MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

4 Things That Pissed Us Off in 2017

Serenity now.

Thomas Hawk/flickrThomas Hawk/flickrIf you like to rage, 2017 was the year for you. There was so much to be pissed off about and Reason was there every step of the way to chronicle what actually mattered.

1. The assault on free speech

No matter which major party presidential candidate was going to win the election last year, 2017 was going to be a bad year for free speech—both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton demonstrated a hearty disdain for it.

Since his inauguration, president Trump has reveled in needling the press and its "fake news." Many in the press have reacted with the kind of sloppy, mistake-laden work that has helped justify his criticism.

Trump's October tweet asking of NBC, "at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License," was nothing out of the ordinary for Trump, but acting on it might have actually violated the First Amendment, crossing a line from a complaint to government action.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai responded to calls to review the licenses of cable news network before Trump himself tweeted about it. "Setting aside the fact that the FCC doesn't license cable channels," Pai said, "these demands are fundamentally at odds with our legal and cultural traditions."

Trump continued an ignominious tradition of assaulting the First Amendment from the White House (his predecessor prosecuted more government whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined), but free speech also got short shrift in some surprising places.

More than 200 staffers at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization dedicated to protecting constitutional rights, signed an open letter decrying the group's First Amendment absolutism. "Our broader mission—which includes advancing the racial justice guarantees in the Constitution and elsewhere, not just the First Amendment—continues to be undermined by our rigid stance," the letter read.

Then there were the students affiliated with Black Lives Matter who shut down an ACLU-sponsored free speech event at the College of William & Mary because "liberalism is white supremacy." Apparently lost on the students was that the police officers they protest against would be responsible for enforcing hate speech laws.

That is not a theoretical point—hate crimes laws pushed by progressives are now being used to establish "blue lives matter" provisions that enhance sentences for crimes against cops if you say something mean to them. Louisiana already added police officers to the list of people who can be victims of hate crimes, and there's an effort to do the same on the federal level.

There's also the now-fashionable non-argument that because Nazis claim to be for free speech (anyone who takes them at face value is not a critical thinker), supporting free speech means supporting Nazism. The proposition is as preposterous as the suggestion that advocating for the constitutional rights of accused criminals means supporting criminals. Just because an argument is preposterous, unfortunately, doesn't mean it can't be popular, so vigilance about free speech will remain important.

SpringTrippReilly-Life's Elements PhotographySpringTrippReilly-Life's Elements Photography2. The war on "sex trafficking"

As much a failure as the war on drugs has been, and despite its increasing unpopularity, not only is the federal government not winding that war down, it's declaring new ones it can't possibly win.

Take the escalation of the war on so-called "sex trafficking." Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has been at the forefront of reporting on this disturbing new trend.

Brown predicted it in a Reason magazine cover story two years ago, concluding that the results would be disastrous for "perpetrators" and "victims" alike. She was absolutely right. Government agencies have enthusiastically embraced the same failed strategies of the war on drugs to fight a "sex trafficking" threat they have severely overblown.

A pair of bills passed by Congress and signed into law earlier this year while most people were obsessed over whatever the outrage-of-the-week was that week, significantly expanded federal law enforcement powers.

Specifically, the FBI, ICE, and local and state police are allowed to wiretap suspected sex workers or their associates, along with any "consenting adults on any side of a commercial sexual exchange".

The bills also called for a national strategy to suppress demand for prostitution, to treat the sex trade as "gender-based violence," as well as expanding the definition of a gang to include groups of five or more sex workers traveling together, among other provisions Brown reported on.

This fall, the war on sex trafficking extended to a federal crackdown on illegal masseuses. Teen sexters can't be that far behind.

DOJDOJ3. Everything about Jeff Sessions

America's 84th attorney general is a true throwback to shitty times. Sessions still believes in the kind of "law and order" nonsense that's largely been debunked over the last two decades—and is committed to using the Department of Justice as a cudgel.

Sessions' master plan for dealing with an opioid crisis that's gained increased news attention in 2017 is to escalate the failing war on drugs. He revived a federal asset forfeiture program that made it easier for local agencies to seize property. He wants to maximize penalties for drug offenders. He ordered a review of all consent decrees, DOJ agreements with local police agencies on reform and oversight.

Sessions recruited local police to assist in immigration enforcement. He pushes the myth that marijuana is a "gateway drug." He continues to fearmonger about crime despite historically low, and declining, rates. He backed Trump's decision to resume sending military equipment to local police. He's tripled the number of investigations into leakers. He wants to bring back DARE.

And the worst part is, if Trump fires Sessions, it'll fuel...

sbluerock/flickrsbluerock/flickr4. The Trump-Russia obsession

No review of 2017 outrage would be complete without the hysteria over potential Trump-Russia collusion.

Democrats have developed many of the conspiracy theories, but it isn't all their fault. Trump spent a good chunk of 2017 making things worse. Terminating FBI Director James Comey, and Trump's subsequent statements about it, helped lead to the appointment of former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Trump-Russia collusion.

This has created the perception that there's something wrong with talking to Russia. Better relations with Russia should be welcomed, not feared. The prevailing anti-Russia mood in Washington makes this very difficult, encouraging the Trump administration to escalate the counterproductive, antagonistic policies of the Obama administration.

This has also led, unaccountably, to efforts to lionize the FBI as a friend of liberty and justice, a task belied by its long history. That has opened the door to the censorship of online speech in the guise of ferreting out enemies of the state, bringing us full circle and bringing us little comfort heading into 2018.

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.

  • SIV||

    One of these days you cucks will learn that progressives aren't your friends.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    But Russians can be our friends, at least on an individual level. And have you met many Russian women? Hoo boy.

