MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

TSA No Longer Keeping 'Quiet' About Citizen Surveillance Program: Reason Roundup

Plus: Ron Paul decries Twitter moves against libertarians, and how Missouri cops enabled a "heroin ring."

aviation-images/Newscomaviation-images/NewscomTSA speaks up about "Quiet Skies" and Muslim group files lawsuit against it. The recently revealed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) program enlists U.S. Federal Marshals to spy on U.S. citizens at airports, reporting on innocuous behaviors like watching one's boarding gate, having a "cold stare," and sleeping for any period of time on a flight.

"In my view, it's been very effective," TSA Administrator David Pekoske told USA Today, after the agency last week refused to comment on the program.

I would say to the American public: Ordinary citizens don't need to worry about Quiet Skies. They don't. Actually ordinary citizens should be very happy that a program like Quiet Skies is in place because I think everybody expects us to do everything that we can do that protects the privacy and constitutional rights of our citizens to ensure that there is not an incident in an aircraft in flight.

But TSA doesn't claim the program has caught any terrorists or other evildoers, and it won't say what targeting criteria U.S. Federal Air Marshals use or what becomes of the information they collect on passengers. All we know is that these individuals are not on the terror-watch list or under criminal investigation.

"The arbitrary surveillance of innocent people at airports guarantees that Muslim passengers will be disproportionately harassed by federal officials based on racial and religious profiling, with no benefit to the traveling public or to our nation's security," said Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "This is just the latest example of the federal government's counterproductive and misguided approach to aviation security."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations just filed a challenge to the federal government's whole watch-listing system, "including the TSA's recently revealed Quiet Skies program," the group announced yesterday.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of 20 individuals targeted by the watchlisting system. The lawsuit's plaintiffs are all innocent American Muslims—people who have not been charged, arrested or convicted of a violent crime—from Washington DC, Florida, Michigan, Virginia, Washington State, Indiana, Kansas and New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the watchlisting system imposes "a kind of second-class citizenship."

ACLU is also filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to learn more about the program. "Like the old, debunked 'behavior detection' program, Quiet Skies looks like the worst kind of waste," ACLU lawyer Hugh Handeyside said.

Even the deputies have doubts about the program. "The Air Marshal Association believes that missions based on recognized intelligence, or in support of ongoing federal investigations, is the proper criteria for flight scheduling," said association president John Casaretti in a statement. "Currently, the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable."

FREE MINDS

Ron Paul talks Twitter action against libertarian writers. Commenting on Twitter suspending two Antiwar.com writer accounts and banning the Ron Paul Institute director from the site, Paul suggested that "antiwar activists and libertarians" were under fire for political reasons.

"You get accused of treasonous activity and treasonous speech because in an empire of lies the truth is treason," Paul told RT. "Challenging the status quo is what they can't stand and it unnerves them, so they have to silence people."

(More about this and other recent Twitter drama in yesterday's Roundup.)

JUSTICE WATCH

Police enable heroin addicts. If this "heroin ring" was so dangerous and detrimental, why did police buy drugs for three years before doing anything? That's what an attorney for the defendants is now asking.

"The drug police elected to drag out their investigation," wrote defense attorney Brady Musgrave in a July court filing. "They decided to allow these individuals to spiral farther into their addictions and to do so by distributing heroin in the Western District of Missouri."

Unfortunately, this sort of things is common in vice investigations, as cops work to build more high-profile and profitable conspiracy, money laundering, and racketeering cases and rope more people into these alleged operations instead of arresting individuals when warranted, or helping users get help. In a Seattle sex investigation, King County cops simultaneously claimed Asian escorts they were investigating were victims of horrific sex trafficking and also that they visited them for years without doing anything while they made a case against a website where the women advertised and the men who wrote there about them.

QUICK HITS

Photo Credit: aviation-images/Newscom

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||

    "The boring truth about 3-D printed guns": tamping down recent panic over the distribution of 3D-printed firearms designs.

    It's that all guns are three dimensional.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Except maybe for Pop Tarts.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Or a chekhov gun in a script where characters aren't fleshed out well.

  • perlchpr||

    I think the author of that article might have been the creator of the HihnBot. He made the same stupid claim that requiring a license to possess semi-automatic firearms would be constitutional.

  • Mock-star||

    Well yeah, elevendy bimillion people are killed every day simply from people's firearms laying around in closets and such, and I know this because Scalia said so. *Links to nothing*

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "There is no First Amendment exception for 'hate speech,'" writes Eugene Volokh, "and the government can't specially target racist or religiously bigoted speech—but some Connecticut prosecutors seem not to know that."

    However hate speech literally is violence which is against the law!

  • Bee Tagger||

    "The boring truth about 3-D printed guns"

    why would i read something boring

  • Rich||

    It *could* be about drilling the barrel.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If so the editor should be reamed for a headline pun.

  • Bee Tagger||

    If pressed, I doubt he or she would admit it.

  • General_Tso||

    No need to go off half-cocked.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WRONG. You just took us down a completely different line of puns.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It's really the same when you drill into it.

  • Shirley Knott||

    A hollow complaint.

  • Rich||

    reporting on innocuous behaviors like watching one's boarding gate, having a "cold stare," and sleeping for any period of time on a flight.

    Think of the JOBS!

  • Zeb||

    They are just jealous of people who can sleep on planes.

    Why would that be considered suspicious? Doesn't everyone want to sleep on the plane if they can?

  • John||

    I am very jealous of people who can sleep on planes. Damn people and their short privilege.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    This.

    I can "sleep" on planes, but that isn't anything even closely related to sleep.

  • Bee Tagger||

    "In my view, it's been very effective," TSA Administrator David Pekoske told USA Today

    he thinks the problem is being ineffective?

  • Conchfritters||

    "Currently, the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable."

    I don't know what the union is bitching about - getting paid to watch people sleep on a flight?

  • Bee Tagger||

    they must have been reading that article in the la times about the truth about 3d guns

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I would say to the American public: Ordinary citizens don't need to worry about Quiet Skies.

    As always, if you haven't done anything wrong...

  • Conchfritters||

    If you see someone not doing something wrong, say something.

  • Rich||

    If you see someone not saying something about seeing someone not doing something wrong, say something.

    "We're gonna need a bigger reporting form."

