MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Twitter Defends Decision to Keep Alex Jones. Nobody Is Happy: Reason Roundup

Plus: Missouri right-to-work law fails, Antiwar.com writers booted from Twitter, and the great anti-white racism debate continues.

modified from @realalexjones/twittermodified from @realalexjones/twitterTwitter troubles and tribulations. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pushed back Tuesday against those condemning the site for not jumping on the ban-Infowars bandwagon. Facebook, Apple, and YouTube have all exiled Infowars, run by the infamous cross-aisle conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, from their respective platforms.

"We didn't suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday," Dorsey tweeted. "We know that's hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn't violated our rules. We'll enforce if he does." For now, said Dorsey, "We're going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories."

"If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that's constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction," he continued. "That's not us."

While Jones may be known for sensationalism and "unsubstantiated rumors," tweeted Dorsey, it's the job of journalists to "document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions. This is what serves the public conversation best."

Incredibly reasonable, right? Of course, nearly everyone was upset.

Some suggested it was ridiculous to demand journalists do the work of separating truth from fact when we could leave it up to tech companies, social-media mobs, regulators, or the random employees tasked with judging reported tweets and posts.

Conservatives complained that even if they didn't want Jones banned, the internet still isn't fair because Twitter had suspended or banned right-leaning voices in the past for what folks suspect are political reasons. Liberals complained because they did want Jones banned, and thought it wrong that he got to stay while left-leaning accounts had previously been suspended or banned over less.

SMOD/TwitterSMOD/TwitterThe truth, of course, is that many people—left, right, libertarian, apolitical, and adhering to many other ideologies—have had their Twitter accounts suspended or revoked unfairly. This is what happens when people on all sides weaponize offense (or faux-offense) to get those they don't like banned, and when we're asking for judgement calls on millions of mini-missives based on vague and subjective criteria.

Yes, there have been many, many instances of accounts getting suspended for sarcasm, for jokes, for hyperbole, for having "a four-hundred-year-old, painted tit" in a profile pic, etc. No, Twitter has not always gotten it right in the past and will surely make some bad calls again.

Just yesterday, the absurdist account Sweet Meteor of Death was temporarily suspended for sharing what was clearly a joke about killing "everything that's alive Except for deep-sea sulfur-oxidizing bacteria."

But the solution so many are suggesting—more intense scrutiny of everyone's tweets and a stricter suspension and banning policy—is silly, counterproductive, and sure to make no one actually happy. We all, including Twitter monitors, have wildly varying sensibilities and abilities to comprehend humor and sarcasm. Stricter monitoring and enforcement isn't going to lead to a perfect digital sphere where no one gets unfairly suspended, and certainly not the to world partisans on both sides seem to imagine, where only the types of rhetoric the other side uses will be found guilty. Rather, any sort of enhanced enforcement will end with all sides up in arms and further limited in speech.

So does that mean nothing can be done about "fake news" and "hate speech" on the internet? Of course not. As Dorsey mentioned, journalists and other watchdogs can take a more active role. More importantly, we already have civil and criminal ways to deal with spreading serious lies, defamation, or threats. In The New York Times today, David French suggests that social platforms stop dealing in vague terms like "hate" and "harassing" and instead work to prohibit things with actual legal meanings, like libel and slander.

"Private corporations can ban whoever they like," writes French. "But if companies like Facebook are eager to navigate speech controversies in good faith, they would do well to learn from the centuries of legal developments in American law. When creating a true marketplace of ideas, why not let the First Amendment be your guide?"

Several Antiwar.com writers also had their accounts suspended or banned yesterday. Antiwar.com said they were reported by author Jonathan Katz after criticizing him, though Katz disputed this. Antiwar.com editor Scott Horton and Ron Paul Institute chief Daniel. L. McAdams were temporarily suspended, while author Peter Van Buren had his Twitter account permanently banned.

"This followed exchanges with several mainstream journalists over their support for America's wars and unwillingness to challenge the lies of government," wrote Van Buren on Antiwar.com. "After two days of silence, Twitter sent me an auto-response saying what I wrote 'harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence someone else's voice.' I don't think I did any of that, and I wish you didn't have to accept my word on it....But Twitter won't allow that. Twitter says you cannot read and make up your own mind. They have in fact eliminated all the things I have ever written there over seven years."

FREE MINDS

Debate over "white people" tweets continues. At Slate, Yascha Mounk suggests that his fellow liberals are right that The New York Times should stand by new hire Sarah Jeong after old tweets of her disparaging white people and "old white men" resurfaced. But they don't need to defend her speech, writes Mounk:

[T]he content of her tweets is, from a liberal perspective, much worse than her defenders want to admit and...detrimental to the prospect of building a just society....Many of Jeong's worst tweets were supposed to be funny, but what was supposed to make them funny was the fantasy of inflicting indiscriminate cruelty on a whole group of people—something to which, as liberals and leftists, we have good reason to object.

That's the moral case, he writes. Another is strategic: "A lot of very loathsome figures are deeply convinced that publicizing uses of the defensive inversion of bigotry will serve their cause," and "they aren't wrong." And while "there is dignity in refusing to let what one says, writes, or tweets be shaped by its likely consequences," there is "a third reason to steer clear of the defensive inversion of bigotry: neither moral nor strategic, this final reason might perhaps best be called aspirational....If the left imitates the inflammatory rhetoric of the right, the best possible future is one in which today's minority groups take over the reins of power but our social divisions grow even more poisonous."

Read the whole thing here.

FREE MARKETS

Bad news on compulsory union dues.

More here.

QUICK HITS

  • Former would-be Libertarian Party presidential nominee Austin Peterson lost his bid to become the Republican challenger for Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill's seat.
  • Michigan cops made an 80-year-old woman spend a night in jail over an expired medical marijuana card.
  • The Missouri prosecutor who handled the investigation into Ferguson teen Michael Brown's death has lost his bid for reelection.
  • A Virginia newspaper and one of its former reporters are going to court over who owns the rights to a Twitter account.
  • "A federal judge in California has ruled that a confidential messaging app must release the identity of a user who is accused of helping plan violence at a white nationalist rally last year in Charlottesville," NPR reports.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Actress Alyssa Milano is on to the Russian plot to see the Green Party rise in Ohio, or something.

    Who's the comrade?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Who is the Commissar?

  • Rich||

    Who is the Master of Foxhounds?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Who is the Master Baiter?

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Who is John From?

  • BYODB||

    ...Alex Baldwin knows...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trick question. In the workers' paradise there are no bosses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...something to which, as liberals and leftists, we have good reason to object.

    Meh.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    For now, said Dorsey, "We're going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account..."

    Arbitrary enforcement of subjective rules?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I like those odds!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "A federal judge in California has ruled that a confidential messaging app must release the identity of a user who is accused of helping plan violence at a white nationalist rally last year in Charlottesville," NPR reports.

    If you're going to bill yourself as confidential, you probably shouldn't be keeping records that can be handed over.

