mailed over a million pieces of anti-slavery literature to the south. In response southern legislators banned abolitionist literature and encouraged harassment of anyone distributing it."

    http://www.geni.com/projects/A.....vement/619

    If you extend the timeframe to the early 1900s you have Wilson's violations during WW1. Irish gave several examples of stuff that might not have been explicitly political speech, but was still restrictions of free speech nonetheless.

  • John||

    Again. Those are isolated examples involving specific issues and points of view. That is certainly not good. It is,however, nowhere near as bad as what goes on today. The suppression of political speech is systematized today and covers all points of view. That is much worse than the few examples you give.

  • John Titor||

    Also, the numerous Red Scares came with restrictions on communist dialog (Smith Act, etc.). We've also got a ton of historical restrictions on film and books that mostly peak in the 1930s. Censorship is still pretty common in United States history, but it still pales in comparison to, say, Europe.

  • Calidissident||

    I didn't say anything about gay rights. Between the two of us, if either has a fixation on the subject it certainly isn't me, and I'm pretty sure most of the commentariat would agree. I'm not saying the country today is totally free and in every way freer than the past. That's not at all what I'm arguing. I'm arguing against this mythical idealized past golden age of freedom in the 1800s or early 1900s that conservatives and some libertarians think existed when it was really not nearly as rosy as they seem to think it is. Things aren't perfect today, but overall I'd certainly take it over how things were 100 or 200 years ago.

  • John||

    No. You are engaging in a strawman by pretending that I am saying things were perfect in the past. They most certainly were not. I don't deny the examples you give or defend them. My point is not that those things didn't happen or were not bad. My point is that what is happening today is much worse by any measure.

    It is not that the past was perfect. The problem is that the few gains we have made in addressing the wrongs of the past have been completely eclipsed by other erosion of our freedom. The examples you give are examples of various unpopular points of view and people being oppressed. We don't that nearly as much as we used to and that is good. Instead, however, the government now oppresses everyone equally.

    I mention the campaign finance laws but those are just one example. The banking and tax laws are in many ways worse. You have no privacy in your bank account and the government can steal your money if you do anything that causes it to think you might not be on the up and up. You have to report to the government anytime you move virtually any amount of cash.

    The list goes on and on. And they are things that directly affect everyone's freedom and dwarf the things you list. Sorry but pointing to Eugene Debs and the suppression of the abolitionists doesn't even begin to approach the enormity in the loss of our freedom and privacy over the last 100 years.

  • DenverJ||

    It depends. If, two hundred yrs ago you are landed gentry, then, the living is good.
    For everyone else, not so much.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Wilson imprisoned anybody who had the audacity to speak against the war, the draft, the flag, or the military uniform under the Espionage Act. Chief Justice OW Holmes said it was constitutional to do so because Amendment I does not grant the right to exclaim "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    The Espionage Act is still in force, though I think later USSC rulings overturned the Holmes decision.

  • paranoid android||

    Wilson imprisoned anybody who had the audacity to speak against the war, the draft, the flag, or the military uniform under the Espionage Act. Chief Justice OW Holmes said it was constitutional to do so because Amendment I does not grant the right to exclaim "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    The Espionage Act is still in force, though I think later USSC rulings overturned the Holmes decision.

    Clearly the government's ability to enslave you and send you to be gassed to death in a trench in France somewhere and throw you in a cage if you object is a mere trifle compared to the dystopian nightmare of people baking cakes for people with lifestyles they find distasteful.

  • John||

    Sure Android. It is a good thing we never have had the draft since. And God knows will never again. Meanwhile, i guess since we don't the drug war, the tax laws, the banking laws, and the fact that we currently have more people in prison than any democracy in history is just a ok.

    The measure of freedom will always be gay rights, pot and porn.

  • R C Dean||

    Political speech was criminalized in this country as far back as the late 1800s.

    How so?

  • Calidissident||

    *I actually meant to type late 1700s. Thinking of the Alien and Sedition Acts. You have numerous other examples of this in the 19th and early 20th century (there were strong laws limiting speech in the antebellum South, focused on abolitionist literature, restrictions during the Civil War, major violations during WW1, etc.).

  • John||

    Calidissident,

    You can give isolated examples of it. Those examples however pale in comparison to the systematized oppression of political speech we have today. Instead of oppressing one or two unpopular opinions, today we oppress any political view point that is expressed by an outsider without the sufficient money, connections and technical knowledge to navigate the campaign finance laws. What we have today is the criminalization of virtually all political activity from outside of the political establishment.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Eugene Debs would like a word with you. (Pardoning Debs is one of the things that makes Warren Harding a less bad president than most people think.)

  • John||

    Debs was prosecuted by Wilson during World War I. His example doesn't dispute my contention at all.

  • John Titor||

    Those examples however pale in comparison to the systematized oppression of political speech we have today.

    He says on an information system that has allowed the widest and most open expression of free speech in human history.

  • John||

    He says on an information system that has allowed the widest and most open expression of free speech in human history.

    yeah John. I can't run for office without hiring a lawyer. If I give more than $1000 to any candidate, I am committing a felony. But I can start a blog so that makes it okay.

    And since I can start a blog, I guess it is okay that the FBI can seize my bank accounts if I deposit over $10,000 without telling them or deposit less than that and they think I might be trying to get around the rule.

    Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

  • UnCivilServant||

    I guess it is okay that the FBI can seize my bank accounts if I deposit over $10,000 without telling them or deposit less than that and they think I might be trying to get around the rule

    *pedant on*

    Actually, that's the IRS.

    *pedant off*

  • John Titor||

    Oh, you mean a blog where I could be prosecuted and sent to prison if I talked about certain topics or expressed certain opinions under the numerous free speech restrictions and censorship that has gone on in U.S. history from 1787 to the early 1950s?

    /John's moronic idea of a non-systemic oppression of speech.

    Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

    Some of us have actual degrees in history and don't summit to your delusional, idealized interpretation of United States and its free speech history? Or recognize your obvious bias towards painting the present as dystopian? Whining about Millenials isn't a tell at all John.

  • John||

    Oh, you mean a blog where I could be prosecuted and sent to prison if I talked about certain topics or expressed certain opinions under the numerous free speech restrictions and censorship that has gone on in U.S. history from 1787 to the early 1950s?