  • Rich||

    "In my view, it's been very effective," TSA Administrator David Pekoske told USA Today

    "Why, I and my colleagues have been able to afford our lifestyles because of it."

  • Conchfritters||

    And get that coveted promotion to the Department of Homeland Security

  • ||

    "I've also got this magic anti-tiger rock, which I keep in my pocket. Never once been attacked!"

  • John||

    http://www.washingtonexaminer......ges-racism

    Trump approval among blacks doubles and hits 21%. Worst racist ever!!

  • Zeb||

    Well, obviously all those black people are just racist against themselves.

  • John||

    I have to wonder if the real number isn't higher than that considering the amount of social pressure progressives and black leaders are putting on any black person who supports Trump.

  • Zeb||

    I wouldn't be too surprised.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any polls that hurts Lefties are skewed to mitigate by magnitudes of percentage points.

    Any polls that help Lefties are skewed to act like they are better by magnitudes of percentage points.

  • ||

    I wonder how much the NAACP staffers had to grit their teeth before releasing those results.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The arbitrary surveillance of innocent people at airports guarantees that Muslim passengers will be disproportionately harassed by federal officials...

    Fortunately since the feds are being hush about it, said Muslims will never know they're being harassed.

  • Bee Tagger||

    victimless crime prevention

  • Rich||

    "The subjects were conspicuously not eating prior to and during the flight."

  • John||

    Only a racist would concentrate their anti-terror programs on Muslims. Why would anyone do that?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Islam is the religion of peace.

    All the suicide bombers say that right before they hurt someone else.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    GO FIGURE! AP leaves something 'MIGHTY important' out of these tweets about N.M. child abuse bust
    BREAKING: Court documents say man arrested at New Mexico compound was training children to commit school shootings.

    — The Associated Press (@AP) August 8, 2018

    Backstory for anyone who hasn't been following this

    Sickos busted for abusing kids at compound linked to controversial Brooklyn imam Siraj Wahhaj https://t.co/mwkqkqXGEy (via @nypost) https://t.co/M64EobaxlZ

    — Cameron Gray (@Cameron_Gray) August 8, 2018

    Siraj Wahhaj Sr was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 93 World Trade Center bombings. He is also Linda Sarsour's mentor.https://t.co/l9jPr1V85E

    — Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) August 8, 2018

  • John||

    The guy is the son of Linda Sasaur's spiritual mentor. No kidding.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/20.....tor-662215

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...Paul suggested that "antiwar activists and libertarians" were under fire for political reasons.

    Hey, at least Silicon Valley thinks you're relevant.

  • Kivlor||

    Didn't he get the memo that this is a perfectly fine and good thing. These companies own those platforms, you have no right to not be terminated. We should be applauding them for exercising their rights and removing hateful racists. If the Conservatives got their way you wouldn't be able to burn a flag.

  • John||

    This kind of stuff only happens to evil racists and Trumpians. It would never happen to Libertarians. Progressives really like Libertarians, honest.

  • Just Say'n||

    I hate those anti-war activists with their hate speech about how our government murders people overseas. It's not woke to question the warfare state.

    Besides, just like Glenn Greenwald, these people were all just Russian bots.

    More fever dreams, please

  • Cathy L||

    Anti-war activists like...a guy who got on journalists' bad side by bragging about how when he was running part of the Iraq War machine, he used to lie to journalists.

    Should he have been banned? No, but I don't need to suck the dick of some State adept asshole either.

  • John||

    Should he have been banned? No, but I don't need to suck the dick of some State adept asshole either.

    So you only defend the freedom of speech of people you like. Good to know.

  • Cathy L||

    Did you even read the text you quoted, you fucking moron?

  • Just Say'n||

    Was Peter Van Buren wrong? No.

    Journalists are cheer leaders for war and pro-war libertarians are a disgraceful lot

  • Cathy L||

    Well, he was wrong about a whole shitload of things, including whether it was a good idea to work at the State Dept and run part of the Iraq War.

    I mean...he's literally responsible for death and destruction abroad and you think he's the good guy because he's mean to journalists now. That's pathetic.

  • Just Say'n||

    I mean he literally write a book criticizing the Iraq War and was punished for that. He writes for The Nation and The American Conservative.

    When the NYT writes an apology for their blind allegiance to war and starts opposing intervention overseas maybe they'll have room to criticize.

    In the meantime you're desperately trying to defend a war hungry press that knows nothing about foreign affairs beyond what lies the government feeds them.

    Like I said, pro-war libertarians are a disgrace

  • Just Say'n||

    Peter Van Buren has been "the good guy" since he wrote "We Meant Well" and you hate him because he was mean to the press.

    That's pathetic on a number of levels

  • Cathy L||

    No, I hate him because he literally helped wage the Iraq War. But go ahead and show me the part where I defended the journalists who hounded him off Twitter.

  • Just Say'n||

    OK, but your argument still doesn't hold for Scott Horton and Daniel McAdams which makes me doubt the sincerity of your position here, pro-war libertarian

  • Just Say'n||

    You're desperately splitting hairs by only discussing Van Biden when I never singled him out alone and neither did Twitter

  • Cathy L||

    My argument that...I don't think any of them should have been banned? Come on, dude.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    You should be charged'! Philly mayor gets HAMMERED by people who remember his 'sanctuary city happy dance' in light of this AWFUL news
    DOJ announces charges against a previously deported illegal immigrant from Honduras who raped a child after being released by the City of Philadelphia because of its sanctuary status pic.twitter.com/lVkYh2v8eb

    — Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) August 8, 2018

    And that's from Philadelphia, where you might remember last June the mayor did a "happy dance" after a judge ruled in favor of his sanctuary city policies:

    Needless to say, I think @janeslusser and @PhillyMayor are pretty excited about today's ruling affirming Philadelphia as a Sanctuary City. pic.twitter.com/gdnnjZT9ps

    — Steve Preston (@StevePrest) June 6, 2018

  • John||

    Letting that guy out of jail made the mayor feel morally smug and that is what it is all about isn't it?

  • John||

    http://nypost.com/2018/08/08/d.....hinas-spy/

    Taking money from foreign governments and spies is okay as long as Democrats do it and the money is from the Chinese.