  • Rich||

    Hey! That would be a *meta*-confidential app!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    But then whose confidential information would they sell?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Children are being euthanized in Belgium
    Between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2017, Belgian physicians gave lethal injections to three children under 18, according to a July 17 report from the commission that regulates euthanasia in Belgium.

    The oldest of the three was 17; in that respect, Belgium was not unique, since the Netherlands permits euthanasia for children over 12.

    Belgian doctors, however, also ended the lives of a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old. These were the first under-12 cases anywhere, Luc Proot, a member of the Belgian commission, told me in an interview.

    FDA Acquiring 'Fresh' Aborted Baby Parts to Make Mice With Human Immune Systems
    In 2016, Harvard University provided the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives with a background paper explaining that mice with human immune systems "are engineered to this condition only by means of the use of human fetal material" and that this material can only come from aborted babies not from miscarriages.

  • Cathy L||

    Is there something unlibertarian about allowing children to decide to end their lives?

  • John||

    No. there is not. It is about as unlibertarian as one can get.

  • Horny Lizard||

    These people are dying miserable deaths and who are you to make them suffer needlessly?

  • John||

    Who the fuck are you to decide what is a miserable death? Children cannot consent to their own deaths. Even if you believe an adult can, no way in hell can a child do so.

    You basically just want the state to have the power to murder the sick and the unfit. It is disgusting and evil and about the least libertarian idea imaginable. Child sex and child murder seem to be on the agenda today. Apparently, it is sick fuck day on Hit and Run.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Man, you keeping jumping to worst-case scenarios.
    As if 'child' were clear and unambiguous, with a clear and sharp point of transition from child to not-child that occurs like clockwork the same time and way for everyone.
    How about we keep the state out of it?
    Local decisions by those most directly involved and impacted. Imagine that.
    Things will occur you will disapprove of. Welcome to life.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Four-year-olds should be free to be sodomized if that's their personal preference!"

  • BYODB||


    "Four-year-olds should be free to be sodomized if that's their personal preference!"


    We might laugh now, but the far left isn't very far from making that argument I think. After all sexuality isn't a choice, fetuses aren't humans, and children can give consent to die before they're a teen. Essentially, all the groundwork is already set up.

  • Cathy L||

    It's not even like they've taken away the "parental right" to overrule the child. You just want the state to have the power to force people to suffer as much as possible.

  • Ron||

    We've been here before it was called Eugenics and it was practiced everywhere in the world including the U.S. eventually people realized it was a bad thing but again those who do not know history only repeat history. this time they are using different moral arguments and hopefully people will soon realize there is no morality in their moral arguments. Self determination is great for those who can discern and those who can't we need to protect them from the government as much as we need to protect them form themselves. we must convince with well reasoned arguments with out utilizing government force to prove our case. it a long battle ahead. Keep up the good work John.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The only power the state has is to stop it from happening. Otherwise, the state is just allowing things to happen.

    You profess to support liberty by arresting doctors over a decision they have made with the patient, and the patient's parents to satisfy their wishes.

    The state did not choose these patients, did not require it, and wasn't part of the decision.

  • Ron||

    Due to government finances in the Netherlands doctors are encouraged to euthanize, patients now have to have a please don't euthanize badge on them. it discusting that money is more important than lives there, but as in everywhere but the U.S. people are property of the state hence they have no rights

  • Happy Chandler||

    Nice fiction. Pics or it didn't happen!

  • Horny Lizard||

    Euthanasia defined: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a painless way for reasons of mercy.

  • Rich||

    The truth, of course, is that many people—left, right, libertarian, apolitical, and adhering to many other ideologies—have had their Twitter accounts suspended or revoked unfairly.

    Just a doggone minute, Elizabeth. Who separated that truth from fact [sic]?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Michigan cops made an 80-year-old woman spend a night in jail over an expired medical marijuana card.

    Deputy Ashley has no time for optics.

  • Rich||

    IT'S THE LAW!

  • John||

    The last thing society needs is a bunch of unlicenced old pot heads out running around causing chaos. Chaos!!

  • Rich||

    It's a slippery slope, John.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    A slippery slope of unlicensed dope.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    String em up with a rope

  • Juice||

    unlicenced old pot heads

    You might say they're undocumented. Or that they're illegals.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    It was a split-second-officer-discretion.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Spliff second?

  • Bee Tagger||

    Former would-be Libertarian Party presidential nominee Austin Peterson lost his bid to become the Republican challenger for Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill's seat.

    his loss ensures his libertarian cred

  • Cynical Asshole||

    his loss ensures his libertarian cred

    "I could have won, but I'm too real. People can't handle what I'm throwing down!" - excerpt from Austin Peterson's future speech at 2020 LP convention.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Basically, every argument defending the Alex Jones ban also defends the Hollywood blacklist of commies:

    whenever people mention that godawful XKCD comic about "free speech" i can't help thinking of this minorly-edited version

  • Cathy L||

    And every argument about why bakers shouldn't have to make gay wedding cakes also defends the rights of racists to refuse service to black people. What's your point?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    And every argument defending making the bakers bake the cake also applies to making FB leave Jones alone. What's yours?

  • Cathy L||

    I don't think bakers should have to bake the cake or that FB should have to let Jones use the platform.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Not really. The reason people defend making the baker the bake the cake is that people should not have the power to discriminate against certain protected minorities. Banning Infowars is a similar argument, that certain minorities need to be protected from him as well.

    It's a slippery slope, and pure identity politics, but it seems consistent to me here.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Banning Infowars comes down to the best interests of the companies.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Stop bitching and propose something. What should the government do, if anything, re: social media when it comes to their decision to ban certain users?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The government should do nothing. However I think there's a good case to be made for a citizens' class action lawsuit against some of these companies for having fraudulent, deceptive, and arbitrary Terms of Service.

    Fraud is still illegal, at least the last time I checked.

  • Rich||

    The account has 27,000 followers and the paper claims it's worth $150,000.

    Meh. I claim it's worthless.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    the governor of texas is tweeting out fake winston churchill quotes about antifa pic.twitter.com/rtZ4ymAqo2
    — Matt Binder (@MattBinder) August 7, 2018

    How do we know Churchill didn't say those things about Antifa?

  • John||

    Judging from my Twitter feed, Abraham Lincoln had the hottest takes on Antifa.

  • Bee Tagger||

    the governor of texas is tweeting out fake winston churchill quotes about antifa

    sounds like he's meeting a person on a park bench to swap stolen classified documents.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    While eyeing little girls with bad intent?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Feeling like a dead duck...

  • John||

    http://www.infowars.com/democr.....een-party/

    Democrats on Twitter blame the evil Russians for Ohio election loss. Russian agents are everywhere.

    Fun fact, the Russians, and their agents have been ensuring the Cleveland Browns are terrible ever since the cold war. Red Right 88 was no coincidence. Why was the play called Red Right??

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The Russians have nothing to do with it. God himself is keeping the Browns down.

  • John||

    That is just what the Russians want you to believe.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Red Right 88 was no coincidence. Why was the play called Red Right??

