Category Archives: rights

It’s a Start

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Andrew Clyde (R, GA) has legislation he intends to introduce that would bar

federal officials from collaborating with Big Tech to censor Americans’ voices and create some legal recourse for those harmed by free speech infringement.

Explicitly, Clyde said,

It would also give an opportunity for those people who have been harmed by it to take legal action[.]

It’s a promising start, but I suggest a couple of fillips. One is to explicitly bar the agencies and departments of which those officials are a part from spending any money on the collaboration.

The other is to hold the agency and department heads and deputy heads personally liable for violating this law, regardless of who in their organization actually did the deed(s): these two are the MFWICs, and nothing goes on in their organization without their permission, if only because these two create the culture within which the misbehavior occurs and/or have the lax enforcement processes that let this sort of misbehavior go “unnoticed.”

In addition to that, and as a means of giving teeth to the responsibility deeming, the legislation should explicitly remove sovereign immunity and qualified immunity as defenses for the organization heads and deputy heads and the person(s) who actually did the deed.

Clyde needs to follow through on this, with the added fillips, as soon as Republicans gain majorities in both houses of Congress (whenever that happens), get the bill passed, and get it signed into law—or force President Joe Biden (D) to veto it, thereby demonstrating Progressive-Democrats’ continued insistence on government censorship of us citizens’ speech.

But We Need to Take your Guns Away

Posted on by
Reply

A bad guy armed with a shotgun walked into a Florida store with the intent of robbing it. And bragged about being “from Chicago” in the process.

I got a big (expletive) (expletive) gun, but I’m not from around here is what I’m saying. I’m from Chicago bro.

Then, as paraphrased by Fox News, this armed thug

 ask[ed] the employee what kind of weapon he is holding.

Which the employee showed him, whereupon the thug left.

The Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, the county where the attempted armed robbery occurred, has the right of it [emphasis added]:

He then fumbles for words, resorting to meaningless babble about being from Chicago. Words seem to fail you when your felony attempt is thwarted by lawful and righteous force.

But the Progressive-Democratic Party and its (what has become) mainstream Leftist supporters want us all disarmed. The store’s employee should have been left unarmed, helpless, and possibly murdered during the course of this robbery attempt.

Cashless Bail and Flight Risk

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois has passed its cashless bail law, euphemistically styled the SAFE-T Act (Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act—how cute, how misleading). This is a law that will allow lots of suspects accused of violent crimes to walk without even needing a hearing—an Illinois magistrate can simply release the suspect, functionally, on his own word that he’ll appear in court when called to do so.

Supporters of the law, set to take effect at the beginning of next year, point out it does not prohibit detention and that anyone deemed a flight risk can be detained.

This is as cynical as it is disingenuous.

The degree of flight risk isn’t the only factor that should be used in assessing bail amounts; it isn’t even the most important. What’s central to bail consideration, or should be central, is the nature of the crime alleged and the degree of risk to the people in the local community from having the accused walking free among them.

A man accused of a violent crime needn’t flee in order to commit (further) violent crimes; indeed, most crimes (like politics) are local. And now he has a collection of targets in the local area against whom to commit further violence: witnesses against him, and their families.

What, Exactly, Are You Doing?

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, through his Press Secretary Ned Price, is insisting two things.

One is that the (not so) dearly departed JCPOA

is [sic!] the most effective means by which to permanently and verifiably ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

This has been shown to be a straight up lie almost since its parameters became public. All the JCPOA did was permit limited inspections—but not of Iranian military facilities where most of the nuclear weapons development and uranium enrichment process were occurring—and the JCPOA had an expiration date, upon which all sanctions would be lifted and all limits on Iran’s nuclear weapons program would expire.

The other is the State Department views Iran’s nuclear potential as an overriding threat. Nevertheless,

We are doing everything we can not only to support the human rights and the aspirations for greater freedom of the Iranian people, but also to hold accountable those within the Iranian system that are responsible for…violence against the Iranian people[.]

But still,

When it comes to Iran, though…there would be no greater challenge to the United States, to our partners, and to the broader international system than an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

That last might—might—be a valid priority in a cynical, long-term, Machiavellian sort of perspective. It does the Iranian people who are being imprisoned, or killed, or both today for their protesting against their current condition no good at all, though.

Which raises the question: what, exactly are you doing, Mr SecState, to support the human rights and the aspirations for greater freedom of the Iranian people? Lay it out in concrete, measurable terms—no glittering generalities, not fatuous claims of “everything we can.” What fills out this “everything” of which you speak?

Progressive-Democratic Party Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bill, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, wending its way through the Senate that’s intended to let local news outlets band together to get enough scale to negotiate with Big Tech social media on a less uneven footing for payment from those outlets for their use of content that is taken by those social media and republished.

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) proposed an amendment that would plainly and explicitly prohibit[] payment negotiations from including discussion of content moderation—i.e., that would bar Big Tech from engaging in its penchant for censorship during payment negotiations. Cruz’ amendment wouldn’t even ban content moderation altogether, just during those content payment talks.

The Progressive-Democratic Party Senators voted it down. They blocked even this limited ban on Big Tech censorship.

Senator John Kennedy (R, LA), even as he is a sponsor of the basic bill, is on the right track.

Mr Kennedy said in a statement that he doesn’t understand why Democrats have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

­The Progressive-Democrats want to continue censoring the information us average Americans will be permitted to have. That’s why they have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) has a counter, she claims.

Ms Klobuchar countered that the bill already contained several protections to make sure it is content-neutral and doesn’t allow discrimination.

This is disingenuous. Were she serious about content neutrality—were she serious about no censorship—Klobuchar wouldn’t be opposed to a clear, simple ban on that along with, or replacing, her claimed protections.