    As for befriending progressives, I didn't see that recommended anywhere in the article.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Still, libertarians had an optimal opportunity to broaden their appeal in 2016.....and what happened? Pretty much an LP disaster. With high negatives for both Trump and Clinton, Johnson/Weld should have been able to siphon considerable votes from each. Instead of building on their governor credentials and finding achievable policies that could find some consensus, they generally came across as a-serious, unprepared, and a little whacky. The LP would have had very little natural constituency in the Congress, so they should have argued along the lines of a very narrow agenda...you know....show that they can govern within the constraint of having 535 Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

    You make it sound like Libertarians only take the liberty-loving aspects of both parties....but that's not really true. Most of the government's social welfare and regulatory state would fall under pure libertarianism....which makes it a non-starter for liberals. Pro-abortion, extremely small military, and open borders....kills the attraction for many conservatives. The key has to be to move a non-libertarian society toward less government incrementally. Johnson was not a great ambassador for that,

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Opposing initiating force against unborn individuals would be consistent with the non aggression principle.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    The Constitution is fairly silent on the question of abortion....implying that this is a health and moral question left to the states. Each state (as represented by its voting population) then has the right to balance the natural right of a woman to determine when to take a pregnancy to term with the moral imperative to treat even very nascent life with respect. You may imply that the woman's convenience outweighs the outrage of the neighbor....as it would with legalized meth or prostitution....but this implies no externalities. If the right to abortion....meth...or prostitution is not secured in the state constitution....then it becomes subject to democratic concerns and those who are most persuasive....and hopefully compromise.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    a. "subject to democratic concerns" has nothing to do with the country being a Constitutional Republic. When a state decides how it wants to legislate on matters, it polls the will of the people....usually through its representatives.....but in some states directly through the referendum process.

    b. I am generally sympathetic to inalienable rights but the problem becomes how does the Court identify such rights? And if the Court simply gets to choose these rights, how is it that we simply don't devolve to rule by a majority of 9 justices......who conveniently take positions in the culture war? It's better that contentious social issues get resolved at the ballot box by the people who must live with the results. Second, if the right to life is an inalienable right, would that not supercede the woman's right to terminate that life (except for the case where her life is in jeopardy by taking the pregnancy to term)?

    c. The Constitution is also enumerated...meaning that there are items not enumerated or in the purview of the federal government. Article III gives the Supreme Court no power to create or imagine new rights and remove those matters from the democratic voice of the states. Does the 10A mean nothing to you? You pretend to exalt liberty but it appears that you are OK with tyranny from the bench....sad.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    "You REFUSE to list those rights reserved to the PEOPLE"

    You are arguing that specific unenumerated rights are legally secured by the 9A.....so the onus is on you to list such rights....and describe how they are identified....but more importantly....show how the framers intended for the Supreme Court to over-rule States and find protections in the 9A. Unfortunately, there is no such history of rulings where the 9A is used, let alone rulings that go back to the 18th century. You are drowning in your own flawed normative reasoning. You cannot base all of your argument on a view of the 9A which no Court accepts.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    "Her right to liberty is unalienable."

    What do you even think this means? The Constitution is and was not a libertarian document. Throughout history, states have passes laws limiting what an individual is allowed to do. And guess what? The 9A has never stopped this from happening (unless you consider Roe's reasoning to be an outlier): we allow laws against possessing child pornography, we require helmets when individuals ride motorcycles, we compel children to attend school, we criminalize drugs and prostitution, we enforce zoning, we punish polluting and creating a disturbance, we make people get auto insurance, we make strippers wear pasties, and we punish public nudity......why? Because there is no such thing as an unfettered "right to liberty"

    "WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY"

    Still, you refuse to acknowledge how all of these state laws get passed....and survive Court challenge. Please google "democracy"....it does not appear that you know what it means.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Short version. All unalienable rights are precisely equal. That means Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness .. and all the others. Check a dictionary,

    So ... if your life is in the way of my pursuit of happiness, I guess it's a wash if it makes me happy to kill you.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Short version. All unalienable rights are precisely equal. That means Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness .. and all the others.

    They can't be.

    Without the right to life, you don't get any of the others.

    It HAS to take precedence.

    If you exercising your right to liberty means that someone else loses their life--or, as Cloudbuster snarks--if his right to pursue his happiness includes your death--then his right to pursue that happiness can e abrogated.

    The right to life takes precedence. It is the right that all others proceed from..

  • Flinch||

    Fair point Philadelphia, and I see you don't mind poking the bear. But, before we can arrive at your question: should the public be forced to pay for abortion in the first place? After all, a just government does not go around killing people, much less enshrining an artifice that ought to be called Planned Infanticide [complete with a statue of Margaret Sanger, where white racists can pay homage to the woman who saw to it that our government planted roughly 7 out of 8 "clinics" deep in minority neighborhoods].
    If there is a weakness in your point, it's that rights begin with citizenship - which is established only upon issuance of a birth certificate. I don't support a constitutional amendment to create a new space for rights, but I do recognize that abortion is part of the human condition and is not going to go away. Keep it private, keep it personal, but above all...keep it out of the hands of the ethical cripples that are embedded in congress.

  • Deven||

    Right, and which side is good with limiting government?

    Here is a hint to Reason and Hihntard: Not Democrats.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Not the Republicans either. The truth is, divided, gridlocked government is best at limiting government.

  • Drake||

    LOL. Which side?? You act as if there *is* a side. THERE IS NO SIDE. None of those people support liberty. The Republicans don't give a fuck about freedom and they don't give a fuck about you. Grow the fuck up.

  • Flinch||

    No need for invective, Drake. It's not that you are right, but rather there is no need for the GOP any more in spite of the jaw dropping corruption of the DNC. Why? They abandoned any philosophy of governance the moment they sat on their hands to permit the savaging of Tom Delay by a rogue Texas prosecutor and handed the gavel to Hastert. The only reason to have a party in the first place is to promote/maintain a philosophy of governance, if it is to be a legitimate entity and a public service. So... we are currently operating under a de-facto one party system, regardless of who holds office as democrats [right or wrong] do in fact know where they want to go, and have penetrated enough of the media to shutout real discussion of issues.
    I subscribe to the notion that politics is a circle, and for that reason an automatic red flag goes up any time arguments are made as right vs. left. It ain't necessarily so... but you already knew that.

  • mpercy||

    Whenever Gary said he agrees with Bernie 73% of the time, and bill weld signed up with Hillary's anti-gun views, they pretty much threw away my 30 years of voting libertarian.