  • ||

    No kudos for the FBI? What, with all the Trump investigating and child-porn distributing, it seems they found time to do something positive.

  • John||

    Yeah, it is amazing they found the time.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If this "heroin ring" was so dangerous and detrimental, why did police buy drugs for three years before doing anything?

    Overtime pay.

  • Rich||

    "I think everybody expects us to do everything that we can do that protects the privacy and constitutional rights of our citizens to ensure that there is not an incident in an aircraft in flight."

    Come on, David. You're not doing anywhere near *everything*. In any event, a lot of guys expect you to be fired.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The intersectional wage gap for Black women means an average of $840,040 in lost wages over a 40-year career. That's unacceptable. #BlackWomensEqualPayDay #PayBlackWomen

    These numbers are absolutely appalling.

    The next time one of your conservative acquaintances disputes the continued existence of the white supremacist patriarchy, drop this knowledge on them. Black women effectively have nearly one million dollars stolen from them over their lifetimes. It's completely unforgivable that this is still the case in 2018.

    #WageGap

  • Rich||

    #DoubleReparations

  • Zeb||

    So, everyone is somehow entitled to the average salary of the whole population?

    See, this is why you are lousy parody. You are just openly communist, more or less. If you are going to mock the "cosmos" or whatever it is, you need to occasionally work a few libertarian-ish things in there.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    China wants to peel CA off the US and make it a client state:

    DiFi was an easy mark for China's spy

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Diane Feinstein is on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    This just illustrates that there are deep state bureaucrats who turn a blind eye to actual harm against the USA to further political goals.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The Elite Freaks Out When Trump Puts Americans First
    The elite seeks to deny the truth. And failing that, it seeks to rid itself of this troublesome president. If you ever needed more proof that the Russia baloney was just a heap of rancid luncheon meat, ask yourself why the same idiots spewing spittle about "PUTIN COLLUSION TREASON!" are also outraged that Trump is demanding that other NATO countries actually build up their capacity to defeat the Bear in battle. Is the elite trying to keep NATO from getting stronger to own Putin and the cons?

  • John||

    So the son of an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing sets up a jihadist camp in New Mexico to train kids how to do school shootings and neither the FBI nor the Intel community notice this. The guy goes down because the local authorities figured out he was abusing kids.

    I guess the FBI had more important things to do than watch the son of a radical Imam. You know like spy on Donald Trump and distribute child porn, important things.

  • Rich||

    See?! The FBI does *not* harass Muslims!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All new strategy for false flag ops to seize more government power.

    No need to setup maladjusted people with terrorist crimes. Let known terrorists operate, refuse to intercede in terrorist planning and training, and then chip away at gun rights once the school shooting occurs.

  • John I||

    "Unfortunately, this sort of things is common in vice investigations, as cops work to build more high-profile and profitable conspiracy, money laundering, and racketeering cases and rope more people into these alleged operations instead of arresting individuals when warranted"

    Except it's never warranted to arrest someone for a "vice crime" aka a crime in which no actual victim exists.

  • John||

    The cops go into the vice business to create a honey trap. If vice crimes are so bad, why are the police so willing to engage in them?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Follow the money.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Free blow jobs and stuff that the cop's wives wont do.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    John,

    Back to yesterday's AgeFluid/Minor Attracted Persons/Pedos conversation, I think the "enthusiastic consent" thing is part of it too. Age of consent laws protect everyone (we both know that hot 32 year old is past the age of consent). The same usual suspects who want to take a 4 year old's consent on a case by case basis also want someone to be able to retroactively say her consent wasn't enthusiastic enough, to be dealt with by a judge on a case by case basis.

    They want it to be safer to be a pedo than a heterosexual male.

  • John||

    That is a very good point. If you take them at their word, they want to create a system where someone who has sex with a five year old who enthusiastically consents because the kid doesn't know any better is innocent but someone who has sex with an adult who later regrets their decision or didn't give "affirmative consent", whatever that is, is guilty of rape.

  • John||

    What is amazing about that thread is that I am hardly conservative on these issues. I think our age of consent laws are set too high. I think mere possession of child pornography, as opposed to the production and sale of it, should not be illegal. But they have gone so far down this road that even someone like me is now the conservative one.

  • Rich||

    Don't even *think* about child pornography.

  • John||

    Exactly Rich. We throw people in jail for decades and ruin their lives for the crime of having dirty pictures on their computer. That should bother anyone who cares about freedom and civil liberties.

  • Cathy L||

    It does.

  • Cathy L||

    In France, not having an age of consent is the actual conservative position. Because they currently don't have one.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Only if you define 'conservative' as defending the legal status quo, regardless of what it is.

  • Cathy L||

    Do you not understand that it's the left in France that wants to change the law?

  • Just Say'n||

    That's not necessarily true and it's odd that you're this ignorant about French politics yet still feel the need to opine.

  • Just Say'n||

    FYI- Gaullists are not opposed to raising the age of consent

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All pictures and video should be covered by the 1st Amendment protection.

    Hurting kids to make child pornography is a crime and is not covered by the first amendment. The two reasons being that violence against another is illegal and children under age "x" cannot give consent.

    The USA has taken the "think of the children" thing to extremes, where sex between teenagers is getting kids thrown in prison. Making pictures and videos illegal is just no consistent with the 1st Amendment which makes no such exceptions.

    Set an age of consent for kids and make sure parents have strong parental rights. Adults cannot get underage kids to sign contracts or engage in sex. Parents have to agree to contracts on the kid's behalf. Teenagers having sex under the age of consent cannot be charged with sex crimes, if no rape was involved.

    There is just no easy way to not turn horny teenagers into sex offenders without parents controlling their kids but not making teenage sex a crime.

  • Juice||

    Parents have to agree to contracts on the kid's behalf.

    What's the age cutoff for this? I think that's the main issue here. Is there a set age for everyone or is it determined case by case?

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, some people believe it's individual consent that matters.

    Those people are called libertarians.

  • John||

    No, those people are called morons. Libertarians assume the person can consent, which is not the case with children and people who are incompetent. If you think the government should have to prove that a child didn't consent to the sex, and you have said multiple times you do, then you are admitting that children of any age can meaningfully consent to sex. And that is pure nonsense.