    My God, it all makes sense! We're through the looking glass here, people!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I assume this means that John Elway is the product of a Russian KGB experiment to genetically engineer a human/ horse hybrid?

  • Bee Tagger||

    "A federal judge in California has ruled that a confidential messaging app must release the identity of a user who is accused of helping plan violence at a white nationalist rally last year in Charlottesville,"

    and then ban that user?

  • John||

    If the cops have probable cause and a warrant, this is the right decision.

  • Bee Tagger||

    i'd rather be arrested than banned from a social media platform.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    No wonder you post here.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Heng Gets Facebook Blocked
    Is the Cambodian Genocide now a non-event? Or just too icky for the Silicon Valley Boys? Or maybe this ad-rejection is yet another powerful Republican political message that fails some subjective standard contrived in a liberal hotbed?

    It's almost like we're secretly already resigned to the deplatforming, and now we're just pleading our cases against it happening to ourselves by throwing InfoWars under the bus.
    Too much conservative commentary sounds like "Welcome, Leftist overlords. Please kill me last."

  • Cathy L||

    Oh look, another conservative pretending 9/11 trutherism is somehow conservative.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Oh look, another libertarian pretending that deplatforming people is protecting free speech.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I'm not aware of any libertarian principle that guarantees you a platform.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm not aware of any libertarian principle that guarantees you a platform.

    Then libertarians don't believe in free speech? Thanks for clarifying.

  • Shirley Knott||

    That's a pretty weird conclusion to draw.
    If one were to get ultra-pedantic about it, one's own body is a platform for one's speech that libertarians have no problem with. From there to one's property as a platform for one's speech is equally guaranteed.
    Other people's property? It's up to them. No one is promised a voice on anyone else's platform (terms and conditions may apply).

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    That's a pretty weird conclusion to draw.

    "Censorship is okay if it's not the government doing it!"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Censorship is okay if it's not the government doing it!"

    Censorship IS okay. If you invite someone into your house, and your guest starts ranting and causing a scene about how awesome Hillary Clinton is, don't you want the right to throw your guest off your property - to deplatform your guest? Or are you saying that your guest should have an unlimited right to use YOUR property to spread his/her views?

    Censorship is a problem when the state does it, because the state can throw you in a cage for breaking its rules. That is why it's a problem.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Censorship IS okay. If you invite someone into your house, and your guest starts ranting and causing a scene about how awesome Hillary Clinton is, don't you want the right to throw your guest off your property - to deplatform your guest?

    You certainly are the king of stupid analogies.

  • Shirley Knott||

    It's not censorship if it's not the government doing it.
    I note your do note address my points, preferring rhetorical games instead.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    chemjeff confirmed that stance, so I'm not sure why you're getting pissy at me about it.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    A few points: (1) This is absolutely the first stage in a coordinated plan to deplatform everyone on the right. It's not really about Alex Jones at all. (2) Aside from its free-speech* implications, which are serious indeed, this also looks like an antitrust violation: Media companies, which compete with Jones for eyeballs, colluded to get other media companies to shut him down. Were I Jones, I'd file an antitrust suit. This is more than arguably conspiracy in restraint of trade (and possibly a conspiracy to deprive him of civil rights). (3) This is proof that we need to break up these big tech companies, which exercise way too much power via their near-monopolies. That they coordinate in the abuse of those monopolies only makes it clearer.

    * Note that I say "free speech" and not "First Amendment." The First Amendment only limits government, but "free speech" is — or at least until very recently was — a broader social value in favor of not shutting people up just because we don't like their ideas or politics. As for the "private companies can do what they want," well, that's not the law, or the custom, and hasn't been for a long time. It's especially not true where the companies have, as these companies have, affirmatively represented to users and shareholders that they don't discriminate based on viewpoints.

  • John||

    I love how people justify not caring about this because Jones is an asshole. Sure, he is an asshole. I am old enough to remember when free speech was there to protect unpopular assholes. Popular people are always free to speak.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
    -- H. L. Mencken

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Is Alex Jones a scoundrel or a spandrel? Discuss.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Yeah, but that was back before people were WOKE!

    LOL I heard Rosey O'Donnell's rant at her White House rally, where she actually said "we are woke". I laughed and laughed.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I was with you up to point 3.
    It's hard to see why or how the remedy proposed in point 2, and similar remedies under law (as have been proposed here) do not suffice.
    Today's dominant player is tomorrow's Eastman Kodak.

  • John||

    The remedy is to start enforcing antitrust law again. as well as enforce the DMCA as written. The DMCA gives digital platforms immunity from liability as long as they do not discriminate in who can use the platform. These actions by the tech giants should forfeit all of their immunity under the DMCA. They clearly are trying to control the content that goes on their platforms and thus should be liable for the content contained on them. And they are also acting as a cartel to de-platform certain views. There is no way that is consistent with anti-trust law.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The DMCA doesn't have anything to do with this. That was about liability for copyright violations.
    You're thinking of the Communications Decency Act, which specifically removed that. Otherwise, any company that put on a spam filter would be liable for user comments.

    Section 230 of the CDA: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    Nothing about having to publish everything.

  • John||

    The DMCA doesn't have anything to do with this. That was about liability for copyright violations.

    It has everything to do with it. These actions should mean they no longer have immunity from copyright violations. The moment they start controlling the content on their platform, they are liable for any copyright violations that occur on their platforms. If they can kick Jones off, they can be expected to prevent copyright violations as well. You completely miss the point as usual.

  • Happy Chandler||

    As long as they are unaware of violations, provide a takedown mechanism and promptly remove copyrighted material, they are in the safe harbor. It has nothing to do with controlling the content.

    Stop making shit up.

    Safe harbor provision for online storage - § 512(c)
    Section 512(c) applies to OSPs that store infringing material. In addition to the two general requirements that OSPs comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, § 512(c) also requires that the OSP: 1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material.
  • John||

    They are presumed not to know because they do not censor content. The knowledge requirement there is not actual knowledge. It can be implied knowledge if you are in the business of controlling what goes on your platform.

    Stop polluting the world with your half ass stupidity. You are untrainable and don't understand anything you are talking about.

  • Happy Chandler||

    That's really not how it works. Evidence: Every platform censors somewhat. No platform has ever paid out due to that.

    Youtube has had standards since the day it opened. It's never been held liable under the DMCA. Viacom tried. They settled for no money.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The problem with "the right" in media is that they are a pack of fucking liars and CT spinners.

    From Fox News Glenn Beck to Alex Jones, Agenda 21, Jade Helm, Birtherism, Trumpism, Qanom, Death Panels, and so on and on.

    I'm not for censorship - I AM for standing up to liars and hucksters.

  • John||

    But 9-11 trutherism and believing the evil Russians stole the election is totally legit. You are the dumbest most dishonest person on earth. Go fuck yourself and die.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    You're the biggest liar and huckster on the board, Weigel!

  • Rebel Scum||

    I'm not for censorship - I AM for standing up to liars and hucksters.

    By censoring them...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Why is Alex Jones considered right wing? Was Art Bell right wing as well?