  • Flinch||

    Are you sure? As I read the 2nd, it's not about the weapons [except for citizens], it's about structure. So, at the time written, it was governors that needed to call out the militia in the event of invasion or insurrection. In that day, those were civilians and not a paid standing army. If follows that calling out unarmed citizenry is an act of extreme stupidity, therefore protecting the right of persons to keep and bear arms was in fact a preservation of value when it came to the power of calling them out in the first place. Absent that, it might as well have said 'plant daisies'. I submit that weapons in common use at the time is a footnote, in spite of the federal government being given powers to maintain a standing army - there is an implied division there: federal troops for foreign engagements, and militia to deal with internal matters or in support of federal troops mission on US soil. George Washington was quickly given powers to call out the militia [in response to foreign invasion] to bridge the gap, and we have been arguing ever since - mostly the last century. Bad case law and imbecile professors have been confusing the issue for a long time.
    Do we want to call out people with muzzle loaders in an age of 3,000 round per minute weapons? I think not.

  • Drake||

    Wait a second, you actually think the 2A means you only have the right to own muskets? Seriously?? Goddamn, LOL...

  • Rat on a train||

    Yea. Next he will tell us the 1A doesn't protect electronic communications.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Note that the Hihntard has cited this before but then pointedly ignores, every single time, what Scalia said because he was too fucking lazy to read past page 1 to point 3. on page 2:

    The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

    This is why he's earned the title of Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    RED ROCKS SAYS OUR FIRST MILITIA DID NOT POSSES ... HANDGUNS!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano makes shit up! (Not the first time)
    So who is the retard? Antonin Scalia or Dumbfuck Hinsano?
    (chortle)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Ummm, trigger locks are NOT weapons!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns aren't weapons.

    So I ridiculed you .. in defense of aggression (and MASSIVE screwup).

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately doesn't want people to know he didn't read past page one of his citation.

    Based on previous blunders

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blunders by claiming the 2A only applies to hunting rifles, pretends he's caught someone else in blundering!

    [hahaha - RRWP]

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (snort) HE quiotes me. Then LIES about his own cite

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one notices when he moves the goalposts.

    the equivalent of hunting rifles

    SCALIA says that "Milller" established the constitutional precedent that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in use at the time.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't just say hunting rifles.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles.

  • damikesc||

    RED ROCKS SAYS OUR FIRST MILITIA DID NOT POSSES ... HANDGUNS!
    So who is the retard? Antonin Scalia or Red Rocks White Privilege
    (sneer)

    Our newspapers required presses to run.

    Using your logic, only presses have free speech. TV and radio (and, of course, the internet) do not.

  • damikesc||

    LOGIC? BWAAAAA HAAAAAA
    ARE THOSE RIGHTS LINKED TO "MILITIA"???

    "Freedom of press", using your logic, only applies to actual presses.

    TV, radio, and internet do not qualify. Publishing without using a physical press also does not.

  • damikesc||

    Wait a second, you actually think the 2A means you only have the right to own muskets?

    (smirk) JUSTICE SCALIA SAID IT

    Didn't he vote to overturn a HANDGUN ban?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    A couple of thoughts:
    1. If the 2A is conditioned by militia service....and militias are effectively defunct.....aren't you arguing that the entire 2A is surplusage? Haven't you read it out of the Constitution? It is important to recognize that the prefatory statement does not qualify the right with terms like "so long as" or "being necessary for" or "only when".

    2. The operative clause says that the right to "keep and bear arms" is to be preserved by government, implying that it pre-existed the Constitution similar to the 1A. Does it make more sense to anchor this right in the right of self defense...say established by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights... or in a right to be part of a militia? If it is a broader right to self defense then it devolves to what is most practical to achieve that in this day and age.

    3. The Pennsylvania State constitution of the framing era tellingly calls out "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned". It appears that "to bear arms" has BOTH a soldiering and self defense connotation. Why read it narrowly to only apply to militias and to specific forms of self defense?

    4. To "keep arms" implies ownership or possession. The members of the militia were to be "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Are we to believe that the 2A was trying to draw out a distinction between private ownership and use, and ownership and use for militia purposes?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Goober Michael Hihn displays massive ignorance of a hunting rifle and a handgun after I jammed his inability to read past page one up his ass here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077797

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    BWAAAAA HAAAAA .... YOU SCREWED UP YOUR OWN CITE!!!!

    BWAAAAA HAAAAA .... SO DID YOU!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077865

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles

    Bitch, try reading past page 1 whenever you post this nonsense.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns are hunting rifles are the same thing! O....M....F....G!

    See his EXACT wording here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077797

    Watch him act ass-blasted when his failure to read past page 1 was pointed out to him several months ago
    (chortle)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This one's funnier!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077860

    AHAHAHAHAHA-- you fucked up your own link again, dumbass.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano claims handguns are the equivalent of hunting rifles after being shown his citation doesn't mention hunting rifles at all.

  • uunderstand||

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles.

    When you are willing to live within the medical capabilities in the time of the volunteer militia, with no anesthetics or antibiotics, come back and talk to me about this.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Now a FOURTH cyber-bully ,... the goober "understand" ... attacks ME ... for the ruling of SCALIA ... because SCALIA (not me) ... humiliated his tribal ignorance! (sneer)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his inability to read past page one constitutes "understanding."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano proves the smartest part of him was shat out after a chemo session.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What kind of "person" thinks he can lie about his arguments and get away with it?
    Dumbfuck Hihsano
    Hormonal

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Today, DESPERATE for a "win" (see Trump), he actually says that members of our founding militia did not own ... HANDGUNS!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano stalks everyone on the board for MONTHS, because a) he's a sad sack of shit who's cancer ate up his remaining two brain cells, and b) I mock his INSANE shrieking (because he's a prissy little bitch). today, DESPERATE to have people think he didn't read past the first page of the Scalia opinion, and stupidly thinks the 2A only applies to hunting rifles, he links back to his own ass-blasting while claiming people said things they never said.