    This is not about libertarianism. This is about the nature of when a person is competent enough to meaningfully consent to sex. Stop hiding your lunacy behind libertarianism. Your position is about the nature of consent, which has nothing to do with libertarian ideals.

  • Cathy L||

    The only way to know whether someone can consent is through an individual determination. How else are you supposed to decide whether they're incompetent?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Is he competent? He is a 4 year old individual, thus not competent. Easy.

  • Cathy L||

    Now do a 5-year-old.

    Now do a 10-year-old.

    Now do 12. 14. 15.

    Now do a 30-year-old with an IQ of 100. Now do 90. Now do 80. Now do 70.

    Now do a 5-year-old with an IQ of 150 whose mother's IQ is 90.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why society debates these things and sets age of maturity.

  • Cathy L||

    Right. Just like society debates a bunch of my rights and tries to take them away with the threat of jail.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    No, not able to consent.

    No, not able to consent.

    No, not able to consent. No, not able to consent. A line must be drawn to protect the previous cases and make it clear to others when a law is being broken.

    30 years old is past the age of consent, at this point you may take mental development, etc into account.

    No, not able to consent.

  • Cathy L||

    Well, guess what, I disagree with you about a bunch of those. So I guess it's not as clear as you think.

    Who is going to protect the rights of 13-year-olds to self-determination if not libertarians?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Cathy thinks the Earth is flat, so its not as clear as you think. Teach the controversy.

  • Cathy L||

    Johnny Longtorso doesn't think 12-year-olds can consent to feeling each other up.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Who is going to protect the rights of 13-year-olds to self-determination"'

    Parents?

  • John||

    The only way to know whether someone can consent is through an individual determination.

    If they are an adult, sure. But some people we know are incompetent by virtue of their age or mental state. If you really believe that the only way to tell if a five year old child is competent to consent to sex, then you necessarily believe that such consent is possible. And that is complete fucking lunacy. But, hey, the Progs have told you believe it is necessary to be tolerant, so you believe it.

  • Cathy L||

    What about a 6-year-old? What about 7? 8? 9? 10? 12?

    France wasn't thinking about making its age of consent 4 or 5, you know.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    See my answers above, but 'No' to all of these.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Cathy, how fucked up do you have to be to think "ok, what about 6 year olds?" is a drop the mike moment?

  • John||

    The line is somewhere. Just because we can't define it exactly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It occurs sometime after puberty and varies by individual. It absolutely does not occur before then. We have to draw a line. And that line is never going to be perfect. But, so what? You seem to really not care about the dangers of saying it is possible for children to meaningfully consent to sex. You think that kids being raped is just a price to be paid so that adults don't have to wait until kids are some age certain before they can start fucking them. That is depraved Cathy.

  • Cathy L||

    What kind of moron interprets the fight for child liberation as the fight for adults' rights to relationships with children? You are the one who wants to trample the rights of adolescents and teenagers, not me.

    You know how you bitch about people who want to ban guns to save kids? That's you, right now.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    What kind of moron interprets the fight for child liberation as the fight for adults' rights to relationships with children?

    You do, when you say a 6 year old can consent to that relationship.

  • John||

    What kind of moron interprets the fight for child liberation as the fight for adults' rights to relationships with children?

    What kind of a moron writes that sentence without understanding what a non sequitor it is. WTF is "child liberation" if not the right of children to have sex with adults? Child liberation necessarily means the right of adults to have sex with children. Jesus Christ Cathy, you are dumber than Jeff.

  • Cathy L||

    WTF is "child liberation" if not the right of children to have sex with adults? Child liberation necessarily means the right of adults to have sex with children.

    I'm pretty sure it means the right for children to do what they choose.

    Not sure why you think kids are all rushing out to sleep with adults and it's the law that's stopping them.

  • Juice||

    If they are an adult, sure.

    Adulthood starts at what, 26, these days?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    A 4 year old individual cannot consent. A 32 year old individual cannot retroactively withdraw consent. People who believe this are called healthy and normal.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why is pedophilia all the rage with progressives? Since when can a child give consent?

  • Kivlor||

    It was the inevitable followup to the gay-rights movement. Two consenting adults would shift to two consenting people. What is an adult anyways? You can't hate on people for some inherent quality.

  • Kivlor||

    The Progressive movement's greatest propaganda tool has been their success at branding themselves as for "progress" even as they regress society backwards towards worse things.

  • John||

    That is exactly correct Kivlor.

    It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

    Calvin Coolidge speaking at the 150th Aniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    It is the inevitable followup to 67 genders and transgendered 4 year olds. If a 4 year old can navigate that minefield, then they believe that 4 year old can consent to sex.

    Anyone who says there are more than two genders wants to make it legal to be a pedo.

  • Kivlor||

    "Age is just a number"
    "Who are you to judge"
    "I identify as a half-demon wolf-kin raindrop and you have to acknowledge that as true."
    "You can't just force children to be a boy or a girl. That's their decision"
    "We're going to give your child hormone treatments to transition them against your will because 'their body their choice'"

    This is why I'm in favor of some pretty draconian, far-right reactionary policies. Enough is enough.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We just need to make the age of consent simple and stick to that.

    If its 18, then an 18-year old can have sex with other adults, drink, smoke, serve in the military, enter into contracts....

    The Lefties are purposely making the law too complex in order to enlarge the government and make everything overly complex. Overly complex law requires teams of lawyers and gives government power to find some violation of law on everyone sooner or later.

    Additionally, parental rights need to be strengthened. Parental rights were gutted to allow abortions without parental consent. If the Age of Consent is 18, then kids 17 and below are in the care of parents, unless the kids are being violently hurt or neglected.

  • Cathy L||

    "Who cares if some teenager' rights are trampled by a uniform age of consent? It's no big deal. Oh and also we have to make sure they're chattels."

  • Kivlor||

    "Who cares if a 4yo's rights are trampled by eliminating AoC laws? It's no big deal. We have to make sure that 4yo's are liberated from the oppression of not being able to consent to sex with willing pedophiles.

  • Kivlor||

    That's what you sound like Cathy.

  • Cathy L||

    I'm glad you enjoy putting 17-year-olds in prison for sending each other nudes. Unfortunately, I do not.

  • Kivlor||

    Because that is what I said.

  • Kivlor||

    Because that is what I said.