    You mean that doesn't happen today? Did you miss the subject of the above article?

    Moreover, for the fifth time we are making a comparative analysis here. I am not saying things were perfect in the past. I am saying things are worse now. You give various examples of what if you were an abolotionist in the 1850s or a pornographer in the 1930s or against the war in 1918. Well those are nice examples. My counter example is what if you have a bank account today or what if you want to run for office today or what if you smoke a joint today.

    The oppression you list was while bad targeted at small groups of people. The oppression I talk about today is directed at everyone. That makes it much worse.

    Now if you have a response to that point, give it and spare me the credentialism of how you have a history degree. Good for you because clearly you didn't get a logic and rhetoric degree.

  • Robert||

    Not many people want to run for gov't office. Many more people wanted to not be drafted. Or to get a better deal on phone service or air fare. So I think you're discounting a lot of things that affected the majority or a great many, in favor of things that affect the relatively few. You mentioned the draft, but seem to think campaign finance regs are a more broadly-affecting thing.

  • Calidissident||

    And whoosh go the goalposts.

  • John||

    Make an honest argument Callidissident or go home. I didn't move the goal posts at all. My claim is that things are worse now than they were then. I never claimed that there was some golden age or that the past was perfect. That is just your strawman. My point is that things are worse. Sure, there was suppression of speech in the past. My point is that it was isolated to certain times and viewpoints. Your continuing to give anecdotal examples of suppression of speech just proves my point. Things are worse today because today we suppress all points of view via the campaign finance laws. Those laws are much worse than any of the examples you give.

    If you don't agree with that, fine. But please stop lying and claiming I am moving the goal posts. I most certainly am not and you know it.

  • John Titor||

    My claim is that things are worse now than they were then. I never claimed that there was some golden age or that the past was perfect.

    No, you just ignore every example of free speech restrictions and scream that it isn't the same or is some isolated event that shouldn't count. See John, that's called idealizing the past. You're deliberately ignoring actual events so you can rant about how horrible today is.

  • John||

    No, you just ignore every example of free speech restrictions and scream that it isn't the same or is some isolated event that shouldn't count.

    No I don't. I claim they only affected small numbers of people where what happens today affects everyone. The difference is in the past we had spasms of censorship directed at unpopular people. Today we have systematic and continuing suppression of all political points of view and general restrictions on everyone's freedom like the banking laws and the tax laws.

    No either respond to that point or admit you are wrong. But spare me the whining about what a meanie I am because I really don't give a fuck about your delicate feelings. If you don't like being kicked around, get smarter.

  • Calidissident||

    "And that was not good. What happens today, however is worse. And lets not forget today we don't just criminalize porn. We criminalize political speech."

    This statement implies political speech was not criminalized in the past. Also, glossing over the complete suppression of abolitionist literature as some minor restriction on one viewpoint is ridiculous. It was the most divisive issue in the country in the antebellum era and concerned dissent towards the most oppressive institution in the history of the country. I don't agree with the byzantine campaign finance laws of today, but they are nowhere near as bad as that.

    Also, it's a silly comparison, because campaigning was completely different back then. The party establishments handpicked the nominees and campaigning personally was usually looked down upon. Breaking in as an outsider back then wasn't quite as easy as you make it seem.

  • John||

    Also, glossing over the complete suppression of abolitionist literature as some minor restriction on one viewpoint is ridiculous

    It was minor in the sense that it was directed at what was then a small group of people and one view point. Minor is a relative term. It is not minor in the grand scheme of things and certainly not if it affects you. It is however minor when compared to restricting every single person in the country's ability to support the candidate of their choice.

    Also, it's a silly comparison, because campaigning was completely different back then. The party establishments handpicked the nominees and campaigning personally was usually looked down upon. Breaking in as an outsider back then wasn't quite as easy as you make it seem.

    Maybe it wasn't. But trying to break in wasn't a felony. it is today. The bottom line is that today the federal government regulates and limits the political speech of every single person in this country. That is a much bigger deal than restricting a single view point for a few years.

  • Calidissident||

    "It was minor in the sense that it was directed at what was then a small group of people and one view point."

    But such laws restrict the freedom of everyone, even if they're only aimed at a particular viewpoint. Abolitionists may not have been a huge group, but they were significant, and were speaking on behalf of four million slaves who could not speak (you do remember that 10-15% of the country had absolutely no freedom of speech or legal rights at all for the first 90 years of US history, right?). It's not like most people in the US today are interested in running for political office or donating tens of thousands of dollars to candidates. And in the grand scheme of things, those restrictions aren't as onerous as a complete ban on abolitionist literature. You act as if this is some objective truth you're spouting, but I don't think most people would agree with you.

  • John||

    Beyond that, even if you think that it isn't, you still have to account for the banking laws, the tax laws and all of the various other criminalization of every day behavior that has created the largest prison population in the history of democratic society. We have exponentially more people in prison today than we did then. How do you square that fact with your contention we are more free? If we are so much freeer, why are so many things that didn't used to be a crime are a crime now?

    All you can give is various examples of minorities getting stomped. That is most certainly bad. What you don't seem to get is that we traded that oppression for everyone being oppressed equally. Woopie, you don't get thrown in jail for a few days for publishing abolitionist material. Now you get thrown in jail for a decade for having a few joints or the wrong picture on your computer. And you think that is better? Really?

  • Calidissident||

    "All you can give is various examples of minorities getting stomped. That is most certainly bad. What you don't seem to get is that we traded that oppression for everyone being oppressed equally."

    Yeah John, everyone today literally has it just as bad as chattel slaves did in the 1800s.

  • John Titor||

    Yeah John, everyone today literally has it just as bad as chattel slaves did in the 1800s.

    The fact that John loves to handwave the massive oppression of small groups of people as minor and not relevant while freaking out about the moderate oppression of everyone as the most important thing is starting to worry me. Would John prefer to live in a society where everyone had no restrictions on campaign finances and the IRS didn't exist, but 5% of the population were literal slaves?

    John, would this system be, as you put it, 'better' or 'worse' in comparison to the modern world, since its oppression is limited to a small percentage of the population?

  • John||

    John, would this system be, as you put it, 'better' or 'worse' in comparison to the modern world, since its oppression is limited to a small percentage of the population?