    Hihnny-poo, remember, you name is TOBY!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (snort) HE quiotes me. Then LIES about his own cite

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one notices when he moves the goalposts.

    the equivalent of hunting rifles

    SCALIA says that "Milller" established the constitutional precedent that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in use at the time.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles because he's a dumbfuck who's Hihnsane.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that hunting rifles and handguns are the same thing, now that everyone knows he was too stupid to read past the first page of Scalia's ruling when he just mentioned hunting rifles (because only a dumbfuck believes handguns are the "equivalent" of hunting rifles).

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that hunting rifles and handguns are the same thing, now that everyone knows he was too stupid to read past the first page of Scalia's ruling when he just mentioned hunting rifles (because only a dumbfuck believes handguns are the "equivalent" of hunting rifles).

  • Radioactive||

    there's a libertarian establishment? where it at?

  • FlameCCT||

    Johnson has always been a Progressive Republican that couldn't hack it so became a LINO.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Libertarians are fiscally and socially libertarian. This means that they favor policies that accentuate individual liberty.

    They don't accept socially liberal positions because they tend to come coated in government control.

    They do tend to hold positions similar to fiscally conservative ones--but that's largely due to the fact that stated fiscally 'conservative' positions tend to favor individual liberty. It is just as valid to say that conservatives hold fiscally libertarian positions.

  • Finrod||

    No wonder this thread has 200+ comments, it's been Hihned on.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    On the contrary, progressives and libertarians are natural allies. Progressives agree with us on our two most important issues: open borders and reproductive rights. Meanwhile the GOP has become a white nationalist anti-immigration party that wants to turn this country into The Handmaid's Tale.

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    I don't want our borders to be open to third-world imports from congested sewers.

    People on welfare should be sterilized so that they don't breed more burdens like themselves.

  • Careless||

    I'll give you a clue: he's not a liberal, and he's making fun of the Reason staff

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    When SIV tells "Serenity Now!," he is talking about his new Silkie breed acquisition.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    *yells

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Oh. I thought he had heard rumours of a Firefly return.

  • Flinch||

    If only news directors would heed your call, and stop their blind subservience to seeking their cocktail party invites.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Exactly. Seventeen intelligence agencies have concluded Russia hacked our election to install Drumpf. It's arguably the biggest scandal in our country's ...... no, our planet's history.

  • Jerryskids||

    Keep in mind that that's just seventeen American intelligence agencies that have verified proof Putin himself cast several million votes for Trump - there are millions of other intelligence agencies that have the same proof. That every single one of those agencies is keeping the documented evidence secret is proof of just how yuge this scandal is. Sad!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Just remember to check your blood pressure everyday, Mikey.

  • Robert||

    In place of what? Here's hoping for another rage-filled yearnigger for you in 2018? Here's hoping for another nigger-filled year for you in 2018? Here's hoping for another rage-filled year for nigger in 2018? Here's nigger for another rage-filled year for you in 2018?

  • Deven||

    By begging he means soliciting.

  • Drake||

    HAHA! Nobody's trying to "bring you down", dude. We honestly don't care enough. Get over yourself. ;)

  • Eric||

    "Get some BALLS and just say "nigger""

    That would be overtly racist. The proper terminology in his circles is "those people".

  • hello.||

    Yes, we are aware that your vocabulary is severely limited by your low IQ. Take your medication and change your shitty Depends you retarded old cunt sack.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What kind of "person" thinks he can lie about his arguments and get away with it?
    Dumbfuck Hihnsano
    Hormonal

  • Azathoth!!||

    Michael, there are plenty of websites that are severely moderated, places where people talking back to you could be crushed if you whined to moderators.

    If that is what you desire--and your endless prattling about 'cyber-bullying' and 'online/verbal aggression' suggests strongly that it is, then leave, and seek out places where no one will be allowed to speak back to you.

    We like it here. Just the way it is. Even when we have to deal with people like you.

    What you want is all over the internet. What WE want is, as you point out, pretty much only here.

    So leave, and get what you want--or, accept the loud, free and raucous consequences of liberty.

    Your choice, Michael.

  • FlameCCT||

    Dude or Dudette (depending on how you self identify),

    Why are you using a story from June 2015?

  • Drake||

    Happy New Year, you Trump-worshipping cocksucker. May his holy cock milk sustain your sniveling ass for another year of your worthless life. CHEERS!

  • hello.||

    Awwww, isn't it sad that that big black bammy cock is all sucked dry now?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Proof?

  • hello.||

    You can copy and paste the same thing hundreds of times on Democratic Underground and it still doesn't constitute a single "news story" you demented old piece of shit. Take your medication.

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    No American should ever complain about foreign influence in our elections. The USA has influenced more foreign elections than everybody in the world combined. When election influence fails, military coups are used. Chile comes to mind. Ukraine comes to mind.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    It was caused by a Youtube video. Hillary said so.

  • hello.||

    Does it count as a lie if you actually believe it because you're so fucking demented that you think you're receiving coded messages from the CIA in your shitty Depends?

    TAKE YOUR MEDICATION YOU STUPID OLD MENTALLY ILL COCKSUCKER!

  • damikesc||

    Obama had us fund Bibi's opponent in an Israeli election.

  • damikesc||

    Don Jr. ADMITS attempted collusion.

    Nope. But the woman he met who said she had dirt DID meet before and after with the man Hillary was laundering money to, Glenn Simpson and his Fusion GPS company.

    Also, and this is a bit of a technicality, there is literally no CRIME involved in collusion here.

    Which is also bolstered by the lack of evidence of collusion in the first place.

    It's been over a year and all evidence points to far more interaction between Hillary and her buddies in Russia than Trump.

    Trump PUBLICLY hoped Russia would hack Hillary.

    No, he assumed --- like most people also did who do not work for the FBI --- that she had already been hacked and that others had the info. He assumed Russia had the info. Russia didn't leak it to Wikileaks, but to assume they didn't have her info from the collection of idiots that were her IT team is foolish.

    Trump yelled FAKE NEWS that anyone on his campaign had ANY contact with Russia.

    Russian CITIZENS, BUSINESSES, or the GOVERNMENT?

    What do they have on Flynn, forcing him to turn state's evidence.

    Not much, given that they're charging him with lying, which tends to harm one's credibility as a witness.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    This thread got real dumb real fast.

  • Radioactive||

    if you'd stop the trolling, the collective IQ of this thread would rise to room temperature...