  • Zeb||

    I must be missing something here. Who is pushing for legalizing sex with young children?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The AgeFluid, Minor Attracted Persons. LBGTP (P is for Pedo) crowd. It is also the logical end to the left's agitating for 4 year olds to be able to pick their gender, and for 32 year olds to retroactively withdraw consent on the claim it wasn't enthusiastic enough.

    If 'consent' is a meaningless term, anything goes.

  • Kivlor||

    Yesterday there were people arguing on one of the threads that we should abolish all AoC law and that you should have to prove that the 4yo didn't consent to being sodomized.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jeff Epstein?

  • Cathy L||

    Zeb needs to read more Q.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Cathy L, apparently... it's about the children.

  • Cathy L||

    Why is pedophilia all the rage with progressives?

    Why are conservatives lying morons?

  • Just Say'n||

    Are you not opposed to age of consent?

  • Cathy L||

    Yes, I'm opposed to the age of consent. And if you think that means I'm in favor of pedophilia, you're either lying or a moron, or possibly both.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Yes, I'm opposed to the age of consent. And if you think that means I'm in favor of pedophilia, you're either lying or a moron, or possibly both.

    Define pedophilia, and explain how you would protect 6 year olds from it. Hint, if pedophilia is indefensible, it is because children cannot consent.

  • Just Say'n||

    Is an adult having sex with a thirteen year-old not pedophilia? Because it sure seems like you're trying to redefine pedophilia here

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    She has been talking about 4,5, and 6 year olds all over this thread.

  • Cathy L||

    Where did I advocate adults having sex with thirteen-year-olds? You people are completely insane on this topic.

  • Zeb||

    I think of pedophilia as sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children (others may differ, but I think that's the right distinction because that is pathological, where attraction to young, but sexually mature adolescents is perfectly normal even if acting on it is unacceptable). So a 13 year old is close to the line.
    Still, I don't have a problem with laws against adults having sex with 13 year-olds. But I would have a problem with a law prohibiting sexually mature 13 year olds having sex with each other.
    It's tricky when talking about adolescents because some are much more mature than others. But you probably should draw a line somewhere.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Who should decide what is in the best interests of the child? The parents, or the state?

    If you believe the parents should decide what's in the best interests of the child, then that means you have to accept that there are some pretty dumb parents out there who will let their kids do some pretty dumb things. Like not demand that their kids get vaccinated. Or let their kids undergo hormone therapy.

    The only time that the state should get involved is if there is very clear and concrete evidence of child abuse, where child abuse is defined narrowly and strictly.

    Complain all you want about parents raising their kids wrong. But unless you think the state should be raising the kids, it's just whining.

  • John||

    If sexual abuse and self mutilation are not clearly abusive, then nothing is. You are now claiming that pumping a kid full of hormones to turn them into a freak that has the chromosomes of one sex but the appearance and hormones of another and letting yoru friends have sex with your ten year old daughter is not abuse. Basically, there is nothing that you won't defend if you are told doing so id necessary in the name of tolerance.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I'm willing to entertain the argument that kids undergoing hormone therapy are a form of child abuse, as long as you can propose a clear concrete narrow standard of child abuse that is independent of the current hysteria of the day about transgenderism, and that doesn't let the state run amok over every household policing their every parenting decision. Can you do that? Or are you just going to focus on those evil trannies?

  • John||

    I really don't care if adults want to mutilate themselves. But they should not be allowed to do so until they are 18 and competent to make that decision. And they have no right to force people to pretend they are anything other than what they are. They are free to pretend they are the other sex and everyone else is free to play along with it or not. It is really that simple.

  • Cathy L||

    What other irreversible things should children not be allowed to do? Learn languages? Form hormone-based bonds with family members? Become obese enough to develop stretch marks?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Learn a language, cut off your penis, totally the same thing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I really don't care if adults want to mutilate themselves. But they should not be allowed to do so until they are 18 and competent to make that decision.

    So you would forbid parents from giving their kids permission to get tattoos or body piercings. Is that correct?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And they have no right to force people to pretend they are anything other than what they are. They are free to pretend they are the other sex and everyone else is free to play along with it or not. It is really that simple.

    On this we agree. If you want to be rude in public, you should have every right to be rude in public.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, that's fair.

  • Cathy L||

    It turns out only the child is capable of determining what his best interests are.

  • John||

    It turns out only the child is capable of determining what his best interests are.

    Yeah totally Cathy. How dare people raise children. The entire history of civilization has been wrong. My good you are a lunatic.

  • Kivlor||

    Someone doesn't know, or have any children.

  • Just Say'n||

    That is illogical. Why not let children vote and sign contracts if we're going to let adults sleep with them

  • Kivlor||

    "Who should decide what is in the best interests of the child? The parents, or the state?"

    A mixture of both. If you pimp your 9yo out to pedos paying customers for sex, the government may need to step in.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    They want it to be safer to be a pedo than a heterosexual male.

    And the obvious question that we're not supposed to dare to ask is why that would be.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And here is a novel idea.

    Don't have an "age of consent" at all. Instead, have a standard that defines the transition to legal adulthood based on a performance metric that is intended to ascertain if a person is capable of giving consent in the first place.

    So if you have a mature 14-year-old that for all intents and purposes acts and behaves like an adult, then treat this person like an adult.

    But if you have an immature 17-year-old who is incapable of being held responsible for decisions that he/she makes, then treat this person like a child.

    Of course coming up with the standards would be difficult (and ultimately politicized). But I think it's a more rational standard than just defining one age that is supposed to cover all situations.

  • Rich||

    reporting on ... sleeping for any period of time on a flight.

    The paperwork must be a drag on those trans-Pacific flights.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Microsoft is a private company and if it wants to go along with banning any social media company that doesn't ban the 'wrong' people, that's their right.

    BREAKING: Gab's hosting provider, Microsoft Azure, has given us 48 hours to take action on two posts or they will pull our service and Gab will go down for weeks/months.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is just farcical now

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So instead of just bitching about it, what do you think Gab/Microsoft/the government ought to do?

    Should the government force Microsoft to host Gab?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Bake the cake, fascist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So that would be a "yes" I presume.

    So you want to make Microsoft an agent of the state enforcing First Amendment doctrine?