  • Ron||

    agreed BUCS its just the left likes to place nuts who have no place in either party into the right as proof of whats wrong with the right but jones is just as anti right as he is anti left. and when the right defends Jones' rights then the left assumes the right is claiming him as their own when they are only defending him. its a vicious circle. i for one like to claim politics as a clock. at the top 12 o'clock is the political middle whoever that may be, maybe libertarians on the right at 3 o'clock is the republicans at the left at 9 o'clock is the democrats and either party varies from 12 to 6 but at 6 o'clock there are the KKK's and Alex Jones of the world who belong to no definable party. this does not make link Jones with the KKK they are just in the same limbo of no party or whichever ideal they may try to swing to every now and then.

  • Happy Chandler||

    He was supported by Trump.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A Bluffton woman who ran a stop sign while driving drunk more than 30 miles an hour over the speed limit early Saturday told officers she shouldn't be arrested because she is a "very clean, thoroughbred, white girl," according to a Bluffton Police Department report.

    The woman, 32, was arrested anyway.

    The incident happened about 1:45 a.m. near the intersection of Bluffton and May River roads, the report said.

    https://goo.gl/BXzRss

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    You know who else was a very clean, thoroughbred, white girl?

  • General_Tso||

    Mary Ann Summers?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    1000 x Yes. Now, if you will excuse me, I'll be in my bunk.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Gidget?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Marlon Wayans?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Ava Braun?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Who will pay unfunded state pensions?
    States can try to raise income taxes. And people will move. States can try to raise business taxes. And businesses will move. What can states tax that can't move? Only real estate. If the state drastically raises the property tax, there is no choice but to pay it. You can sell, but the new buyer will be willing to pay much less. Pay the tax slowly over time, or lose the value of the property right away in a lower price. Either way, the owner of the property on the day the tax is announced bears the burden of paying off the pensions.

  • Rich||

    Nice analysis. Of course, the pensions might get "paid off" in any of a number of unpleasant ways.

  • Restoras||

    Well, they will certainly try to do that - but in the end that will backfire too. People will gradually just move out. Will you take a loss on the sale of your house because the taxes are too high? Probably - but better that than paying even more rent to the state government for however many number of years you plan to live there.

    Eventually, the states that can't pay their unfunded pensions will drastically restructure them, and/or go to federal government for a handout. Of course, since the federal government has

  • Restoras||

    oops...accidenall html fail...

    ...since the federal government has $80 trillion of unfunded liabilities and doesn't have any money to hand out, maybe just print enough dollars to cover the nominal obligations? Who cares if those dollars are worthless?

  • DRM||

    Ask the City of Detroit how well that tactic works.

  • John||

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08.....many-iran/

    The gay guy that the Democrats tried to keep from being confirmed as Ambassador to Germany scores big victories against the Mullahs.

    Grenell has scored a series of victories in recent days by successfully lobbying against a $400 million payment from the German central bank to the Islamic Republic and convincing car company Daimler to cancel expansion plans in the country.

    Many German businesses rushed to do business with Iran after the signing of the nuclear deal in 2015.

    The Trump administration, however, has pulled out of the nuclear deal and announced Monday that it would re-impose the same economic sanctions on Iran that the Obama administration removed as part of the deal. The new economic sanctions will limit Iranian ability to use the U.S. dollar, to trade in precious metals, and target its import/export businesses to the United States.

    The sanctions also affect any business that wishes do business with U.S. entities.

    "The Trump administration intends to fully enforce the sanctions reimposed against Iran, and those who fail to wind down activities with Iran risk severe consequences," the White House warned in a Monday release.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    "They'll live": Doctors will just have to take a massive pay cut for the US to be more like Canada
    Getting to Canada-style health care costs would require cutting doctor salaries a lot (33 percent for primary care, 52 percent for ortho surgeons).

    That's fine, they'll live, but it's important not to undersell the political difficulty.https://t.co/cMK7ptfYKH pic.twitter.com/mDPKPswtkx

    — Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) August 6, 2018

  • John||

    Hey, lets just not pay a profession whose skills people's lives literally depend upon and that requires years of education and tons of ability. I mean the people smart enough to become doctors would never then choose another better paying field or anything. Honest to God, how on earth can someone be as stupid as Dylan Matthews? That tweet may be some kind of new record for casual stupidity.

  • Cathy L||

    Well, it would be nice if they didn't get substantial bonus pay for running a state-backed cartel, but otherwise yeah.

  • John||

    There is a flip side of that cartel, the medical schools. Thanks to the cartel the medical schools cost a fortune and are just cash machines for the universities who run them. So, the doctors themselves don't benefit that much from the cartel. The medical schools benefit more than anyone.

    Beyond that, getting rid of the cartel would be great. But it would be great because it would increase the supply of medical care by allowing more people to provide it. Highly skilled doctors would likely still make a lot of money.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Agreed, but I'm not certain that moving towards more central control of this system would lead to less of a state-backed cartel.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Canadian doctors seem pretty satisfied with how the system works.

  • BYODB||

    Well, the one's who couldn't get a job in the U.S. probably are at any rate.

  • Rich||

    "A lot of very loathsome figures are deeply convinced that publicizing uses of the defensive inversion of bigotry will serve their cause," and "they aren't wrong."

    Emphases added. Nice band name and nice album name.

  • John||

    I think that makes a better name of a concept album than a band. And how stupid do you have to be to convince yourself that allowing open racism against white people will not provide a ready rationalization for white people to return the favor? That is almost Dylan Matthews level stupid.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I encourage racists of all stripes to be open about their beliefs. It is one of the best ways I know to indentify the dickheads and assholes that surround me. Know your enemy.

  • John||

    That is now how it works. If you are racist against anyone but whites, you get run out of society. If you are racist against whites and especially if you are so in a very vicious and stupid way, you get a seat on the New York Times editorial board. You can't have a system where every group but one is allowed to be racist. It is either everyone or no one.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I encourage racists of all stripes to be open about their beliefs. It is one of the best ways I know to indentify the dickheads and assholes that surround me. Know your enemy.

    Kind of like Aldo Raine from Inglorious Basterds. I like my racists easy to spot...

  • perlchpr||

    And how stupid do you have to be to convince yourself that allowing open racism against white people will not provide a ready rationalization for white people to return the favor?

    And not even that, necessarily.

    I mean, I'm white, and I don't feel any sort of need to respond to their bigotry with bigotry of my own. But I'm certainly willing to believe these people when they say they hate all white people and want them to die, and am willing to prepare accordingly.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Flashback to that time Stephen Miller threw a white power sign in the White House briefing room. And yes, that's exactly what the fuck he was doing.

    Drumpf's minions are not even trying to hide their repulsive white nationalist beliefs. I guess when the entire world knows your policy is to put black and brown children in cages after ripping them from their parents' arms, why bother pretending anymore?

    The progressive / libertarian pro-immigration alliance is more important now than ever. Everybody needs to vote Democrat in November to ensure the biggest possible #BlueWave.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Since when do leftists get upset about people flashing gang signs?