  • Longtobefree||

    room temperature before or after global warming?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The bills also called for a national strategy to suppress demand for prostitution

    I fear this might be a call for castration.

  • Longtobefree||

    Best strategy would be legalization

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    This is the best REASON article that I can recall. Keep up the good work.

  • ||

    Trump's October tweet asking of NBC, "at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License," was nothing out of the ordinary for Trump, but acting on it might have actually violated the First Amendment

    At what point is it appropriate to recognize he is basically jerking members of the media around, yourselves included? Unless you want an 8-year Trump reign, something my retirement funds would relish at this point, you would do wise to stop taking his tweets so seriously. The man feeds off of impotent progressive rage.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    So basically he's your average 2008 era /b/tard that idiots don't know how to ignore or not to pay any heed to his comments? Makes sense really.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Didn't vote for Trump....and probably will never vote for Trump.....but the Chicken Little routine is getting a bit old. Trump is the troll in chief for sure......he is certainly changing Presidential norms of behavior for the worse.....but this great fear that his words...words... are going to shut down the news media or initiate the fourth reich just seem a bit loopy. If he starts trying to shut down CNN or replace judges or invade countries because of some personal slight, then let me know....otherwise....let's just figure out what in our culture actually spawned Trump and work to cap that sewer.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I held my nose and voted Trump. Will gladly do it again.

  • Deven||

    Trump is the first heel Republican. In a party of babyfaces, Trump is Hulk Hogan.

  • Eric||

    You don't "gladly" hold your nose. Your first assertation belies the second. Just admit that you gladly voted for Trump and will do it again in 2020. The next step is admitting that you'll do it regardless of what happens over the next 3 years.

  • hello.||

    Not everyone has the firm principle to vote straight Democrat every single fucking year like you and the entire Reason staff.

  • Kivlor||

    Eric, I don't know about Philadelphia Collins, but I would describe my vote for Trump the same way. First vote was "hold my nose". After seeing him in office, I'd gladly vote a second time.

  • JuanQPublic||

    And let's not forget about CNN's doxxing of a young man who made an animated gif of Trump fighting a CNN logo.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Correction: CNN's threat of doxxing said individual.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    I tend to agree with this......Trump shows you can play to the lowest common denominators of fear, hate, and anger.....and win. The question is how much of what he does is theater versus some sort of pathological thinking. We had whole groups of Talk Radio hosts, evangelical preachers, and Fox News commentators abandon rational thought at the altar of celebrity personality worship. This paints the path for a real dictator....just find another "Hillary" that we need to hate and fear more....this should scare the hell out of us!

  • FlameCCT||

    Hey AJ,

    Progressivism, which controls the DNC and GOPe, is what actually spawned Trump. I would note that the Progressive GOPe fought so hard against Cruz that they ignored Trump until it was too late. My $0.02!

  • FlameCCT||

    Should have added that the Progressives in the GOP also failed to keep their promises after being given the House, then Senate. So most of the base was disgusted and supported Cruz, who actually stood up to McConnell while those that were tired of the Progressive Dems supported Trump.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    You realize that we've had Presidents like Andrew Jackson that would get wasted, trash bars, call people stupid niggers and shoot them in the same breath after they called his wife a bigamist or a Kennedy, and banging women left and right behind the scences right? Or Presidents that were like FDR and actually violated the Constitution for an entire group of people based on race? A President shitposting on Twitter, whether it be a tantrum or not, isn't really a concern of mine.

  • FlameCCT||

    Not to mention a President like FDR that placed Hugo KKK Black on SCOTUS or Wilson that segregated the federal government as well as many more Progressive racists.

  • Rockabilly||

    This New Year's Eve menu for progressive marxists = Russian Tofu Nothing Burger smothered in Organic Antifa, with a side of BLM, and for dessert Free Range Illegal Aliens

  • Deven||

    Hihn, please go to Salon for a while, figure out that you agree with them more than you do libertarians, and stay there.

  • Eric||

    The same could be said of many here. Just because this commentariat often turns into a Republican circle jerk, doesn't mean that libertarians agree with Republicans.

  • Deven||

    No, libertarians often do not agree with Republians, however, to think that Democrats and Republicans are equally disdainful is retarded.

  • hello.||

    "Republican circle jerk" meaning when one person shows up who isn't still choking on that big black bammy cock a full fucking year after he left office. Some people think spying on journalists, using the IRS to target political enemies, murdering Americans overseas, and starting illegal wars are almost as serious as posting mean things on Twitter. Weird.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's the other way around. Republicans sometimes agree with libertarians.

    Because their ideologies have more in common with each other.

    Where they diverge, it is Republican statism that creates the rift--Republicans failing to live up to the ideals they profess.

    The libertarians peppered through the leftists that infest Reason understand that.

  • Deven||

    Yes, you're a legend in your own mind. We are all well aware, Hihn.

  • hello.||

    Reported for spam. Quit trying to force-feed people your shitty web 1.0 blog. We get get plenty enough of your mentally ill demented rambling without you trying to monetize the 5 extra hits of traffic. Fuck off you stupid old piece of shit.

  • Robert||

    Come on, guys, there's got to be a better pissing-off list than HyR came up w here. What about:

    1. How publicizing police brutality just seems to encourage them? Like, THEY got away w THAT, now's OUR turn!

    2. Publicizing sexting woes seems to encourage thinking of the phenomenon, rather than prosecution, as the problem?

    3. Diversity only where it's trivial, otherwise intolerance of, not only deviance, but even the normal?

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Yeah the Daniel Shaver shooting would have probably topped my list.

    I also agree that we are into each other's shit waaaayyy tooo much......reality tv and social media is making us less capable of self governance, let alone determining what is or is not our business

    Third, our news media is now dominated by news opinion and speculation.....where most news has a clear ideological bias....which forces most people to choose a side....maybe this is driven by our second point....don't know....but it too is killing our country's ability to self govern.....Trump's tweets are generally horrible but in the grand picture of life...maybe they are just a window into who we are becoming as a people

  • Mcgoo95||

    Agreed. The torture/murder of Daniel Shaver was certainly the most disturbing thing I saw this year. Also agree with your other points. Trump's tweets are certainly a window into out collective subconscious. In my opinion, we have become a country of assholes (on both sides of the political spectrum) and Trump is King Asshole....for now.