    That is a good question. Depends on how you look at it. Regardless, I don't see how a society where no everyone is oppressed is necessarily better than one where a large most people are not but a small number are enslaved. That looks like a draw to me.

  • John Titor||

    So it's a draw in this example. But when presented with a past society that had less freedom and more enslaved peoples than my hypothetical second example you argue that it's not as 'worse' as the modern example. So basically you're entirely inconsistent and idealizing the past.

  • John||

    No John. It is at best a draw. And do you have any argument besides pretending I am idolizing the past? No but I can always dream I guess.

  • Calidissident||

    Wow.

  • Calidissident||

    Oh and John, next time you whine about how the only reason 90+% black people don't like Republicans and conservatives is because of media bias, I'm gonna remember this. Arguing that white people having to pay income tax and comply with campaign finance laws makes the country just as unfree as the time when black people were literally slaves won't exactly make you too appealing to that community.

  • John Titor||

    Oh and John, next time you whine about how the only reason 90+% black people don't like Republicans and conservatives is because of media bias, I'm gonna remember this.

    I'm amazed that people are still willing to die on that hill rather that just going with the much more defensible 'better in some ways, worse in others'. It's almost like history has a complexity to it or something.

  • John||

    Callidissident,

    And you are arguing that having the largest prison population in the free world and the largest most bankrupt government in history is still better because at least no one is a slave.

    I am going to remember this the next time you claim to object to anything. We don't enslave black people anymore. We just lock them in cages for decades. We are so much better. I will remember this too on the next drug war thread or police brutality thread where you try and claim to care. Clearly you don't. Things are better today than they were according to you.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, I am. John, even if you argued that imprisoning X% of the population was just as bad as enslaving X% of the population (which ignores numerous factors that made the latter a lot worse), we would have to have about 40 million prisoners in this country to equal the % of people who were enslaved in 1860. The number is far too high, but it's barely 5% of that.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    That is a good question. Depends on how you look at it. Regardless, I don't see how a society where no everyone is oppressed is necessarily better than one where a large most people are not but a small number are enslaved. That looks like a draw to me.

    Holy fucking shit.

  • John||

    yeah Irish. Do you have a response or did the truth short circuit your tiny brain?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Well, it's so retarded, selfish, and evil that I think it refutes itself.

  • John||

    The fact that John loves to handwave the massive oppression of small groups of people as minor and not relevant

    Could you do me a favor John and take your meds or do something to shut down the voices in your head so you can respond to my points rather than theirs? I never said they were minor and not relevant. I said that despite them, our society as a whole was more free then than it is today.

    If you can't respond to my points, please have a private argument with the voices in your head. Since I can't hear them, I can't argue for them and they don't sound any brighter than you are anyway.

  • John Titor||

    Except in order to present your arguments all you do is handwave the severe 'systemic oppression' of various people, while declaring the moderate 'systemic oppression' of everyone to be horrible. Which is what you do. You say how terrible it was, and then just push it to the side so you can whine about campaign finances. The horrible oppression of certain groups don't factor into whether it's 'worse' because John says so. Cause they're just a minority, right John? Who cares about them? As long as we're oppressing, enslaving, and jailing a small group for their opinions, why that's better than if I have to deal with bullshit financial restrictions but still widely available free speech platforms. And you whine about Millenial being self-obsessed and spoiled?

  • Robert||

    Or married women.

  • John Titor||

    I am saying things are worse now.

    And again, you're legitimately stupid enough to be saying this on an information medium that has allowed for the most open expression of free speech cheaply.You're obsessed about how the government focuses on how people spend their money, which is a legitimate concern, but utterly ignore the fact that our massive expansion of information systems in the past five hundred years and their wide availability has make freedom of speech far more easier and cheaper.

    You say your concerns about how 'everyone is oppressed' but you handwave off the fact that everyone, in reality, now has more access to information and spreading their own viewpoints more than any time in human history. Again, this doesn't exist to you because it doesn't support your argument that things are 'worse'. Because you've already decided that things are worse.

  • John Titor||

    Now if you have a response to that point, give it and spare me the credentialism of how you have a history degree.

    The point being that your own bias is utterly blatant/arbitrary and it makes you incapable of determine what period is 'worse'. Historians at least attempt to try to be objective John, you blatantly Chicken-Little on every thread you can. But credentialism is far superior to your childish debate tactic of trying to present yourself as the one sane man surrounded by fools with idiotic statements like "Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?"

    Shorter John: Uh, what is this, I can't even. (You know, for someone who whines about Millenials a lot you certainly debate like one).

  • John||

    John,

    Do you really think the thousands of black men rotting in prison today are better off than the ones who were slaves? We lock people up like no "free society" in history. yeah, we don't have Jim Crow. We just lock black men in jail by the hundreds of thousands and pay black women to leave their husbands and give them welfare to be dependent and leave their children to be the victims of union run schools.

    Yeah we are so much better John. Only a history degree holder like you could understand just how fucking wonderful this society is and how much better than those evil people in the past were. Just pat yourself on the back some more John. You live in a Golden age of freedom and compassion.

  • John Titor||

    See, I love how John always projects my opinion for me ahead of time. Unfortunately for him, I'm actually fairly cynical about the present and future, so John continues to be wrong about other people's motivations. Those would be wonderful arguments if I believed we were in a magical utopia, but we're not, we're just better off than we used to be in a lot of ways, and in other ways we've had some negative changes. I understand that that is probably too complex for you John, considering you are an Internet Chicken Little prone to hyperbole.

    What I've been actually pointing out this entire time is how John arbitrary picks and chooses what he upholds as the 'most important thing evar' and handwaves off utter atrocities.

    "5% of the populations slaves if I don't have to pay income tax? Seems like a tie. I'm willing to allow the enslavement and rape of other people as long as I can donate to whatever political campaign, I'm that self-centred and arrogant."

  • John Titor||

    Only a history degree holder like you could understand just how fucking wonderful this society is and how much better than those evil people in the past were.

    Again whining about my credentials, are you insecure about it? You utterly fail at any kind of historical objectivity, you have a predetermined goal and do not actually address the actual arguments against. You arbitrarily belittle horrors committed to people if it doesn't support your argument, while scream about ones that do as being so important. You're utterly inconsistent and it completely ruins any moral claims you make. I'm sorry that I had to be an evil academic cunt and point it out.

