Here’s another example, even more blatant than that last.
Apple has chosen to conceal accesses to Infowars by removing links to it from Apple’s podcast facility because Apple thinks Infowars is too far right for Apple’s taste and because the site pushes bad speech.
This is rank censorship.
Eliminating easy access to Infowars podcasts marks a rare, prominent foray for Apple into an issue confronting many major internet companies: how to remove hateful or conspiratorial messages from their platforms without infringing on free speech.
Federal District Judge Robert Lasnik of the Western District of Washington has blocked, temporarily, the online distribution of blueprints for printing 3-D guns. Lasnik’s temporary restraining order is subsequent to a settlement reached between Defense Distributed and State (which previously had blocked the posting of the plans) that functionally set aside State’s security objections to the posting. The State of Washington, et al., then sued to reinstate the prior block.
In decrying the settlement that’s the subject of his TRO, Lasik wrote
A disgruntled customer in a George Webb restaurant took his anger out on one of the women employees, going behind the counter to physically attack her.
He didn’t get far: a fellow employee, another woman, drew her pistol and drove the thug off. It seems that she has a concealed carry permit to go with her weapon, and George Webb allows its employees to carry on the premises. With good reason, it seems.
But those on the Left would rather have the good guys—and girls—unarmed, so thugs like this can have their way. Talk about a war on women. Geez.
Facebook, for a while, decided that our Declaration of Independence was filled with hate speech. In particular, Facebook decided that
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions
which closed the list of Facts our nascent nation submitted to a candid world
goes against our [Facebook’s] standards on hate speech.
The writer JD Vance, this time in The Wall Street Journal, has made a strong case for Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the DC Circuit, being nominated for the Supreme Court.
He is a committed textualist and originalist, one whose time on the bench has revealed a unique ability to apply these principles to legal facts. He deeply believes in the constitutional separation of powers as a means for ensuring governmental accountability and protecting individual liberty.
…Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions have been adopted by the Justices 11 times—a record of influence and persuasion that suggests he would be effective on the still-divided high court.
The Progressive-Democrats have their panties in large, tight twists over the possibility of President Donald Trump getting another pick for the Supreme Court. So much so that now they’re making stuff up in their hysteria.
“Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” tweeted Jeffrey Toobin, the legal pundit, in a classic of cool, even-handed CNN analysis soon after the resignation news.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):
Whomever the president picks, it is all too likely they’re going to overturn health-care protections and Roe v Wade[.]
And so on.
The non-merit discriminants that colleges and universities use—Harvard comes to mind—center on race, ethnicity, and gender. The Trump administration has moved to reduce that reliance on bigotry for admissions (ironic word, that), and the Left is crying race.
Anurima Bargava, ex-President Barack Obama’s DoJ head of “civil rights enforcement” (an ironic title), insists that the rollback of regulations authorizing racism and sexism in determining who will be admitted—and who will be barred from admission—is
a purely political attack that benefits nobody.
The rollback benefits those being discriminated against without harming anyone else. But the Obama administration’s politics of divisiveness and…identity…considered those people to be nobodies; that’s why the policy discriminated.
Commenting on the upcoming nomination for Supreme Court Justice and the Progressive-Democrats’ hysteria over President Donald trump’s choice—long before he makes it—former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said
If he put Moses up for the possibility of being Supreme Court Justice—the ultimate lawgiver, the Ten Commandments—they would still be against it[.]
He’s right. Recall Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D, CA) objection to Judge Amy Coney Barrett during the latter’s 7th Appellate Court confirmation hearing:
When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you[.]
There’s a lot about which to criticize California, but in one case, early though it is, the State appears to be on the right track. California passed a consumer privacy law, and businesses everywhere are in an uproar over it. The bill
requires [businesses] to offer consumers options to opt out of sharing personal information, and it gives Californians the right to prohibit the sale of their personal data.
Business’ objections center on their premise that it
risked far-reaching damage to everything from retailers’ customer-loyalty programs to data gathering by Silicon Valley tech giants.