  • mpercy||

    Re item 3

    "Being exclusionary of trans women partners should be an outlier and marginal position for straight men, not some commonplace expectation. These angry declarations that they have some absolute right to not want to be with trans women are just misplaced and inappropriate." -- Zinnia Jones

    It's not enough th that tolerate trans folks, but cishetero men may need to be foreced to date trans women, lest they think they'd have a right not to.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How mainstream is this position?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    psychotic

  • Kivlor||

    I'd give it 2 Hihns

  • Kivlor||

    I'll give you one aggression.
    Yes, but I'm an unwilling recipient.

  • Kivlor||

    I suppose you could describe me as "eager" to avoid your aggression... but it's an odd choice of words

  • Robert||

    Actually #2 shouldn't surprise me in that it seems to effectively bolster narcotics prohib'n.

    Maybe it's all part of the phenomenon of corruption breeding distrust, which breeds more controls, which breed more corruption. It's enough that sometimes I think we'd be better off w censorship or other form of suppression of nearly all news, & possibly the substitution of fake nx saying things are swell. Because the rxn vs. things being perceived as bad makes them worse. If only people didn't know about drugs or porn or prostitution or foreign wars or whatever, maybe there'd be no attempt to do anything about them.

    I even think we might be better off if we had total secret gov't: a few venal people ripping the rest of us off secretly, maybe even "disappearing" a few people they disliked. Since nobody'd know about it, nobody more would want to get in on the act. Limited gov't—not nice, but limited.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Here's a fifth: false equivalence between a sitting president exercising his constitutional right to criticize media and a former president actually wiretapping and using the apparatus of the state against the media. One is an actual assault against the first amendment; leave it to reason to fail to understand which.

    p.s. Remind me under which president reason was subpoenaed. Like Ed I'm struggling to recall...

  • Deven||

    Aye, Democrats have;

    Used the IRS to go after those they don't agree with.

    Used the DOJ to fund those they do agree with through plea deals.

    Used the FBI/NSA/CIA to fucking WIRETAP the opposition party's presidential candidate.

    Used dozens journalists to get heads up on everything from debate questions to upcoming leaks.

    Meanwhile, Trump talks on Twitter. I'm really getting sick of Reason's bullshit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai responded to calls to review the licenses of cable news network before Trump himself tweeted about it. "Setting aside the fact that the FCC doesn't license cable channels," Pai said, "these demands are fundamentally at odds with our legal and cultural traditions."

    Considering he literally and singlehandedly destroyed the internet this year, you're not doing yourselves any favors citing Pai's words.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    The online chimp-out over somebody reversing a useless Obama-era policy -- that was in effect for all of two years -- has been the most cringeworthy thing to watch this year.

    It boggles my mind how the whole goddamn internet got sucked into what was basically a bunch of sleazy negotiating tactics between NetFlix, Comcast, etc. as if it were some new global holy war.

    Granted the FCC shouldn't even exist, but this guy has done nothing to earn the public enemy status he's been given.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Agreed. But then again, this is how an increasingly insane, low-info public deals with things now, especially on the internet. If one doesn't fall lockstep with the prevailing assumptions, attempts to personally destroy that person will ensue. The most rabid attacks typically come from those who do t really know much about the issue.

  • Flinch||

    The FCC has on balance been a disgrace and a public disservice since its inception. It blocked FM radio technology for years at the service of fearful AM radio owners, and delayed cell phone technology for possibly decades by tying up spectrum in useless arcane rules. They need to start over with a clean sheet of paper, and not one soul who has ever worked there - the entire culture is rotted top to bottom. It should by rights be called the Federal Blackout Commission, and its charter read 'denying new technology to the public whenever possible'.

  • GILMORE™||

    There's also the now-fashionable non-argument that because Nazis claim to be for free speech supporting free speech means supporting Nazism.

    Hitler was a vegetarian
    Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews

    Gweneth Paltrow is a vegetarian
    Gweneth Paltrow obviously supports the extermination of the jews

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

    Noted: the source of the above twitter-linked Non-Argument has been frequently published in the pages of this magazine. Readers often had a field day pointing out his glaring logical failures.

  • SIV||

    I had no idea Berlatsky was such a prolificReason contributor. Weird 'cause I know the byline. That's pretty bad that he can't even draw my attention while working in the genre of "what wrong things does this asshole have to say about things I have knowledge of and strong opinions on?". Usually I eat that shit up.

  • JeremyR||

    That actually would not surprise me about Ms. Paltrow. She's pretty far left into the fascist side...

    And there is probably a correlation between vegetarianism and fascism.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "Hate" laws are arbitrary laws and run against the overall grain of individual liberty and the Constitution. The hate law proponent's position is diametrically opposed to equal treatment under the law, no matter how much they insist otherwise.

    Also very alarming is the group of ACLU members who voiced opposition to "free speech absolutism" by moving the goalposts on what that term refers to. Almost nobody is a free speech absolutist, and even the most principled free speech advocates do not include harassment, direct threats, fraud, etc as free speech. Essentially, that group of ACLU people wants to further limit free speech to only certain ideas.

  • Deven||

    The American Civil Liberties Union is now trashing both the 1st and 2nd Amendment. They are very close to joining a long line of organizations and ideas that have been subjugated by the left so they can use up all of its past credibility.

  • RightWingA**hole||

    By close, you mean that penetration has happened...

  • JuanQPublic||

    The actions of many ACLU people in the last year have not been encouraging, and yes, it's starting to look like they are indeed being ideologically co-opted. Not good at all.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Support of Milo

  • Rat on a train||

    Watch it or you will find yourself on the SPLC hate group list.

  • Deven||

    Fuck off, psychopath slaver.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    You are still my bitch, Sevo

  • hello.||

    Why do you bother with the sockpuppet accounts you stupid old piece of demented shit? Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano claimed the 2A only applied to hunting rifles, then changes his claim when he realizes he was too stupid to read past page one.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blurts out his age.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Note to anyone reading this that Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too lazy to read past page 1 of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    BECAUSE HANDGUNS WERE WEAPONS IN USE AT THE TIME ... AS SCALIA STATED

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano acts as if he didn't say "hunting rifles."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Here's one that should annoy the crap out of everyone... facebook admits to censoring and deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments.