  • John||

    You're obsessed about how the government focuses on how people spend their money, which is a legitimate concern, but utterly ignore the fact that our massive expansion of information systems in the past five hundred years and their wide availability has make freedom of speech far more easier and cheaper

    Being free to rail on the internet in no way makes up for losing your privacy to the government for your finances or the hundreds of restrictions on what we can buy, sell put in our bodies, and so forth. You can't so much as start a lemonade stand in this country without the cops showing up. A hundred years ago, prostitution and all forms of drugs were legal. There was no FDA. Today the government tells us what medical treatments we can and cannot obtain. And you honestly think that because we have the internet and access to porn that things are better? Are you inane. You can have the internet. I want my privacy and self autonomy back.

    You say your concerns about how 'everyone is oppressed' but you handwave off the fact that everyone, in reality, now has more access to information and spreading their own viewpoints more than any time in human history.

    So what? That doesn't mean anything when you realize that we have more restrictions on our behavior than at nearly all times in history.

  • John Titor||

    And you honestly think that because we have the internet and access to porn that things are better?

    John, I'm curious, what's this obsession with gays and porn and such? Note how I mentioned nothing about porn here, but you seem to be obsessed with it.

    You can have the internet. I want my privacy and self autonomy back.

    You really don't know how to go off grid do you? I live twenty minutes away from Metis who do so. If weirdo Indian stoners can do it you can too.

    So what? That doesn't mean anything when you realize that we have more restrictions on our behavior than at nearly all times in history.

    We've had more restrictions on our behaviour ever since we discovered agriculture. Your behaviour is actually less restricted in many ways more than anytime in human history, and certainly less restricted than, say, the slave population you're apparently willing to have. You're just a spoiled 21st century fool whining about your prosperity.

  • John||

    You really don't know how to go off grid do you? I live twenty minutes away from Metis who do so. If weirdo Indian stoners can do it you can too.

    Yeah because going off the grid makes me immune from federal law? Seriously, your position has gotten so weak that you are reduced to saying "you can always just drop off the grid if you want your freedom back". You have lost this argument.

    Your behaviour is actually less restricted in many ways more than anytime in human history, and certainly less restricted than, say, the slave population you're apparently willing to have.

    Where did I ever say I was willing to live with slavery? Go fuck yourself you dishonest piece of shit. Seriously, you have lost this argument so badly you are reduced to accusing me of supporting slavery. That is pathetic.

    Worse still, your best defense of today is "you are better than a slave". No shit. Yeah, we are better off than slaves. Not everyone in the past was slaves. Maybe they didn't teach you that when you were getting your history degree. Just to let you know most people were not slaves. And the best thing you can say about today is that we are more free than the most unfree people of the past.

    You just admitted things are terrible. Thanks for playing.,

  • John Titor||

    Where did I ever say I was willing to live with slavery? Go fuck yourself you dishonest piece of shit.

    Since you seem to now be ignorant of even your own arguments, I'm going to directly quote you and explain how this would show you to be willing to tolerate slavery in your society:

    Quotes: That is a good question. Depends on how you look at it. Regardless, I don't see how a society where no everyone is oppressed is necessarily better than one where a large most people are not but a small number are enslaved. That looks like a draw to me.

    No John. It is at best a draw. And do you have any argument besides pretending I am idolizing the past? No but I can always dream I guess.

    In both of these statements you draw a moral equivalence between a society with an enslaved minority population, but greater freedom for the remainder, and a society where everyone is moderately oppression. You see them as a 'tie', which means you are willing to tolerate slavery as long as a greater share of the population has more freedom in a equal degree to that of the restrictions of the modern age. I'm sorry that your actual statement supports my statement, and that's why everyone is shocked you'd be willing to let the mask slip like that.

    Maybe they didn't teach you that when you were getting your history degree.

    Cry more John, fortunately some of us are unwilling to remain as ignorant and arrogant as you are.

  • John||

    You say your concerns about how 'everyone is oppressed' but you handwave off the fact that everyone, in reality, now has more access to information and spreading their own viewpoints more than any time in human history.

    So what? They have their behavior restricted more than ever. What good is access to information if you can't act on it? You seem to have this idea that freedom is about expression and nothing else.

  • DenverJ||

    You know, John, if all you're going to do is use facts and reason, then there's no point in even discussing this with you.

  • R C Dean||

    Cyto wasn't really getting my point, which is that globally, all in all, (a) government has been getting bigger, more intrusive and more embedded in our daily life and (b) that means, by definition, we have less liberty than we used to.

    I think point (a) is trivially true.

    Point (b) is the hard one.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Is government, in total, across the globe, really bigger now than in 1980? I think that point is debatable. And are we talking just aggregate spending, relative spending, armaments, unaccountable power, or what? I think that by some, not insignificant, measures, government is NOT bigger than ever.
    Given the choice, would I want to live under the government of Obama, or of Woodrow Wilson? I might just take my chances with Obama. (So of course John will use this as evidence that I adore Obama.)

  • R C Dean||

    Is government, in total, across the globe, really bigger now than in 1980?

    No clue.

    It damn sure is in the US, which is what i was talking about.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Sorry -- I though you were using "globally" literally.

  • R C Dean||

    Yeah, I was meaning "at all levels of government in the US".

    I think the amount of micro-regulation that occurs at the municipal level is absolutely appalling. I can't tell you how many good people I know who have given up their dream of owning their own business because of the insensate hostility of petty city and county bureaucrats, armed with reams of permits, applications, hearings, etc. etc. that choke the life out of any small business that doesn't have a lot of time and money to waste.

  • R C Dean||

    would I want to live under the government of Obama, or of Woodrow Wilson?

    Well, pot was legal, the income tax was much lower, borders were much more open, there were very few alphabet soup government agencies, etc. etc.

    Hard to say it wasn't a more libertarian country, all in all, it seems to me. There was more institutionally embedded racism, its true, which is a confounding factor that its not obvious how to weight. That's not a small thing, but its also not the only thing.

  • John||

    Unless you objected to the first World War, there is no question but to take Wilson.

  • paranoid android||

    Unless you objected to the first World War, there is no question but to take Wilson.

    John signalling that he pines for the good old days of a segregated civil service.

