Category: Rights

Two Choices

Government Thugs, Marxists, Resistance, Rights

Well, here’s confirmation of something we’ve all been suspecting for a while:

Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet—the speech of journalists, politicians, religious organizations, advocacy groups, and even private citizens. Should those conversations conflict with the government’s viewpoint about what is in the best interests of our country and her citizens, that speech will be silenced.

Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.

Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Originally used as a marketing tool for businesses to track discussions about their brands and products and to track competitors, the DOD and other federal agencies are now paying for-profit public relations and communications firms to convert their technology into tools for the government to monitor speech on the internet.

The areas of the internet the companies monitor differ somewhat, and each business offers its own unique AI and ML proprietary technology, but the underlying approach and goals remain identical: The technology under development will “mine” large portions of the internet and identify conversations deemed indicative of an emerging harmful narrative, to allow the government to track those “threats” and adopt countermeasures before the messages go viral.

One would hope, of course, that this gross breach of the First Amendment would not pass judicial muster, but in true fascist form, the State has simply farmed its bastardy out to the private sector, thus creating a Clinton-like “technicality” that creates plausible deniability.

I also have no faith — none — that the Supreme Court will act in the Constitution’s best interests.  (Okay, maybe a couple of the conservative  justices may throw a hissy fit, but let’s just say that I wouldn’t put money on a full court decision because the Communist bloc will never vote against the socialist government, and the chief justice is a craven little fart who seems to caste his vote according to the New York fucking Times  editorial opinion.)

The two choices one faces in confronting this looming catastrophe are therefore:

  1. Try to go “underground” (e.g. using the Soviet-era samizdat  method) and hope that one can go undetected by the feral ferrets, or
  2. Stand astride the barricades, shouting “FUCK YOU!” at the top of your voice, at every opportunity.

The first choice is probably doomed to failure, if The Federalist is to be believed, because these bastards have already the tools to do what they want to do.  Remember, the power of samizdat lay on the fact that it used actual paper — hidden printing presses and such — to spread the counter-State “disinformation”.  Consider that your Epson or Brother printer already records everything you print and can therefore point a finger right at you, if you are judged to have written doubleplusungood crimethink, and the paper option disappears pretty quickly.

Longtime Readers will know that I’m far more likely to take the second choice, simply because that’s the path I’ve always chosen.  Yes, it’s most likely a stupid, futile gesture just like the Delta frat’s destruction of the Animal House town parade;  but always remember that in such a situation the Niedermayer character — the State — won’t be the only one carrying live ammunition.

And as I’ve said several times in the past that when it comes to dying I’d prefer to die in my wife’s arms;  but spitting and cursing at the State from the barricades surrounded by expended brass doesn’t hold much terror, either.

I’m speaking figuratively, of course, in the latter scenario — but unfortunately for the State apparatchiks, I took an oath when I became a U.S. citizen, and I take that oath really seriously.  My allegiance is not to the State — in whatever flavor it comes — but to the ideals and promises contained in the Constitution.

And I don’t need the fucking lawyers on the Supreme Court to interpret them for me.

Not Really Voluntary, Is It?

Crime, Government Thugs, Rights, Two-Minute Hate

Here’s one which makes me believe that some cops need strangling:

Sussex Police has threatened a women right’s group founder with a hate crime arrest after a rally two months ago where her group was attacked by pro-trans activists.  The force told mother-of-four Kellie-Jay Keen an allegation made about her that she used ‘words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ was now being investigated.

In an extraordinary phone call released by Standing For Women founder Kellie-Jay, one officer said she could be arrested if she did not attend a ‘voluntary’ interview.

In the first place, it’s a bullshit charge (except that it’s in Not-So-Great Britain, where it’s legal), and in the second, just about any judge in the civilized world should throw this nonsense out the back door, with prejudice.

But apparently calling militant trannies a bunch of sickos is A Bad Thing, so Our Heroine will doubtless be walking the plank soon.

No wonder the Brits ban ownership of AK-47s, because in cases like this…

Next: The Supremes

Legal Stuff, Rights

Oh, I like this kind of thing:

A federal appeals court upheld a Texas law that bans Big Tech from censoring speech based on political viewpoint on Friday.

House Bill 20 prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users banning users simply based on their political viewpoints. The law also requires several consumer protection disclosures and processes related to content management on the social media sites to which the bill applies. These sites must disclose their content management and moderation policies and implement a complaint and appeals process for content they remove, providing a reason for the removal and a review of their decision. They also must review and remove illegal content within 48 hours. House Bill 20 also prohibits email service providers from impeding the transmission of email messages based on content.

Needless to say, the Left went into full hair-on-fire mode:

The law was promptly challenged by NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. They argued that tech companies have a First Amendment right to select and curate the content people post on their platforms. They were able to get the new law blocked, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed that decision — and won.