  • ||

    You know what else they're not trying to hide?

  • croaker||

    I believe the quote is real, but it was said by someone here in the US and not Winston Churchill. Trying to find who is nearly impossible as all the search engines are returning "Winston Churchill is fake" crap.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes
    But in a small courtroom in California's Redwood City on Monday, attorneys for the social media company presented a different message from the one executives have made to Congress, in interviews and in speeches: Facebook, they repeatedly argued, is a publisher, and a company that makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.

    ...The suit, filed by an app startup, alleges that Mark Zuckerberg developed a "malicious and fraudulent scheme" to exploit users' personal data and force rival companies out of business. Facebook, meanwhile, is arguing that its decisions about "what not to publish" should be protected because it is a "publisher".

  • Shirley Knott||

    That's not going to end well for them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    First they came for the SMOD and I said nothing...

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Emails Reveal High School Teachers Plotting To Hide Their Political Bias From Parents
    Ibokette was having none of it. He typed this reply: "I am concerned that the call for 'objectivity' may just inadvertently become the most effective destructive weapon against social justice," and sent it to the members of Newton North's history department.

    ...After Bedar complained that he didn't want to get fired for being a "liberal propagandist," his fellow history teacher, Ibokette, wrote back: "David, if you get fired for doing exactly what history teachers, and indeed all rational and ethical‐minded adults should indeed be doing, I will be right behind you."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A Virginia newspaper and one of its former reporters are going to court over who owns the rights to a Twitter account.

    Is this the account that's the guy's name?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    John McDonnell: revive Anti-Nazi League to oppose far right

    The shadow chancellor has called for the relaunch of the Anti-Nazi League in response to a string of far-right and racist incidents, including pro-Tommy Robinson demonstrations and Boris Johnson's burqa comments.

    https://goo.gl/psG3VR

    Us vs "them" - after all we're only ordinary men.

  • John||

    Those rape gangs won't defend themselves I guess.

  • Shirley Knott||

    A walk-on part in the war or a lead role in a cage?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So does that mean nothing can be done about "fake news" and "hate speech" on the internet? Of course not.

    Individual readers could be treated as capable of making their own decisions?

  • Rich||

    "fake news" and "hate speech" on the internet

    And don't even get me started about stuff like Mad Magazine and the National Lampoon!

  • John||

    Banning people with large followings doesn't keep them from spreading their message. The people who followed them will just spread the message among themselves. A hundred thousand people with followings too small to draw Twitter's attention will spread a message just as effectively as one guy with a hundred thousand followers. The laws of multiplication are a bitch like that.

    The leftie tech barons are pissing in the wind. They are not going to stop any views from getting out. As long as they run a platform that anyone can join and connect with others, there is no stopping any message that a critical mass of people wants to be disseminated. You would think they of all people would understand that.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What happened with Alex Jones further clarifies exactly why the NYT hired Sarah Jeong. Her "Internet Of Garbage" booklet is basically a blueprint for how tech companies can ensure that opinions which don't match the left-wing conventional wisdom can be suppressed--if not through outright bans, then through shadow-banning like Twitter practices so your message doesn't get out by default. Her argument is that these opinions are the equivalent of spam, and should be treated as such.

    It's not so much her anti-white animus that attracted the Times, although that obviously played a huge role. It's the fact that she's provided the liberal mass-media complex with a how-to booklet on censoring wrongthink, and they need her to help drive that agenda.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a new phase of the war against America and American freedoms.

    The Civil War 2.0 is coming faster than I expected. We are prepared though.

  • Mike Laursen||

    That's crazy talk.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The reason is simple: he hasn't violated our rules. We'll enforce if he does." For now, said Dorsey, "We're going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account"

    Because the O people are silly in some ways doesn't mean Ayn Rand was wrong about everything, and one of the things she was right about was the necessity of putting reason at the center of our thinking. That seems like such a trite observation, but without that fundamental insight, you get the silly SJW people on social media and people like Tony--appealing to reason seems more or less a red herring to them. They don't care whether you're being reasonable, and they don't care whether they're being reasonable either.

    Why reason with such people?

    I suppose it's a question personal integrity, but there's also the benefit to third parties who are watching this stuff happen. That's my excuse anyway.

  • John||

    If they actually had standards and made some attempt to enforce them, there would not be a problem. But, they don't have standards other than "anyone on the right that we don't like is going to be kicked off".

  • Kivlor||

    IMO the reason that Twitter hasn't joined in purging Jones is due to their ongoing lawsuit with Jared Taylor. In June the court refused Twitter's petition to dismiss, and bitch-slapped their claim of Anti-SLAPP for the suit. In fact, it appears that Taylor is highly likely to win, and I'm sure they have no desire to add to their exposure on this issue until it is settled.

  • John||

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....ing-legal/

    France refuses to create a legal age of consent. No matter how young the child is, the government must prove that the sex was done via coercion, threat or surprise.

    I have never believed pedophilia was going to be next on the left's "you must allow this in the name of tolerance" crusade, but I am starting to change my mind.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yet conservatives in the US (Christians) and Islamic conservatives are the first to defend child marriage, you Roy Moore con man.

  • John||

    Christians do not defend child marriage. Take your meds, you lying fucking half wit. Child marriage is an Islamic thing. And since Muslims are now an indispensable part of the Leftist coalition, child marriage and child sex is the next thing on the agenda.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Banning child marriage in America: An uphill fight against evangelical pressure
    Kentucky's bill had to change to accommodate religious concerns. A similar bill is dying in Tennessee. Here's why

    https://goo.gl/iQBbiJ

    More than 200,000 children married in US over the last 15 years
    Girls as young as 10 were among the minors who wedded under legal loopholes

    https://goo.gl/Bauero

  • John||

    More than 200,000 children married in US over the last 15 years
    Girls as young as 10 were among the minors who wedded under legal loopholes

    None of that has anything to do with Christianity. Dipshit. And the slate article is talking about people who are 14 and 15 getting married. That is not child marriage. that is adolescent marriage. And again that has nothing to do with Christianity.

    You are the most ignorant person on earth. You really are. Your death would make the world a smarter and better place.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ok, Roy, you're on record supporting 14 year old girls getting married.

  • John||

    No I am not. That is not child marriage. Child marriage and sex with children is something leftist support, you sick fuck. You are only trying to change the subject and pretend a 15 year old getting married is the same as dressing a 10 year old up like a woman.

    You are just trolling here and shitting all over the thread to obscure the truth, which is all you ever do.

  • Shirley Knott||

    John, with all due respect you're foaming at the mouth.
    Definitions of 'child' vary even within a culture.
    'Adolescent' is a rather recent category.
    It's hard to get to truth with imprecise terms, blanket assertions about collections separated by vague or imprecise criteria, or hysteria in the face of views that push your particular buttons.
    You're better than this.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Definitions of 'child' vary even within a culture.

    Oh, cultural relativism is now a libertarian virtue?

    'Adolescent' is a rather recent category.