  • Calidissident||

    "There was more institutionally embedded racism, its true, which is a confounding factor that its not obvious how to weight."

    What a minor issue that was, right?

    There's tons of stuff you're ignoring. Are you aware this is around the time the eugenics movement was becoming strongest? Also, the income tax was higher by the end of Wilson's presidency than it is today. There were also major speech restrictions and widespread government control of industry during WW1.

  • John||

    Here is the thing, that all ended and things went back to normal in the 1920s. You are using a slight of hand here. RC and I point to long term systematic abuses that have been happening for decades and show no signs of ending. In response you point to abuses that lasted for a few years and pretend they were the normal state of affairs rather than the anomalies they were.

    The only real progress in liberty we have made in this country over the last 100 years is ending segregation and giving women the vote and full citizenship. That of course is a huge improvement. The problem is we have lost huge amounts of freedom and privacy in every area of life. Is one worse than the other? That is not a question with a definite answer. Depends on your point of view.

    The important point is that however good much progress you think we have made in ending racial and sexual discrimination, our society is currently very unfree and extremely oppressive and unjust in very important ways. We don't live in a libertarian moment. We don't even live in a particularly free country today. And the fact that we have made progress in some areas should never be used as an excuse for or to detract from the real losses of freedom that have occurred over the last 100 years.

  • Calidissident||

    The 1920s saw a resurgence of the KKK, an expansion of the eugenics movement, and Prohibition. Tax rates went down but were still well above pre-war levels, and would rise back sharply again in the 30s where they would remain above 70% until the 80s. No one's detracting from anything besides you John. Not thinking the country is more unfree than it was 200 years ago doesn't mean you think everything is perfect or that everything has gotten better.

  • John||

    Tax rates went down but were still well above pre-war levels,

    And were much lower than now. And the KKK and eugenics movements were not the government. We are talking about the government. And today we have social problems in the form of single parents and general societal breakdown that dwarf even things like the KKK. Today 19th of black children grow up with both their parents. That is a national disgrace. The worst KKK racist from the 1920s would be appalled by that. We used the welfare state to destroy the black family. Even the KKK didn't want to do that.

    We have a horrible evil society in so many ways. You just like tell yourself we were somehow worse in the past. No way. We are just better at rationalizing it than they were. They at least were honest about things. We lie to ourselves and say we are being compassionate and tolerant as we destroy people.

  • R C Dean||

    How do you get from:

    its not obvious how to weight. That's not a small thing,

    to

    What a minor issue that was,

    Also Also, the income tax was higher by the end of Wilson's presidency than it is today.

    Top marginal rate, which no one paid, was. Total amount extracted from the populace, and percentage of people who paid anything - not so much.

    Are you aware this is around the time the eugenics movement was becoming strongest?

    Sure. And bad things were done, no doubt.

    The hard thing, I repeat, is how to weight a government which is terribly abusive to a very small number of people, against a government which limits the freedom of absolutely everyone. We have less of the former, and more of the latter.

    I tend to think that a government that limits everyone's liberties is less libertarian than one that abuses a small number of people. These are value judgments. If you think a government which leaves 90% of the people alone 90% of the time, but kicks the shit out of 3% of the people 80% of the time, is less libertarian than one which leaves 0% of the people alone 0% of the time, that's defensible. I just disagree.

  • paranoid android||

    I tend to think that a government that limits everyone's liberties is less libertarian than one that abuses a small number of people. These are value judgments. If you think a government which leaves 90% of the people alone 90% of the time, but kicks the shit out of 3% of the people 80% of the time, is less libertarian than one which leaves 0% of the people alone 0% of the time, that's defensible. I just disagree.

    I take it you would not be one to walk away from Omelas?

  • DenverJ||

    Dude this for the Omelas reference; I couldn't even remember that much. I was going to start with a search for Lovecraft, but since the story was written by LeGuin, it might have taken me a while to find it. Besides, this thread is dead, I'm just bored.

  • Calidissident||

    It's a matter of degree. Taxation and regulation is bad and restricts liberty, but comparing it chattel slavery is absurd. Yes, I would take that a society free of slavery over one free of income tax any time. There were many, many ways in which government restricted people back then. They just weren't necessarily as blatant as the IRS. There was tons of economic corruption. There were literal wars between corporations and labor for decades. Married women couldn't even own property. It's not even just about slavery and segregation.

  • John||

    Calidissident,

    Maybe you missed it so I will say it again. The important point is that however good much progress you think we have made in ending racial and sexual discrimination, our society is currently very unfree and extremely oppressive and unjust in very important ways. We don't live in a libertarian moment. We don't even live in a particularly free country today. And the fact that we have made progress in some areas should never be used as an excuse for or to detract from the real losses of freedom that have occurred over the last 100 years.

    Yeah married women are full citizens and we ended segrgation and we got the really important victory in gay marriage. Fucking A man. Can we now do something about the staggering amount of freedom we have lost over that time? Could we perhaps maybe admit that as great as those things are that everyone not just black people, women and gays but everyone has lost our personal autonomy and privacy and liberty in very serious ways and that running around patting ourselves on the back about how fabulous things are might allow the people who took our freedom to avoid ever giving it back?

  • ||

    I am only responding here RC because it is the end of the discussion.

    One thing I see left out is that government is/was not the only entity that restricts freedom. Here where I live from the end of the civil war until the mid 1950's there were three timber companies that were the foundation of the local economy. Most people worked for them in one form or another and were very beholden to the three timber barons that owned them. All three ran company stores and many people spent their entire lives in debt to those stores.

    It wasn't just the timber companies. Most employers treated their employees like property.

    The southern baptist culture kept everyone in metaphorical chains as well. My great-grandmother had her last child when she was 40 years old and because of that she was shunned. Doing anything that offended people's sense of propriety could get you set out into the wilderness.

    Government is not the only entity that restricts liberty, but fortunately because of the wealth we have now we can slip those chains. We are much freer in many ways today than in the past, and less free in others. Overall, I think, if you don't attract much attention to yourself you are freer than in the past.

    I still say there is no, and never will be, a libertarian moment.

  • Gomerphobe||

    Having people like you isn't liberty.

  • Zeb||

    I agree, except you present a false choice. No one traded gay marriage for overzealous child-porn laws. Gay marriage and legal weed are much easier to sell to the general public than treating some perverts that everyone hates more fairly. It's just not a winning issue, so no one will try to do anything about it.