Fortunately, common sense and Constitutionalism prevailed.  In the judgment of the 5th Circuit:

The implications of the platforms’ argument are staggering. In the platforms’ view, email providers, mobile phone companies, and banks* could cancel the accounts of anyone who sends an email, makes a phone call, or spends money in support of a disfavored political party, candidate, or business. What’s worse, the platforms argue that a business can acquire a dominant market position by holding itself out as open to everyone — as Twitter did in championing itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party.”…Then, having cemented itself as the monopolist of “the modern public square,”…Twitter unapologetically argues that it could turn around and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to pick on members of that community…

The 11th Court found differently, hence it’s off to the Supremes we go.  And they can’t punt it back, because two federal appeals courts have conflicting rulings.

Let’s see what happens.

*Note how banks were specifically mentioned, which should make this little episode interesting.

Fair Warning

Legal Stuff, Rights

Following on from the decision of credit card companies to “flag” sales made at gun stores, we have this development:

Twenty-four Republican attorneys general sent a letter to Visa, Mastercard, and American Express Tuesday warning them to drop plans to code and compile gun sales in America.

The new code will not protect public safety. Categorizing the constitutionally protected right to purchase firearms unfairly singles out law-abiding merchants and consumers alike. First, efforts to track and monitor sales at gun stores would only result in vague and misleading information. This categorization would not recognize the difference, for example, between the purchase of a gun safe and a firearm. Nor would it capture firearm purchases made at department stores, resulting in arbitrarily disparate treatment of “gun store” merchants and consumers.

More importantly, purposefully tracking this information can only result in its misuse, either unintentional or deliberate. Creating and tracking this data only matters if your institutions are considering using that information to take further, harmful action—like infringing upon consumer privacy, inhibiting constitutionally protected purchases by selectively restricting the use of your payment systems, or otherwise withholding your financial services from targeted “disfavored” merchants.

And my favorite part:

Social policy should be debated and determined within our political institutions. Americans are tired of seeing corporate leverage used to advance political goals that cannot muster basic democratic support. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right, but it’s also a fundamental American value. Our financial institutions should stop lending their market power to those who wish to attack that value.

Be advised that we will marshal the full scope of our lawful authority to protect our citizens and consumers from unlawful attempts to undermine their constitutional rights. Please keep that in mind as you consider whether to proceed with adopting and implementing this Merchant Category Code.

Give it to the bastards good and hard, boys and girls.  Make ’em sweat, and make ’em bleed if they ignore you.

Damn Good Question

Anti-Gun Nannies, Government Thugs, Rights, The Gun Thing

I know that the Socialists in Congress have “shelved” their attempt to ban “weapons of war” i.e. ARs and AKs (for the moment), but this little exchange should prove interesting:

As Massie puts it (I paraphrase slightly):  “Who are the Department of Agriculture and Department of Education planning on going to war with, if their employees are to be excepted from this prohibition?”

Let us record the words of the late (and dearly-missed) H.L. Mencken, who stated:

“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol to his head.  Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights.”

And quod erat demonstratum, today.

“Private” Property?

Business, Rights

The concept of private property has always been a contentious one.  It shouldn’t have been, as one of the few actual duties of any government is to protect private property — but ask any landlord in, oh, California how difficult it can be to evict tenants who haven’t paid the rent.

It’s even worse in Scotland — surprise, surprise — where temporary tenant-relief laws passed during the Covidiocy are now set to become permanent:

Previously, once a landlord could prove three consecutive months of rental arrears or more, eviction would have been guaranteed.

Under these latest plans, no eviction will be guaranteed, regardless of circumstance or grounds. It will be all discretionary.

The Bill proposes that a tribunal will still be able to grant an eviction if it considers it reasonable, including where late or no-payment of rent is the reason why the landlord is seeking an eviction. But campaigners have questioned what is deemed reasonable.

Instead of making it an ironclad guarantee — if tenants haven’t paid rent for X period, you may evict them — there’s now good chance that a court may say that such eviction may be “unreasonable”, by some standard undefined.  Of course, that’s an egregious injustice which runs contrary to the concept of private property, and the landloards know it:

‘Generally, a landlord will have a reason to recover their property and once they’ve evidenced their grounds, they should be entitled to recover it.

‘It is unclear what – if any – evidence the Scottish Government are analysing to consider the removal of mandatory grounds for possession.

‘Abusing temporary provisions to satisfy a long-term policy objective appears to be an underhand tactic and the intention to permanently make all grounds for possession discretionary simply highlights the Scottish Government’s wilful and continued disregard of the value of the private rented sector.’

And here’s the weaselly response from the ScotGov:

‘It simply means a Tribunal can take into account all of the circumstances of both landlords and tenants relating to a case before making a decision.  Good landlords recognise the case for keeping tenants in their homes where possible, so adding a final check from the tribunal will support responsible management, recognise financial and other pressures that tenants can face and help prevent homelessness.’

What utter, Class A, Deluxe bullshit.