    No it's not. Views on adolescence go as far back as Renaissance Italy.

  • Cathy L||

    Oh, cultural relativism is now a libertarian virtue?

    Lol. Would you like to argue that there is one specific definition of "child" shared by all Americans?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Lol. Would you like to argue that there is one specific definition of "child" shared by all Americans?

    It's pretty well-defined in most laws on the subject, you moron.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Cultural variation over both time and space is a simple fact.
    I'm not saying the views are all equally correct, but that long-lived stable cultures held different views than we do speaks to the absurdity of treating 'child' as a firm fixed, well defined objective category. It's not, no more than what counts as a dissonance or consonence in music.

    And if you think the Renaissance is not rather recent, you're ignoring a much greater span of time than I.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm not saying the views are all equally correct,

    No, that's pretty much what you're saying. "Who are we to judge, it's their culture!"

  • Shirley Knott||

    No, absolutely not.
    What I'm saying is maybe we should revisit our certainty given that many are certain but few if any are demonstrably correct.
    Pretending we're the crown of creation and have all these things just right is as silly as suggesting it doesn't matter what we decide because somebody else decided differently.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What I'm saying is maybe we should revisit our certainty given that many are certain but few if any are demonstrably correct.

    This is just sophistry.

  • John||

    It's hard to get to truth with imprecise terms, blanket assertions about collections separated by vague or imprecise criteria, or hysteria in the face of views that push your particular buttons.
    You're better than this.

    So saying that having sex with a 10 year old child is hysteria? No, what is going on here is you are going down the road to justifying child sex.

  • Shirley Knott||

    No, what is going on here is you cherry-picking extreme examples and insisting that any deviation from your choices falls into those extremes.
    Puberty and maturity both happen at different times and at different rates. Ignoring that because it is easier leads bad results.
    Is it wrong for a 15 year old to have sex with a 14 year old? A 13 year old? A 12 year old? What about a 20 year old and a 14 year old?
    I'm insisting that drawing a line based on anything other than demonstrable harm is demonstrably harmful
    You keep acting like harm is not demonstrable yet you know it's there.
    This is not rational.

  • Cathy L||

    Child marriage and sex with children is something leftist support, you sick fuck.

    lol

    This is what conservatives actually believe, apparently.

    How's Q?

  • Happy Chandler||

    http://insiderlouisville.com/g.....oundation/

    The Christians conservatives were the ones blocking the Kentucky bill.

    You get all vulgar calling other people names, when you are the one lying.

  • BYODB||

    I love how everyone lumps 'Christians' into one big basket, especially the tiny little nutso churches like the Branch Davidians. Mainstream Christianity doesn't endorse this view, yet mainstream Islam does.

    Argue about it all you want, but Mohammed himself married a minor child that also happened to be a blood relative. When that's your example, what the fuck do you think is going to happen to the Pakistani genome?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Two words: James Gunn.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Kevin Spacey
    Roman Polanski

  • Happy Chandler||

    None of whom were politicians.

    Dennis Hastert.
    Jim Jordan.

    A former Speaker of the House and a candidate for the next GOP leader both involved in intramural wrestling sex scandals. I mean, the writers of the show that we're living in need to find new material!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bill clinton rode the Lolita Express multiple times.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    In May, the high-profile Republican governor for New Jersey declined to sign into law a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriage without exception. Chris Christie claimed it would conflict with religious customs.

  • John||

    "Child Marriage" in that context means people who are 17 years old you fucking half wit. Those are not children. They are adolescents.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The youngest wedded were three 10-year-old girls in Tennessee who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. The youngest groom was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.

    Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licences in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina, while 11 other states allowed 13-year-olds to wed.

    More than 1,000 children aged 14 or under were granted marriage licences.

  • John||

    The youngest wedded were three 10-year-old girls in Tennessee who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. :

    That is illegal in every state. the age to get married in Tennesee is 16

    http://www.nashvilleclerk.com/.....e-license/

    Yes, people molest children. We know that. Those marriages are not legal and are a crime. Go lie somewhere else you sick fuck.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Tennessee law does not permit those under the age of 16 to marry without a court order.

    You can tell your most obvious lies when your insults are most vulgar and puerile.

  • John||

    Without a court order. That means it is illegal dipshit.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Also, the law changed in May, as a result of this study and the Democrats who introduced the bill.

  • BYODB||

    I had no idea that Tennessee was in New Jersey.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Christians do not defend child marriage any longer. There was a time when it was commonplace, within rabidly Christian cultures.
    Age of consent notions tend to conflict with biology.
    Proof (or evidence) of actual harm, or of coercion, is about the best we can do.
    Determining coercion can be difficult, but it's a better guide that age.

  • John||

    So you think that someone who rapes a 4 year old should not go to jail unless the government proves "harm" whatever the that is? Really?

    Like Shreek, you are confusing the issue between adolescent and child. You can reasonably make the argument that a 14 or a 15-year-old can consent to sex and that the prohibition against them having sex is against biology. You cannot make that argument about a 9 year old or a 4-year-old. What you and shreek and I guess now the entire left is doing is using the legitimate debate about when adolescents can consent to mean that children of any age can meaningfully consent. That is first race sophistry and nothing but a rationalization for pedophilia.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So you think that someone who rapes a 4 year old should not go to jail unless the government proves "harm" whatever the that is? Really?

    Yes. And I think that's a pretty damn easy charge to prove. Particularly, since your scenario presumes rape anyway, which is illegal.

  • Shirley Knott||

    BUCS obviates any need for me to respond other than to note my agreement with his counter.

  • John||

    No he doesn't. What is the "harm" to be proven here? Really all you are saying is that there is automatically harm becuase 4 year olds cannot consent. No shit. That is what I am saying. Why call it harm? What is the point. Just set an age where it is automatically illegal.

    You either conceded the point or are now moving the goalposts and pretending that you never made the point in the first place.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Nonsense.
    The point is that even if there are clear and obvious cases, harm must be shown or what's the problem?
    No one is arguing that 4 year olds are capable of consenting to sex. No one is arguing that it would not be harmful. We are, however, pointing out that demonstrating that harm is trivial.
    Is 4 where you want to draw the line? I rather doubt it.
    As you get into the age-range at which puberty occurs, it becomes harder and harder to see the utility, morality, or even logic, of drawing an age-based line and insisting that anything under the line is forbidden but everything past the line is okay.
    Demonstration of harm works better than arbitrary chronology.

  • John||

    The point is that even if there are clear and obvious cases, harm must be shown or what's the problem?

    The problem is that it opens the door to arguing harm didn't occur. If as a matter of law harm always occurs, then there is no reason to make the government prove it. All you are doing here is saying "that could never really happen". Yes it could. Otherwise, you wouldn't allow it to be an issue at trial.

    No one is arguing that 4 year olds are capable of consenting to sex. No one is arguing that it would not be harmful. We are, however, pointing out that demonstrating that harm is trivial.
    Is 4 where you want to draw the line? I rather doubt it.