  • John||

    That is the thing. It isn't a trade. One of the biggest lies the Progs tell is the idea that the past was horribly oppressive until they came and saved everyone. No, the past was very oppressive in some way and much less so than no in other ways. The question is why couldn't we have gotten rid of the oppression without creating all of this new oppression? The Progs don't' want that question asked. So they lie and pretend the new oppression was somehow necessary to end the old oppression.

  • Zeb||

    The question is why couldn't we have gotten rid of the oppression without creating all of this new oppression?

    That is indeed the big question.

  • Robert||

    Actually I think it has been a kind of trade, yeah. There are people who are just plain anti-sex. As less & less sex is illegal, they take it out more & more on fewer & fewer forms of sex. The gentle rebuke they'd've had against everyone has become concentrated & focused on few targets.

  • DenverJ||

    Gay marriage and legal weed are much easier to sell to the general public than treating some perverts that everyone hates more fairly. It's just not a winning issue, so no one will try to do anything about it.

    It is hard to get upset about the rights of perverts.
    I know, I know they came for the pervert, and I was not a pervert, so I did nothing...

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Meanwhile, we send people to federal prison for decades and mark them on the same list as child rapist for the crime of looking at the wrong picture.

    Brought to you by Republicans everywhere.

    Thanks.

  • John||

    No. The sentencing guidelines on child porn were passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton whom last I looked was a Democrat. The original law that make possession of child porn on a computer or distributing it digitally illegal was passed in 1988 by a Democratic controlled Congress.

    So these laws are bi partisan.

    Is there any subject you are not misinformed about? Seriously Frank I have never once seen give a single fact that was correct.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Fine, John. We can forgo thee argument as to whether Republicans are more statist concerning sexual matters the Democrats.

    I cede. It was bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible, of which you are one and I am neither...

    ...thanks.

  • Slammer||

    OT: The 7th PP video was released

    I didn't watch. I dont wanna know.

  • John||

    The facebook memes seem to indicate that they are keeping babies alive to preserve their body parts for sale. It is a fucking horror show. I can't watch either. But hey, we have gay marriage and sort of legalized pot now. It is a golden age!!

  • Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

    FREEST. TIME. IN HISTORY. EVAR.

    Which is kind of true, except when it isn't. Except when it is.

    I have no idea what's goin' on....

    /Towelie

  • John||

    The 19th Century? Wasn't that like when Jesus lived and there were dinosaurs?

    /typical Millennial

  • WTF||

    The facebook memes seem to indicate that they are keeping babies alive to preserve their body parts for sale.

    If that's true, (it is Derpbook so I will wait for more info) then that is fucking monstrous. And taxpayers are forced support it.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    I could only watch about 2/3's of it. It is a fucking horror show.

  • DoubleC||

    They cut through the fetus's face while it was alive to get their brain. They don't show it, so Planned Parenthood has their out to claim there's no proof, but a woman who claims she was a contractor for them said it made her quit.

  • Zeb||

    Is there a lot of demand for tiny fetus brains? Doesn't seem like there would be a lot of use for that. Livers and stuff I can understand.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Brain excised while heart's still beating according to whistle-blower.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, the Drudge headline is that they cut through the face to get an intact brain while the heart was still beating.

    No fucking way do I even watch somebody talking about doing that.

  • reinadorothy||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  • straffinrun||

    Too soon.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    what does child pornography have to do with interstate commerce?

    The Mann Act?

  • John||

    No silly. It is the cumulative effect of thousands of perverts jerking off to dirty pictures and the effect is has on the climate. Didn't you ever read Wickard v. Filburn?

  • See Double You||

    What does the Mann Act have to do with interstate commerce?

  • John||

    It was meant to crack down on the trade in corrupted women negro jazz musicians were engaging in back in the 1920s. Either that or it banned the Isle of Mann from US shores. I can't quite remember.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That's what happens when you wander by the computer and reply to a page which has not been refreshed for a half hour.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    and the teenagers he reportedly had sex with at New York City hotels were 16 and 17.

    Eat fresh.

  • John||

    That is bad but really funny.

  • John||

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....abama.html

    The university of Alabama cracks down on the scourge of hot sorority girls.

  • RBS||

    That quote from the "associate vice president for university relations" is just flat stupid. Also, associate vice president? Jesus christ.

  • John||

    it shows that on college campuses at least, being white, straight and desiring to live what was once considered a conventional life of getting married and having children is now considered deviant behavior. The video was taken down because it only showed white people and said joining the sorority is a good way to meet a nice husband. The university found such messages objectionable because apparently while it might be constitutionally allowed to be a straight, married white person, that kind of disgusting behavior needs to be kept out of the public eye and certainly not associated with a decent institution.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    What really jerks the PC chain here isn't that they are white girls, or straight white girls, but fine white girls - a bumper crop of scantily-clad southern belles.

    Want to disrupt black solidarity? Deploy the hot white girl into the NAACP meeting. Undercover Brother's take on that notion was funny because it's true.

  • John||

    That movie was so bad and so funny. "he had sex with a white girl!!"

    "Was it as good as I dream of it being?"

  • ||

    Solid!

  • tarran||

    I really, really want someone to just lose it on air in the manner of the guy who kicked off the Tea party movement with a rant at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on live TV.

    I would love a guest on CNN to go off on the producers live and say “look, I understand why you are putting this on TV. You want guys to stop what they are doing and ogle the pretty girls at the height of their beauty. And you guys want to pretend that the reason why you are looking at the girls is that you are investigating a serious social problem, but that is a lie. You guys are just putting the sorority girls in lingerie on TV, because you like looking at them, and you think people will stop what they are doing and look at them too. And while that is a great strategy that made the guys behind the video series ‘Girls gone wile a lot of money’, it’s kind of embarrassing for an organization that claims to be a serious news organization to act like Doug Stanhope wannabees.”

    While I am wishing, I also want a pony.

  • John||

    It is more than just that. They want to make being a normal heterosexual unacceptable in public. Imagine if a gay fraternity had done the same video with perfect, good looking blond men and made the frat out to be a place to have free sodomy and learn S&M. Anyone who stood up and said "hey I don't go to college to get fisted and gagged" would be immediately shouted down and called a bigot and told that to shut up and stop judging people.