    Does this hold true for every other social media company? How about TV/newspaper company? How about Reason?

    Where do you draw the line?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    How odd that you aren't the least bit concerned about the censorship here. As a professed libertarian what do YOU think Microsoft should do here? And no deflections about government coercision here.

    And do you agree that as a private entity which now engages in publication versus merely providing a platform, Microsoft is now exposed to the full suite of libel laws? Or is that different?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See, here we go. Immediately the tables are turned against me. At what point does the Trumpian Right get held accountable for what they actually stand for, and not just for what they rail against?

    So here's what is going to happen. I will say what I stand for, and then the rest of the conversation will be spent criticizing my views. And we don't come any closer to what the Trumpists think ought to be done with regards to free speech, censorship, and social media.

    I am fine with Microsoft having the liberty to use its property however it wishes. If it wishes to censor conservatives, or censor liberals, or promote conservatives, or promote liberals, or stay absolutely neutral, all of those are perfectly legitimate choices for them to do.

    I do not agree with libel laws that are so broad that they cover third parties in this way. If for instance you were to libel me via Reason's comment boards, you would be the one who has harmed me, not Reason, and they should have no role in any tort to that episode.

    So once you are done criticizing me about how my views are supposedly not purist libertarian enough, or that I"m just a foot soldier for Nancy Pelosi or some such, *then* will we get to what you believe should be done with regards to Microsoft, Gab, and social media broadly?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Poor, Jeffy. Dammit, only his whataboutism counts! Look at all of the concern about the trumpian right and the complete lack of concern about the left. True of false: A senator from CT has called for internet censorship?

    If for instance you were to libel me via Reason's comment boards, you would be the one who has harmed me, not Reason, and they should have no role in any tort to that episode.

    Because reason does not curate. The fact that you're completely missing that point isn't coincidence anymore.

    *then* will we get to what you believe should be done with regards to Microsoft, Gab, and social media broadly?

    "And do you agree that as a private entity which now engages in publication versus merely providing a platform, Microsoft is now exposed to the full suite of libel laws?"

    Gee, what do you think THAT means?

  • Happy Chandler||

    A libertarian should think that Microsoft should do what it feels is in the best interest of their shareholders. If they aren't good about it, other companies will take advantage and beat them in the marketplace.

    Microsoft is well within the safe harbor of the CDA. Section 230 was explicitly written to make sure that providers could enforce standards without being sued for libel.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Really? So a true libertarian SHOULD support racism? A true libertarian SHOUDL support censorship? SHOULD and CAN are two very different words.

    No, they are protected by 230 assuming that they apply those standards neutrally. I know that the left struggles with that "is" is, but once you start curating you fall into another domain.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Wrong. AOL got Section 230 Safe Harbor when they contracted with Drudge to reprint his articles. Sidney Blumenthal sued for libel.

    Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 49-53 (D.D.C. 1998).[26]

    The court upheld AOL's immunity from liability for defamation. AOL's agreement with the contractor allowing AOL to modify or remove such content did not make AOL the "information content provider" because the content was created by an independent contractor. The Court noted that Congress made a policy choice by "providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."

    That's the point of Section 230, to allow websites to remove content without making them liable for it. That was in reaction to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Which ties back to Jordan Belfort, aka Wolf of Wall Street.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And see:

    MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com(RipOff Report/Ed Magedson/XCENTRIC Ventures LLC) 2004 WL 833595, No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2727-G, (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004).[31]

    The court rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds of Section 230 immunity, ruling that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendants wrote disparaging report titles and headings, and themselves wrote disparaging editorial messages about the plaintiff, rendered them information content providers. The Web site, www.badbusinessbureau.com, allows users to upload "reports" containing complaints about businesses they have dealt with.

    Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com (RipOff Report/Ed Magedson/XCENTRIC Ventures LLC), 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Ariz. 2005).[32]

    The court rejected immunity and found the defendant was an "information content provider" under Section 230 using much of the same reasoning as the MCW case.

    But even better, section 230 explicitly does NOT protect against copyright infringement. SO DMCA also applies.

  • Happy Chandler||

    the defendants wrote disparaging report titles and headings, and themselves wrote disparaging editorial messages about the plaintiff,

    The difference here is that the badbusinessbureau people edited the specific pieces. They got in trouble for writing the words, not for curating.

    Youtube has always had standards for their videos. They have not been held liable for copyright violations. Viacom tried to prove that they encouraged violations, and had emails that showed YouTube employees knew about it, and they still couldn't win. YouTube's mere existence proves that your interpretation is just wrong.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As I suspected, Johnny Longtorso here is just a troll. He has no ideas of his own about what the state ought to be doing with regards to free speech issues and social media companies. He just wants to see the left's terrible rules enforced on them, so as to make them cry.

    If you search for Internet Bill of Rights, you actually get some serious proposals. But they tend to be either centrist or left-of-center (things like bring back net neutrality). But if you search for Internet Bill of Rights memes, you get a bunch of gifs complaining about censorship of conservative views on social media. I think this pretty much sums up the debate about what to do. The serious people who have proposed something substantive are on the left and the center. The whiners and trollers are on the right.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So much for "both sides do it." How odd that you haven't commented on a certain democratic senator from CT actively calling for government censorship of the net. Well, that does qualify as a serious proposal in your eyes and it's not like we're talking about flag burning.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    At what point did I say that the "Internet Bill of Rights" proposals coming from the left or center were *good* ideas? I didn't. I just said that they have proposed actual ideas. I don't agree with Net Neutrality. I don't agree with government censorship of the Internet in the name of 'hate speech' or anything else.

    And yes I do believe that conservatives would want to censor the Internet if they had the power to do so, because they are not inherently opposed to government censorship as a rule. But modern conservatives get far too much mileage just trolling and memeing and whining, and never having to defend what they actually believe. At some point I'd like to hear from Johnny Longstorso, or John, or you, or anyone else from the Right what they actually want to see happen to social media, *if anything*. Because they clearly are unhappy with the status quo, which is basically the libertarian solution, and they are certainly unhappy with the proposals from the left. So what do they want?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Once again, true or false: the left HAS called for internet censorship? Just once I'd like you to acknowledge that fact beyond a vague reference of "them too." I mean we literally have an active example this week.