  • SIV||

    "facebook is a private corporation and their right to not host content trumps your right to criticize them for doing so"

    /derp

  • Deven||

    This is also known as fascism.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Perhaps you missed the part of the story where Facebook was acting at the direction of the government.

  • lafe.long||

    Saying there was direction, instead of requests, is shameful. Direction implies an order. Request? Google the definition.

    From the article:

    But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook's rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that "Mr. Kadyrov's accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act."

    Facebook says that they were "legally obligated to act" because of a government sanctions list. Doesn't sound like a "request" to me. In fact it sounds like the very definition of "at the direction of the government". Exactly as Paul described.

    No slander...
    I won't wait for your apology to Paul, though.

  • lafe.long||

    Also from the article:

    Just as one might cheer the censorship of someone one dislikes without contemplating the long-term consequences of the principle being validated, one can cheer the disappearance from Facebook and Instagram of a Chechen monster. But Facebook is explicitly telling you that the reason for its actions is that it was obeying the decrees of the U.S. government about who must be shunned.

    So to recap:

    Diane Reynolds (Paul.)|1.1.18 @ 2:42PM

    Perhaps you missed the part of the story where Facebook was acting at the direction of the government.
  • lafe.long||

    You accused Paul of slander saying that the article only mentioned "requests".

    I quoted directly from the article where it CLEARLY says that Facebook admitted to banning at the direction of the government.

    Here it is again. Read it slowly:

    Just as one might cheer the censorship of someone one dislikes without contemplating the long-term consequences of the principle being validated, one can cheer the disappearance from Facebook and Instagram of a Chechen monster. But Facebook is explicitly telling you that the reason for its actions is that it was obeying the decrees of the U.S. government about who must be shunned.

    Facebook SAID that they removed the account because the guy was on a sanctions list, not that they were "requested" to do so.:

    Here it is again DIRECTLY from the article:

    A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that "Mr. Kadyrov's accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act."

    Go back and read the WHOLE article.
    Again, your "slander" accusations are baseless.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano sure doesn't know what a quotation is:

    the equivalent of hunting rifles

    That's why he now lies and says that handguns are included in that definition because someone pointed out to him that he didn't read past page two of Scalia's decision.

  • lafe.long||

    YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A QUOTATION IS!

    I don't? Like the direct quotation from the Facebook spokesperson to the NYT? WITH quotation marks? FROM the article?

    Here it is again for the third fucking time:

    A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that "Mr. Kadyrov's accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act."


    If you click on the linked NYT article, you can see the full quote from the Facebook spokesperson.

    Paul's original statement in this subthread was that perhaps you missed this actual quotation in the original article. No aggression. I provided proof that, yes, you might have missed it - with the quotation from the original article (three times, now). No aggression.

  • lafe.long||

    From the linked NYT article:

    Facebook, which also owns Instagram, defended its decision to remove the accounts, saying the government's sanctions against Mr. Kadyrov obligated it to do so.

    "We became aware and have now confirmed that the accounts appear to be maintained by or on behalf of parties who appear on the U.S. Specially Designated Nationals List and thus subject to U.S. trade sanctions," a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement emailed to The New York Times. "For this reason, Facebook has a legal obligation to disable these accounts."

    Ms. Granick, the ACLU attorney, said that raised serious issues. "It's not a law that appears to be written or designed to deal with the special situations where it's lawful or appropriate to repress speech," she said.

    The company does not appear to apply this policy to all people sanctioned by the United States. Several other people on sanctions list have active, and even verified, accounts.

    Direct. Quotation.

  • lafe.long||

    Your response?
    You accuse a commenter of slander (aggression) and me of lying (aggression) and resort to ad hominem (aggression) based entirely on your lack of reading comprehension or failing vision?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    " your lack of reading comprehension or failing vision?"

    I am unaware how long these pages continue being read.
    For any others with an interest in privacy and security, I find nothing to support your savage assaults on Mr, Hihn

    For any others. Check for yourself, as I will doubtless also be attacked

    When I saw Mr. long had lied about quote marks in his first cite, I was prompted to check Mr. long's claims. Privacy is a serious matter. Are the claims against Facebook true? Mr. long's relevant claims are all are lies or misstatements, and quite obvious, so why do it unless to attck Mr. Hihn? Don't chose sides in a pissing match, If you share my privacy concerns, then see for yourself and think for yourself.

    I began with the following comment, which Mr. long falsely claims has a direct quote, with "".
    lafe.long|1.1.18 @ 5:02PM

    I have said there are only two possibilities for Mr long's deplorable behavior. A third has come to mind, and actually makes most sense. I searched all of Reason for his handle and found no prior comments. I conclude that lafe.long is a new account, created Ms. Reynold for the sole purpose of attacking Mr. Hihn, and have notified the web site of behavior which should not be tolerated, whatever the cause.

    Our entire society has been crippled by the hated and meanness of a few. Did our President create it? Or did it create him?

    May the Good Lord bless you and keep you in this fresh new year,

  • lafe.long||

    I really don't know what your issue is.
    I don't see any "savage assaults".
    Paul's link was to an article by Glen Greenwald at the Intercept. Greenwald's article was about Facebook deleting accounts at the direction of US govt - SPECIFICALLY because the user was on a US sanctions list. In the article, Greenwald quotes his source (the NYT) and provides a link to the New York Times. This link is in the paragraph above the one in my very first post on this thread. The NYT link clearly states that they received an e-mail from a Facebook spokesperson stating why they deleted the account. Instead of clicking the link to see for yourself what Facebook ACTUALLY said, you start shrieking about "requests" vs direction, calling Paul shameful and accusing him of slandering Facebook. When I point out you indeed missed something, you proceed to call me a liar and a goober.
    You are making a fool of yourself.

  • lafe.long||

    I've been posting here since 2007.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    "Direct. Quotation."