    Meanwhile, these girls make a video with a bunch of good looking straight women and advertise the sorority as a place to meet a husband and live a conventional life and it is immediately condemned and taken off line, because that kind of behavior is by its existence oppressive to anyone who makes a different choice. The gay video would of course be something to be celebrated.

    The entire thing is insane.

  • RBS||

    Imagine if a gay fraternity

    You mean FIJI?

  • John||

    I was thinking more all of them. I really should have been more specific. My bad.

  • DenverJ||

    Wait, the island Fiji?

  • DoubleC||

    I only saw clips of it on Red Eye, but since there was just one football player for over a dozen girls, that's not really advertising the sorority house as a place to meet a husband, it's advertising how awesome it would be to be a star athlete there.

  • DoubleC||

    The world would be a better place if cable news anchors acted like Doug Stanhope wannabes.

  • R C Dean||

    Dang. I never got around to watching it.

    Hey, what was that about censorship by the state is a thing of the past?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    OT:BLM organizer pretending to be biracial?

    People are fucking weird.

  • commodious spittoon||

    I had a hankering for pizza last night, but I'm at least halfheartedly trying to stick with a low-carb diet. So I made myself pizza soup instead. Is this a crime worse than deep-dish?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Next time try covering a chicken breast or thigh (skin on) with tomato sauce and then melt a slice of mozzarella cheese on top. Yummy and very low carb.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Depends - how did you make "pizza soup" and are you trying to pass it off as actual pizza?

  • AlexInCT||

    WTF is pizza soup? Is that like a dirty Sanchez?

  • R C Dean||

    Scrape all the toppings off into a blender?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Try portobello pizzas. Clean gently with a damp cloth, flip the portobello upside down, trim the stem if you wish*. Bake at 375 for five minutes. Remove, slather on your sauce and deliciousness of your choice, finish baking for twenty minutes.

    It'll add a touch more carbs, but I use a flour-egg wash-bread crumbs coating on the mushroom caps and then deep fry. A bit more work, sure, but it pays off in crispiness and also travels better, for things like work lunches.

    *There is additional debate about the merits of removing the gills or not. Since it appears to be done to prevent discoloration and remove the odd bit of grit, it's dealer's choice.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    To clarify, deep fry only the cap. A two-prong, long-handled fork secured through the stem to hold just the cap in the oil makes this maneuver work much better.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Did you hear the one about Jared Fogle's footlong? Eat fresh!

  • DrZaius||

    hES' GETTING INTO SMALLER PANTS!

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Why, no. Why do you ask?

    :-)

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    No.

    "Mrs. Lemuel Struthers|8.19.15 @ 1:22PM|#

    OT:BLM organizer pretending to be biracial?

    People are fucking weird."

    In fact, clearly not.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    You people think I got all day?

    I get in and out in the same way I do my grocery shopping - only shopping the outer perimeter, or the top and bottom at h&r.

  • R C Dean||

    Top and bottom?

    Kinky.

  • blcartwright||

    his site needs a system that immediately displays new comments and preferably highlights them, and even bestest provides a shortcut key to drive to the unread comments. SB Nation does that on their sports blogs.

  • DenverJ||

    Hell, you might as well wish for an "edit" button...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What does the Mann Act have to do with interstate commerce?
    .
    Transporting a woman *across state lines* for immoral purposes. Don't they teach you kids anything, anymore?

  • John||

    Yes. Negro jazz musicians transporting their stoned out corrupted white women across state lines.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Old Jedadiah Blackie would hit Ms. Cordelia in the head with a jar of nickles and roll her limp collection of limbs and boobs right the fuck into his trusty guitar case. Later and across the line Ms. Cordelia would be resuscitated and rearranged into the pleasurable treat she was hired to be in the basement of the House o Blues. Ravenous for delicate fleshly openings and curvaceous curiosities the jittery and impatient negros penetrated every opening of Ms. Cordelia with their straining buttery heads and shafts glistening like black diamonds in the glow of a single flickering bulb illuminating the geography of rapture that unfolded beneath. Eventually Ms. Cordelia finally offered one last long moan wrapped in a husky sigh and lips and fingers and genitals glided away and the clouds of satisfaction cocooned the trailing ecstasies as sweaty negros sprawled like volcanic eruptions flowing from the vagina of Ms. Cordelia.

    "Time to go home, Blackie. This time don't use the nickles, nigger, get me stoned! I can't breath with a fucking knot on my head."

  • DenverJ||

    I wanna be a jazz musician.

  • R C Dean||

    But these weren't women, at least not yet, were they?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "Wait honey, before we cross the Nevada state line, I want to tell you that I identify as a man.

    "OK, now that we've crossed the state line, I identify as a woman again."

    "So you see, your honor, I didn't transport a *woman* across a state line."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    does ANYONE read already existing comments?

    Do I look like I have that kind of time?
    I'm a busy man.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Instead of the writers taking the late afternoon off, they've bumped their 2-3 hour blog-desert to late morning.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    On average, the jurors recommended a prison term of 14 months—far shorter than the mandatory minimum (five years), the sentence recommended by prosecutors (20 years), or the term indicated by federal sentencing guidelines (27 years).

    Common sense generally doesn't have a morbid greasy kobold scratching around the hallways of its brain constantly cumming praise hands over the magnificent self-worth of its power-abusing vessel either.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Rick Wilson
    ‏@TheRickWilson
    44 White House email addresses in the Ashley Madison email dump. Ooopsie.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Sweet Jesus, I hope that's true.

  • tarran||

    What about clintonemail.com? ;)

  • RBS||

    There were a bunch of SC state employee accounts too, I bet that's true across the country.

  • EMD||

    "I just joined to see if I know anyone I could blackmail. Honest."

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Tony Blair's email was in there.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Beautiful.

  • tarran||

    Sweet Jesus!!!! That would be awesome!

    Is that true?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Yes. Apparently you can sign up using anyone's email though, so there are questions if it's actually him. I doubt it is because he used his actual email that includes his full name and I doubt he'd be stupid enough to do that.

    It's just funny that he popped up.

  • grrizzly||

    Apparently Ashley Madison didn't require email verification. So, a celebrity's email means nothing.