    Yes you are arguing that. If it were not possible for a four year old to consent, there would be no need to prove the harm. Saying "the government must prove the harm" is necessarily admitting the possibility that harm might not be there. Otherwise, there is no point in requiring.

    You either don't know how courts work or more likely, you are lying about your position.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I just love how you always take recourse to assignment of bad motives.
    If you want a blanket prescription that sex with a 4 year old is prima facie harmful, fine.
    I'd even say sex with anyone prepubescent is prima facie harmful. But note that 'pubescent' is a state, not a age.
    And there's the rub. What happens to the pubescent child? How is requiring demonstration of harm worse than what we have today?

  • Kivlor||

    Sweet Maker, this reads horrible Shirley. Stop, go back and read what you're typing. Maybe you mean to say something other than what you have been, but the logical conclusion to be drawn is exactly as John is saying. It would logically follow that you would have to "prove" the child didn't consent, and that they were harmed.

    Now, with all this ridiculous nonsense, and libertarian pushing of child and adolescent sexual activity, I'm going to point out that it is clearly indicated in the ACE Studies by Kaiser and CDC that sexual activity BEFORE AGE 18 is correlated with a plethora of negative health issues in your 40's, 50's and even later. So stop. Just stop this nonsense. The sexual revolution was a mistake.

  • ||

    Yet conservatives in the US (Christians) and Islamic conservatives

    The idea that it originated with or has something to do with Christianity (despite the fact that you insist Islamic conservatives share the same veiws) isn't even grade-school education level retarded. At the very least, it should be obvious that it's working doubly extra hard to ascribe a religious cause to a behavior pattern that is largely biologically/environmentally motivated. When any given baby has a 20% chance of reaching the age of 18, 14 is a rather appropriate age for marriage. This is true before the birth of Christ and recurs routinely throughout human history. The idea that it originated with or has something to do with Christianity isn't even grade-school education level retarded.

    The rise of Christianity through history coincides with current civil norms that dictates things like a superior taking advantage of an inferior is generally sinful and women being treated as equals. There is again, an underlying or driving element of humans living longer and ergo, no need to breed as soon as possible. So, the idea of ascribing the rise in acceptable mating age can't be wholly ascribed to Christianity and/or The Enlightenment. However, the environmental/biological doesn't entirely explain the social disdain or moral characterization of such behaviors either.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    4 year olds can pick their gender out of a list of 67 and consent to sex. It is the same argument either way.

  • John||

    Yes, it is. And the transgender bullshit is just the first step towards sexualizing children and normalize sex with children in society. Look at the child "transgendered". They are always boys put in makeup and female clothes. There is a name for that; pederasty.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    "A transgendered 5 year old is like a vegan cat; we all know who is really making the decision"

  • John||

    It is disgusting. But people like Shreek and Shackford and others will be telling us how it is okay and justified to let people have sex with kids. You watch.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If reason does a fluff piece on NAMBLA, Im outta here.

  • ||

    And the transgender bullshit is just the first step towards sexualizing children and normalize sex with children in society.

    Polite disagree. Homosexuality was the first step or, more accurately, something between homosexuality and gay rights. Things took a distinctly bottom-of-the-barrel course once people started identifying as their sexual preference (insisting it was both fixed and fluid) rather than by their family, occupation, hobby, life philosophy, etc.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Gender is not linked to sex or sexual activity.

    There are plenty of transgender boys:
    http://www.parents.com/parenti.....ow-i-know/

    Discrimination against trans children leads to high rates of suicide and self-harm.

    Your ignorance is truly dangerous and kills children.

  • John||

    Gender is not linked to sex or sexual activity.

    Of course it is. And your ignorance is causing kids to mutilate themselves. You are the sickest and most horrifically stupid person ever to come to this board.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Transgender mental illness leads to them hurting themselves.

  • Cathy L||

    Arbitrary, blanket ages of consent deprive individuals of their rights.

  • John||

    No they don't. Children cannot meaningfully consent. Yes, at some point they can. And drawing that line is difficult. But it is a line that has to be drawn. The children that are raped have rights too. Liberals never seem to give a fuck about that. But thanks for providing more evidence that child sex is going to be the next thing after transgenderism that the left will demand everyone accept in the name of tolerance.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Either you say 4 years old is 'arbitrary', or you allow that blanket age restriction. Which is it Cathy, you wanna abuse a 4 year old?

    Either you draw an arbitrary line, or you allow people to molest 4 year olds.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Or maybe you take a more nuanced approach.
    Age is a factor, but it's not the only factor.
    It's always worthwhile to keep biology and history in mind when dealing with 'age of consent'.
    We may wind up being arbitrary, but it pays to be cautious lest one be more arbitrary, and less flexible, than is necessary to minimize harm.

    [How long before I'm accused of being a child molester?]

  • John||

    You are not answering is point. If age is only a "factor", then it is possible for a 4 year old to consent to sex. If you don't set an arbitrary line, you end up with legalizing child rape. There is no way around that.

    The rights of children not to be raped outweighs the rights of adults to have sex with willing adolescents. The interest in protecting children from being raped outweighs the harm done by making people wait until someone is a certain age to have sex with them. Can we lower that age? Sure. Make it 16 if you want. But we can't go down the road of courts deciding whether children really consented to sex with adults. That will just end in pedophilia being legal.

    Cathy, there are no circumstances where an adult having sex with a 10 year old child is okay and shouldn't be a crime, period end of story. If you think saying that violates people's rights, you have no idea what "rights" actually mean.

  • Shirley Knott||

    4 year olds are not adolescents.
    You keep asserting we must have an arbitrary line based solely on age or raping children of age 4 is okay.
    I have yet to see an actual argument to support that dichotomy. There may be one, although I doubt it. But you have not made it.
    Either demonstrate harm or gtfo. Age-based constraints seem to lead to bad results, as chronicled here all too often.
    Would requiring proof of harm be worse? Why and how?

  • John||

    Either demonstrate harm or gtfo. Age-based constraints seem to lead to bad results, as chronicled here all too often.

    The harm is that the idea that it is possible for a four year old to consent or any other child to consent becomes normalizing. You only require the government to prove things that need to be proven and are not automatically assumed. Requiring the government to prove harm is saying that sex with children is not always harmful. That is the harm.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Are you seriously arguing that demonstrating harm in the extreme cases you raise is impossible or even difficult?
    You're willfully ignoring the hard cases and pretending easy cases are hard.
    No harm no foul.
    Mistakes will be made, we are neither omniscient nor infallible.
    But mistakes are made under the rule of 'just go by age.'
    Showing harm seems likely to reduce the number of mistakes.

  • Kivlor||

    Age-based restraints are imperfect, but better than any alternative I've seen pushed. What you are suggesting literally would put some 4yo kids up for sale.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So adolescents can consent now? What age is an adolescent? What standard are we to use so everyone is on the same page?

    Its rule of law, so everyone knows what age of majority is. Its not perfect because some minors might be genuises but the majority needs to agree what the line is.