    That quote does not appear in the linked NYT article

    Youi in fact lied about what you cited, with no "quotation mark"s here,and you actually put it in bold here: lafe.long|1.1.18 @ 5:59PM

    Mr, Hihn has been way too kind. Only two conclusions are possible
    1) You are a Palestinian terrorist
    2) You need psychiatric help. Then get a life in the New Year.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Here it is again for the third fucking time:Whoa. I can't find that anywhere else in the thread. Mr.. Hihn is making a fool of you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're not fooling anyone with that sockpuppet, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has a quibble with one of his multiple personalities.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I honestly don't know why I cam back to this thread, but I have to admit that the sockpuppet Elilis Wyatt nearly caused me to piss my pants with laughter. First he quotes himself (somewhere above, which I can't be bothered to find) and then he has his sock puppet come to his defence....Mr. Hihn, you are truly a piece of work. The sad part is I think you might actually have some good points if I could ever get past your personality.

  • Mcgoo95||

    *personalities*

  • Mcgoo95||

    I might actually be able to get to your ideas, issues and content if I could ever get past the fact that you're a condescending prick. That is my opinion of you. If that is bullying to you, than you need to grow up. I would be happy as well to tell it to your snickering, smirking, snorting face if I ever met you in person but I suspect you only act like a deranged child on the internet. Grow up and/or get a life.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    #Kochsuckerssaywut?

    2017, and you are indicting what Hillary would have done so as to excuse what Drumpf did.

  • JeremyR||

    Hillary would actually have had the government do stuff to Republicans/conservatives, not just stay stupid stuff on twitter (though I'm sure she would also do that, as she regularly does, albeit not in the braying manner Trump does)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    One amusing aspect of 2017 is upper-class liberals and their representatives ending the year complaining that they'd have to pay more taxes.

  • John Galt is back||

    Far more amusing, you defending Republican tax increases! And $1.5 Trillion in new debt!
    Trump did say you'd defend him from even commiting murder in broad daylight, And you stood by that.
    But the Trump team was just destroyed by BANNON, in a stunning new book.
    Sorry.

  • hello.||

    1. The assault on free speech

    Did you consult Shika Dalmia on this one? She believes that violence against speakers she disagrees with is perfectly acceptable.

    Did you consult Elizabeth Nolan Brown? She doxed a man on Twitter and harangued his employer to try to get him fired for jokingly telling her to make him a sandwich.

    Did you consult Katherine Mangu-Ward who stood by those two individuals, endorsed their views, and continues to pay them as Reason staff members?

  • Kivlor||

    No, that's totally free speech. Dalmia doesn't advocate violence against "people she disagrees with". She advocates it against evil Nazis who everyone except Nazis disagree with.

    And ENB was only fighting back against oppression. That man deserved everything he got and worse because of his active support for Patriarchy.We need more standup women like this at Reason, and I intend to publish exactly that in 2018.

    Also, consider carefully whether or not you want to side with Nazis and cisheteropatriarchal scum. Nice IP address you have there...

    Regards,
    --Katherine Mangu-Ward

  • Mcgoo95||

    Ladies and Gentleman, the massive, over-inflated dirigible known as the Hihndenberg has ascended to a height of 10,000 feet over this comment thread and spewed self-aggrandizing, pedantic bullshit all over everyone who's participated in it....also known as anti-gubbmint goobers. Nothing to see here. Unless you want to be covered in it's bullshit and perhaps kill a few braincells in the process, i suggest you move along to more current articles.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    What are your specific disagreements with Mr. or Ms. Hihndenberg? At this point, your behavior is far worse than what you accuse him or her of. I cannot find his or her name on this page. .

    Verbal aggression is legal. But it conveys the same mentality as physical aggression. We libertarians have a core principle, Non-Aggression, which causes me to report yours to Reason.

    May your tortured soul find peace, by the Grace of Almighty God.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Try the David Nolan sockpuppet instead, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Lester224||

    I read anti-free-speech blather from otherwise 'nice' people every time I open facebook. It's getting so I just can't stand to read any of those stories which mention free speech. They just don't get it. Perhaps we have to educate young people more effectively on the implications of restricting free speech, but even baby boomers are delusional on these points. The righties want to jail people for flag burning or failing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. The lefties want to outlaw insults to minorities.

  • Flinch||

    No surprise there. I read Fakebooks alleged policy, which contravenes its opening premise that your page is yours. No... it's not. Halfway through is language that effectively means policy is whatever they deem it to be at any given moment on a purely elastic basis, and they don't even need a real person outside the company to feign objection - they can imagineer their way to some objection allowing taking your page down at any moment, and you the "owner" of your page have zero recourse. That is what fascism looks like, attitudinally speaking.

  • Flinch||

    I can't believe political agitprop didn't make the 2017 list. Does anybody believe the 'incite the right' event in Virgina was anything but an inside operation to provide the excuse for the left to take to the streets? Yes, there are right wing loons out there, but WHO organized them? The unholy union of anarchists and fascists did, so they could commit arson with cans of hairspray, wield pillowcases loaded with bricks and more... as the AntiFa signs distracted the cameras and gave them political cover.
    In case you think otherwise, that event was a continuum of Ferguson, where an attorney general threatened an entire police force with federal review and a so called "civil rights" investigation if they dared to remove the anarchists from their streets and return law & order. You might recall that roughly 80% of those arrested during the feigned outrage had come in from out of town. The common link is suspected to be Soros money, but there are enough layers between him and the paid goons that plausible deniability is rock solid, and no jury will ever scratch the man.
    Count me as one American pissed off that our own DOJ sided with anarchists and attempted to set the nation on fire.

  • Longtobefree||

    Did you just try to say some one organized anarchists?

  • Ned Netterville||

    According to the NYT on Dec. 30th:

    "During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia's top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton... two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role. (Note, NYT using unnamed sources, as usual). The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired."

    I doubt many Americans give a damn about whether the Russians colluded with Trump himself to defeat Hillary, or passed on hacked Hillary emails to the Trump campaign, but they sure as hell ought to be scared, BE REALLY SCARED, when the FBI begins investigating presidential candidates during an election on the basis of what some Australian spooks told them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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