    As to what to do about it, I have now pointed it out twice to you. I expect that you will continue to pretend that it isn't a "serious" suggestion.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    the left HAS called for internet censorship?

    Who is "the left"? Anyone with a (D) after their name?

    Yes, one Democratic senator has called for government censorship of the internet. That is of course wrong.

    If you are going to say "the left is pro-censorship", then I'm going to say "the right is also pro-censorship", because both are accurate statements if you take a loosey-goosey view of who constitutes "the left" and "the right".

    And it sounds like you want to use technicalities of current law to punish Microsoft for doing something that you don't approve of yet ought to have every right to do with their own property. If you were to libel me on a comment forum hosted on a Microsoft server, how would Microsoft at all be at fault to any harm that resulted from that libel? It would be as if I shouted slander at you in a public forum. Would "the air" be responsible for the slander?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And since you forgot what you wrote, here it is again:

    The serious people who have proposed something substantive are on the left and the center. The whiners and trollers are on the right.

    Sure seems like you're lending credence to those "not *good*" ideas.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    ObamaCare is a serious and substantive idea. It is a bad idea, but it is a substantive idea.

    "Get Government Out Of Healthcare" is a good idea but it has no substance. It is just a slogan.

    See the difference?

    So you want social media companies exposed to charges of libel. At least you have said something of substance that you think ought to be done, which is more than can be said for trolls like Johnny Longstorso here.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    I already answered this question when you asked it yesterday.

    But of course it goes without saying that you're not really interested in serious answers to your fake questions, which are really intended to be distractions and misdirections.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You did? I must have missed it. Why don't you repeat it here for this conversation then.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Sorry, but I'm not going to repeat my same answers to your same questions over and over and over and over and over again.

    I have a better idea instead: why don't you go back in the archive one day to yesterday's "roundup" where you asked the same exact question. You'll find my answer there.

  • Kivlor||

    Why don't you just build your own facebook and compete them out of the market?
    /s

  • Sevo||

    "Advocates condemn psych techniques used to keep kids online"
    [...]
    " "There are powerful psychology principles and technology that are being used against kids in ways that are not in their best interests," said Josh Golin, executive director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.
    That technology uses computers to help figure out what motivates people and influence their online behavior. It's built on age-old tenets of behavioral psychology that marketers and advertisers have long used to get people to buy their products. The difference is smartphones are ubiquitous and unlike human marketers, they don't get tired, said B.J. Fogg, a behavioral scientist at Stanford University who has been called the technology's pioneer."
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/
    health/ct-psych-techniques-to-keep-
    kids-online-20180808-story.html

    Darn those companies for wanting people to use their products!
    (and the only thing that could improve the last guy's name is an "S" instead of the "J")

  • Just Say'n||

    The irony of Alex Jones being banned over conspiracy theories and Scott Horton and Daniel McAdams being banned for pushing against the Russia fever dream conspiracy theory

  • Just Say'n||

    Sure wish Robby could muster as much righteous indignation for libertarians being banned as he did for people trying to get Ms Saigon fired

  • Kivlor||

    Ms Saigon? You've been reported for hate speech and shaming oppressed minorities based on their skin. Expect to be banned from all social media forthwith.

  • Just Say'n||

    Racists, like Manboobs Spencer, deserve derision

  • John||

    That is Ms. Seoul there buster.

  • John||

    She was just kidding. Just because she had hundreds of absolutely vile racist tweets over a period of years and never once gave any indication it was a joke and there is no evidence that anyone took them as a joke doesn't mean it wasn't a joke. And just because none of them were in response to any racist tweets directed at her doesn't mean she wasn't giving them in response to all of the vicious racist harassment she suffered. All that harassment that she doesn't have any evidence ever occurred. But it occurred and it is racist that she has to provide proof anyway. There is no reason to think someone who tweets out hundreds of racist tweets it really racist.

    That about covers Robby's position on the Sarah Jeong issue. Now, leave her alone, you big racist.

  • Just Say'n||

    You seem to be missing the point here. I could care less whether or not she writes for the NYT. I'm more scandalized by the fact that Van Buren, Horton, and McAdams are being banned because they oppose war

  • John||

    You are missing the point. It all goes together. They got banned because they didn't toe the prog line. She didn't because she did.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Alex Jones wasn't banned over conspiracy theories.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, he was banned for agreeing with the Black Caucus.

  • Kristian H.||

    West Virginia politicians want to impeach the state's entire Supreme Court.

    it's a start.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

  • Ken Shultz||

    Twitter is for shitheads.

    Facebook is children and nosy, bored Housewives.

    Both were destined to end up as tools of the state to monitor and suppress dissent.

    Tune in. Turn on. Drop out.

    Evgeny Morozov's "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom" saw this coming from 2012, back when everyone was crediting Facebook and Twitter for overthrowing vicious dictators across the Muslim world.

    http://www.amazon.com/Net-Delu.....1610391063

    Even then, the vicious dictatorships of North Africa were using social media to track relationships between dissidents and their families like they never could before.

    The U.S. government started sifting through our emails and tracking our phone calls once it became technologically possible and stopped being prohibitively expensive--Constitution be damned.

    If there's anyone as consistently wrong about everything as the Malthusians, it's probably the techno-optimists.

  • John||

    If there's anyone as consistently wrong about everything as the Malthusians, it's probably the techno-optimists.

    Careful Ken, you are going to make Ron Bailey cry.

    I am constantly amazed at how people will so willingly give up their privacy and freedoms if doing so comes wrapped in some piece of shiny new technology.

  • Kivlor||

    You should only be concerned if the government is spying on you, listening to every conversation, literally tracking your every movement and purchase. If it's private companies, you should be glad for their service. They would ever abuse people or people because free markets or something.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    More like Gillespie. Remember all the disintermediation that was coming? Nevermind.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    West Virginia politicians want to impeach the state's entire Supreme Court.

    That is just a start. State Legislatures and Congress need to commence the impeachment process for all judges around the USA that refuse to follow the Constitution and strike down unconstitutional legislation or otherwise refuse to do their jobs.

  • Kivlor||

    Hahahaha. Oh man, you had me there. That was a good one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When we're talking to our friends and family over the coming weeks, we should probably talk as if the Republicans just got trounced in the Midterms. If you wouldn't say what you were about to say the way you're about to say it if the Republicans had just lost the House, then you probably shouldn't say it now.