  • RBS||

    "12inchPrez69@whitehouse.gov"

  • Jordan||

  • *GILMORE*||

    lol

  • John||

    Cheating on Michell would be the one excusable thing he has ever done as President.

  • EMD||

    Who the f signs up for AM with a whitehouse.gov email address?

    Nevermind.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This guy gives a whole new meaning to the slogan "eat fresh."

    I am sure I am the 400th person to make that bad joke, and yet...

  • straffinrun||

    Got Milk?

  • DoubleC||

    I saw it 400 times in the first hour. That and variations of "It's not his fault, the girls were asking him for a 6 inch and he got confused." The internet is not the go to place for originality. Ask @TheFatJew.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The Daily Beast weighed in on the Shaun King situation. He white.

  • DoubleC||

    I loved how he says in his tweet stream he's going to address Breitbart/The Blaze and then never once mentions what race his father actually is, just complains about nobody believing the time he got his ass kicked in the 90s was racially motivated.

  • *GILMORE*||

    #WiggerAsswhoopingsMatter

  • blcartwright||

    Well I read the part where he claims that none of his siblings are related to each other - throwing his mother under the bus for sleeping with anyone, and who knows who his father is? It certainly isn't the white guy who's name is on his birth certificate!

  • ||

    Anyone want to analyze my dream from last night wherein I had an affair with Anderson Cooper? And yes, he was gay in my dream, too, so I'm not quite sure how I had an affair with him.

  • Number.6||

    What's to analyze?
    You're batshit crazy!

  • Number.6||

    Well, that and the female version of the "X is homosexual only because he/she hasn't experienced the right other-gendered partner"

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Interesting choice of word in "affair". You didn't say you had sex with him. An affair suggests an ongoing relationship, not just a sexual encounter. Cooper isn't a real person; he's a representation of a type (not necessary gay). The type could refer to a certain look of a man, or it could refer to a social status.

    You're looking for a longer term connection to some predictable, approachable, reliable, articulate person or organization. Not necessarily a romantic relationship.

    Or, it could me your a woman trapped in a gay man's body and you want to bone Anderson Cooper.

  • ||

    I'll go with this (your second paragraph is true, when it comes to my job)

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Although you think it's a good job, you're a bit nervous that the job might not be the best fit.

    Anderson Cooper is a nice, reliable, smart guy, but he's gay.

  • ||

    I think it's more along the lines of I've been angling for a full-time perm position (non-contractor) here for a long time, and that was on my brain, given one of the execs wanted to meet with me today,

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Good luck, I hope you get it.

  • ||

    Well, there's no actual job, but one can be "created" if the powers that be are so inclined. I'm certain that me being brought on FT would be a great fit - it's a matter of convincing the top dogs of the same.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    My sister has affairs with him all the time, dear. Everything usually turns out ok.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    My sister

    A female Cyborg? Would sight unseen.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    An attractive one at that, Juggler.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Of course she is attractive, you studmuffin.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Got Milk?
    .
    OUCH
    Well done, bravoooooo!

  • alice567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    Illinois business taxes so high that finally Mish has stated he is moving out of state.

    http://tinyurl.com/oa8t8w2

    In fact, Flaska decided to self-insure after paying millions to settle dubious workers’ compensation claims out of court. He wanted arbitration on each claim rather than being forced to settle for less than the high cost of going to a judge.

    “Most attorneys that practice workers’ comp law in Cook County know we’re going to fight,” Flaska said. “But I still spend between $10,000 and $15,000 per case – three cases a month minimum – to fight.”

    ...

    Mark Selvaggio, president of Springfield’s Selvaggio Steel, said his small manufacturing firm would save $60,000 annually on workers’ compensation alone if they were located in Indiana. He estimates he could hire six more workers if Illinois’ business climate looked like Indiana’s.

    While the state’s costly workers’ compensation regulations may seem pro-worker, that’s not really the case, said Don Haider, a professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, especially when manufacturing jobs are drying up as a result.

    “Workers’ compensation [in Illinois] is one of those things where the benefits flow not just for purposes of industrial safety and protection of the workers,” he said.

    “It goes to the real beneficiaries, who by and large are the lawyers and the tort industry. They’re the beneficiaries of this business irritant.”

  • ||

    Hey did you hear the newest joke about Jared Fogle?

    He likes to fuck children!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wasn't that funny and edgy?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    This is a teachable moment: If you're a pedophile, keep a low profile. Don't get a job in a national ad campaign.

    Also, a suggestion: move to Bangkok.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Stop taking notes, you freaks.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If your kink is not okay with Crusty, you are doing something terribly, terribly wrong.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    This place has become an IRC room.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Are you new to H&R? This isn't terrible abnormal.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    International Red Cross? :-(

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Chat rooms back in the ancient days of the internet. And since you seem to have never heard of them, I'll add that you should also never, ever, ever search "goatse". Some things man was not meant to know.

  • ||

    never, ever, ever search "goatse".

    Unless you need a new screen saver?

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    Will Jared still have access to Subway in the clink? If not, that poor fucker is going to blow up like a blimpie.

  • RBS||

    Where's Swiss when you need him?

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    I heard about a case in Florida where a guy was caught with a lot of child-porn images on his computer and the judge gave him FIVE YEARS PER IMAGE, more than a hundred years.

  • DoubleC||

    Poor guy is going to be assraped in jail and have the doctor stitching his asshole making footlong jokes.

  • Robert||

    "the images or videos were produced using multiple hidden cameras concealed in clock radios positioned so that they would capture the minors changing clothes, showering, bathing, or engaging in other activities."

    So...nudity. Not even making them do stuff, but just catching them undressed? Is that for real what this was mostly about?

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • kerry567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.homejobs90.com

  • SvenLuc||

    The author's takeaway from the Jared Fogle scandal? Federal laws are too tough on people who view and share child pornography. Someone needs to say it, this article is disgusting and missing the point.

    If he were a person who accidentally downloaded child porn, and then was being threatened with the maximum penalties, you may have a point. In this case, the man appears to guilty of far more than accidental distribution. He created a CHILDREN'S CHARITY for god's sake, and was sharing child porn with the guy in charge of it.

    But oh yes, certainly those laws are too harsh. Smart thinking Jared to take that plea deal! You'll be back to business in no time.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online