  • Cathy L||

    Either you say 4 years old is 'arbitrary', or you allow that blanket age restriction. Which is it Cathy, you wanna abuse a 4 year old?

    4 years old is arbitrary. Why not 3? Why not 5? Why not 4 years and 2 months?

    Either you draw an arbitrary line, or you allow people to molest 4 year olds.

    Oh, so you admit it's arbitrary too.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Look at the pedophile here trying to justify their fetish.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Looks like AJ Daulerio came out as trans.

  • Kivlor||

    Arbitrary. I think this word does not mean what you think it means.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    They need to cross the line to get a reaction from you for the sweet, sweet thrill of victory when they get a judge to stuff their beliefs down your throat.

    The day a judge rules we must recognize all 67 genders, they will call the US a fascist state for not recognizing all 500 genders. They don't believe their bullshit any more than you do.

  • John||

    They are just depraved.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Why recognize any genders? What government function is furthered by sorting us into categories?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The identification of gender based disparities?

    You can't identify them unless you have data on gender. Same with race and ethnicity.

    I've been to several UDS report trainings by HRSA, and when they talk about the approved categories for race and ethnicity I always joke that the feds are setting race relations back a few decades.

  • John||

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018.....rally.html

    Remember it is the Trump supporters who are supposed to be the toothless hillbillies. Jesus Christ, no wonder Antifa wears masks.

  • Timrekgrun||

    Remember how great the Leftists thought was when the names of people attending white power rallies were spread all over the internet?

  • John||

    Yeah. Now they are complaining about arrest records being public. If they didn't have double standards, they would not have standards at all.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Remember how every person in a political group feels the same?

    Remember how private actions should be held to the same standards as the police?

    Remember that none of these people were charged with a crime?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Remember how every person in a political group feels the same?

    You certainly do a bang-up job demonstrating the left-wing hive-mind.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But the solution so many are suggesting—more intense scrutiny of everyone's tweets and a stricter suspension and banning policy—is silly, counterproductive, and sure to make no one actually happy.

    The people suggesting this aren't concerned with making anyone, least of all themselves, happy. Their only concern is to shut down "those people" that they dislike and to make everyone else as miserable as they undoubtedly already are.

  • John||

    Pretty much. How miserable do you have to be to give a shit enough about Alex Jones to want him banned?

  • Happy Chandler||

    Their concern is about protecting their brand.

    People complained that Facebook was becoming a cesspool of conspiracy theories and racist crap. Facebook was much more worried about the people cancelling their accounts because the user experience was becoming crap and is protecting their brand.

    There was a social media company that was very hands off about what its users posted. It's called Myspace.

  • Kivlor||

    People complained that Facebook was becoming a cesspool of conspiracy theories and racist crap.

    This doesn't seem to be the issue, because the anti-white Muh-Russia conspiracy nuts are still all over FB.

  • Happy Chandler||

    1) It's in no way anti-White.
    2) It's not being used to harass private citizens.
    3) It's actually backed by evidence. Actual spies embedded in politically connected organizations arrested, emails, DMs, and actual meetings with top ranked campaign officials, the fucking NSA director exposed as an agent of a foreign country.
    4) Facebook is more worried that the people who are calling it a conspiracy theory would make it into a cesspool and drive out the rest of the users.

  • Kivlor||

    1) The same people are usually engaging in anti-white rhetoric. See NYT last week.
    2) Sure it is. People harrass people on social media all the time. It's nothing new nor particularly exclusive to one group, party, political spectrum etc.
    3) No, there isn't yet. And may never be. What you've got are charges on financial crimes prior to the campaign and not committed by the campaign or its employees during the campaign. This appears to extend into the Hillary campaign, as the Podestas have now been implicated. Even the Russians who are charged are accused not of helping Trump, but of sowing general discord among the populace at large with every candidate.
    4) I have no doubt that that FB is more worried about people calling it a conspiracy theory than the actual conspiracy theorists due to their actions.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The National Security Advisor to the President was an agent of a foreign country.

    Think about that.

    The guy, with access to all of our country's secrets, and providing advice to the President.

    WAS WORKING FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A member of the house intelligence committee had a staff member who was an actual chinese spy working for years.

    Get back to me when Lefties actually care about America.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    There was a social media company that was very hands off about what its users posted. It's called Myspace.

    If you honestly think MySpace's hands-off policy on posting content is what brought it down, you're dumber than I thought.

  • Dillinger||

    >>"A federal judge in California has ruled that a confidential messaging app must release the identity of a user who is accused of helping plan violence at a white nationalist rally last year in Charlottesville,"

    danger ... totally still imminent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I saw that. The article listed no evidence that the persons that they are trying to publicly expose threatened anyone or conspired to commit violence.

    It a Lefty attempt to identify persons they dont like and attack them.

    If it was reversed, teams of Lefty lawyers would defend anonymous identities pro bono.

    Wood chipper the judge's bad oponions immediately after they are issued.

  • Ken Shultz||

    For the record, Elon Musk's threat to take Tesla private, yesterday, was almost certainly calculated to hurt short sellers.

    He's just making shorting Tesla's stock as painful and unpredictable as possible.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""He's just making shorting Tesla's stock as painful and unpredictable as possible."'

    Or possible trying to buy Tesla back for pennies on the dollar.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It did the exact opposite, and would have been expected to do the exact opposite.

    The price he was talking about was about a 20% premium over where the stock was trading when he made the announcement.

    The stock jumped up towards that number (as would be expected), and it did it so fast and hard, plenty of those short sellers presumably got hit with margin calls.

    That's Musk's way of telling short sellers that he can fuck them anytime he wants--with a tweet. That's pretty much all it is. He's swattin' flies at the picnic.

  • Ralph Fucetola JD||

    What appears to be a coordinated banning of Alex Jones and some other outspoken people by some of the major social media is very troubling. What we are seeing is the "privatization of censorship" where the US governments, forbidden by the First Amendment to censor speech, are permitting various corporate creatures registered by those governments to engage in political censorship.

    So, to push back against social media censorship, the friends of free speech need to multiply the potential outlets for alt opinions. I've done my part by setting up Friends of Alex Jones groups on Facebook and on its uncensored alt, www.Minds.com -- those groups are here; you are invited to join.

    https://www.facebook.com [x] /groups/691785751311886/
    https://www.minds.com [x] /groups/profile/873597137366351872

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FB, Apple, google, Amazon, etc all have contracts with the US government and under US law, government cannot do business with you if you disrciminate based on protected classes of people.

    Lefties created these laws and should held to reap what they sow.

    This is a great way to bust up these crony capitalist shitty companies

  • vek||

    All I'm going to say is that anybody who thinks any of these major platforms isn't using a HARDCORE double standard in how they treat the left wing and the right wing is insane. Much of it has been documented with objective numbers. Like FB shit canning 90%+ of traffic referrals to mainstream right leaning news sites after the election, all with just a small change in their algorithms.

    Wake up. Powerful people abuse their power. Maybe this stuff should be legal, but we still need to hold them to account in the court of public opinion, and hopefully by hurting their pocket books too.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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