    For instance, the idea that the Republicans are going to impeach entire slates of judges probably isn't likely to help the Republicans keep control in congress. That's something swing voters may not want. Maybe, instead, we should talk about how the Democrats are likely to impeach Trump without sufficient justification if they take control of the House.

    Swing voters don't like impeachment generally. It's just not a good way to make friends and influence people.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    For instance, the idea that the Republicans are going to impeach entire slates of judges probably isn't likely to help the Republicans keep control in congress.

    And we should care why?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Because as bad as the Republicans are, they aren't nearly as awful as the socialist left and progressives, the latter of which are fundamentally hostile to individual rights.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I think they're both pretty bad, Ken, and moreover, there's no reason for us libertarians to be cheering on either tribe. They don't need or want our help. If Republicans impeaching judges makes Republicans look bad, then that's on them. They don't need us trying to shill for them or offer them advice.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There is if one side is fundamentally opposed to individual rights on principle, and that's the way it is with progressives.

    On the Nolan chart, the progressives are fundamentally against personal liberty (see their hostility to both the first ad second amendments) and they're fundamentally opposed to economic liberty.

    Because the Republicans (especially the Tea Party types) aren't libertarians doesn't mean they're in the opposite corner of the Nolan chart either. Because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are libertarians doesn't mean one can't be more libertarian than the other, and the progressives that run the Democratic Party are fundamentally hostile to both free market capitalism and individual rights.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's not like republicans are offering serious options for internet censorship like the left, right?

  • Kivlor||

    The older I've gotten, the more I've come to notice the strange connection between much of modern political philosophy/ideology and various Christian heresies. In the US, much seems to spring from Protestant fundamentalism. For example, this "one drop of taint makes them equally bad" notion is so obviously connected to the Protestant heresy that claims all sin is equal in the eyes of God, in contravention of the tradition that some sins are in fact worse than others. It is strange to watch these things evolve over time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Neither system creates a perfectly free market, so tariffs are just as bad as authoritarian communism!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I didn't say they were "equally bad". I said that they are both pretty bad. They are both bad *enough* that they don't need me to be cheering them on or shilling for them in any way.

    If Republicans impeaching judges make them look bad, then they are free to come up with all of the excuses and rationalizations as much as they want to justify their views. They don't need me or anyone else not in their tribe to do their work for them.

  • Just Say'n||

    Chemjeff is right here.

  • Kivlor||

    Your statement implies that they are both so bad that you couldn't really distinguish or care to distinguish between them. It's entertaining to watch such a strange Christian heresy continue to evolve over several centurie.

    Sin is sin. We shouldn't care if he's a murderer or a thief, it doesn't matter. That is the implication of your statement. Now you can fall back off of that hill or not, it's no skin off my back. I was really just musing about the strangeness of the clown-world we live in, and how we got to this point.

    Of course, a better example of this is the free speech discussion that was going on in the Popehat thread yesterday.

  • Just Say'n||

    Who is better than the other is situational, no? That's why Ken White looks like an ass hate, rather than pope hat, because on the situation of speech now conservatives are right.

    But, when it comes to police now progressives are right.

  • Kivlor||

    Sure it is. I would be careful about the "progressives are right on police" though. They're merely right so long as they can't make the police crackdown on the "Nazis". If they get the chance, they'll ban speech and political organization by their opponents and use the police to enforce it. And they'll absolutely defend every abuse that happens in the aftermath.

    Don't get me wrong, Republicans need to purge this ridiculous "defend the guys in blue at all costs" mentality. And I think if libertarians didn't act so unhinged, they might have a chance at convincing many of them of it in the current climate. They know they won't be in power forever.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Here is a novel idea. Instead of worrying about which tribe is right or wrong, why not focus on each individual issue itself?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So again, is microsoft right to close down gab (for simply carrying the message of someone else)? Recall that you think that reason should not be held liable if you were to libel me here, so why should gab be punished for simply providing an open platform.

    And no "but governments!" argument. In principle should they be doing this? Or is it bad form?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If I were advising Microsoft, I would urge them not to close down Gab. But they are nonetheless free to use their property as they see fit.

    I don't see it as a question of libel here.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Your statement implies that they are both so bad that you couldn't really distinguish or care to distinguish between them."

    No. My statement implies that they both fall below an absolute threshold of worth that neither one is worth spending any amount of time or effort to defend.

    As a simple example, let's take Charles Manson and Joseph Stalin. When it comes to mass murder, who is worse? Stalin, of course, by miles. But if you were to ask me to defend Charles Manson because "he wasn't as bad as Stalin", I would absolutely refuse. Get it?

    And no I am not saying Democrats or Republicans are mass murderers. Just using that as an example.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Ron Paul talks Twitter action against libertarian writers. Commenting on Twitter suspending two Antiwar.com writer accounts and banning the Ron Paul Institute director from the site, Paul suggested that "antiwar activists and libertarians" were under fire for political reasons.

    At least the Professional Fake Libertarians won't ever have to worry about getting banned. Lefty jackass Jack Dorsey and his nasty little minions know perfectly well who agrees with him and who doesn't, believe me!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I know Robbie opposes the NYT firing people for being rabid racists against white devils. I'm not sure if his thinking extends to not kicking racists off of Twitter--especially if the racists are white devils.

    P.S. Wasn't it Twitter that was refusing to kick off the InfoWars guy the other day?!

  • Just Say'n||

    YES! Alex Jones is back but not Horton and McAdams? That's insane

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Uncounted votes are always found when the Democrat is losing. It's the rules.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They keep trunk loads of ballots just for this emergency.

  • Happy Chandler||

    This guy is the chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections. He's also the chairman of the Franklin County GOP. You think he's cheating to help the Democrat? That's some really deep state stuff!

    http://vote.franklincountyohio.....ration.cfm

  • Dillinger||

    >>>as cops work to build more high-profile and profitable conspiracy, money laundering, and racketeering cases

    der. how else do they get on 20/20?

  • ThanksForTheFish||

    "Ordinary citizens don't need to worry about Quiet Skies. "

    Trust us. We're the government, and we're here to help.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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