Tag: law

The three types of free speech

This is a concept that appears to be a particularly difficult one for the binary thinkers of the world to grasp. As I explained in the Darkstream last night, there are three types of free speech:

  • Platonic
  • Public
  • Private

As I have repeatedly explained, I support Public free speech, which is the form protected by the Constitution, reject Private free speech on the basis of private property, and observe that Platonic free speech does not, and has never, existed.

The problem that I see is that Gab is nobly attempting to set its policy on the basis of Platonic free speech, limited only by the law. However, this is setting them up for potential legal trouble, particularly since that policy does not permit them to remove libelous and defamatory speech.

Here is how Andrew Torba expressed their Neo-Platonic policy:

@Voxday, you are fortunate enough to choose who to publish and who can comment on your blog, but Gab is a completely different environment, a platform for free speech for all viewpoints. We do not agree when it comes to censorship. Gab will not be the judge of what is or is not libelous. If a competent court requires us to take down a post because it is deemed libelous, Gab will comply. Libel as we all know is not protected by the first amendment.

This means that Gab is knowingly complicit in publishing these false, malicious, and defamatory statements which I brought to their attention and requested their immediate removal.

Silverdawn · @GTKRWN
9 hours · edited
Everyone stay away from @voxday He is a faggot Talmudic half jew half Mexican Pedophile pretending to be White.

Fabius MaximusPRO · @Fabian_Nazism
8 hours
I heard @voxday is a known pedophile who’s viewed more prepubescent boys online than viewers to his own site. Sad

Silverdawn · @GTKRWN
7 hours
Why do you follow a pedophile? are you a pedophile too?

AlphaJedPRO · @AlphaJed
@voxday the libel is still up

But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that unless the identity of the individuals is already known, it is going to be necessary to sue Gab in order to force it to disclose their identity so that they can be served for the libel case that Gab requires in order to take down a post. Which is something I tend to doubt is an aspect of their policy that has been entirely thought through. Fortunately, I have other means of identifying anonymous commenters. VFM, you know what to do.

Regardless, this is something that the Legal Legion of Evil is going to have to discuss before I make any decisions, so I’ll be getting in touch with all of you to set up a group meeting later this week. This isn’t the only matter we have to discuss, but it is the most important one at the moment. As a Gab supporter, I certainly don’t wish to harm Gab in any way; this sort of situation is precisely why I previously advised Andrew to adopt a ban-on-sight policy towards known trolls and troublemakers.

But sometimes people, particularly idealists, need to learn these things for themselves.

Andrew Torba’s statement on Gab censorship

Personally, I think there is no reason to hesitate to ban anyone from any site for any reason the site owner deems desirable. But I understand that Gab has publicly professed a commitment to free speech and therefore has to deal with the expectations that they have created for themselves.

We believe the post in question was indeed obscene. It should have been marked #NSFW and it was not, therefore it is in violation of our Community Guidelines.

This is not the first time we have enforced our guidelines. Gab has banned users for spamming, making death threats to the President, posting revenge porn, and doxing among others. We’ve been transparent and incredibly fair about this on many occasions.

We believe this effort was coordinated and planned. We knew this day would come and now we have entered a crossroads with a very binary decision: remove one post or lose our domain and thus the entire website.

Our choice was very clear to me. The post needs to come down. If it does not, we lose our domain. To my knowledge there are no pro-free speech domain registrars and that is a massive problem. Our only other option now would be to play a cat and mouse game by transferring our domain to another registrar. Others who have attempted to play this game have failed and even had their domain seized completely from under them. We will not play these games. We have little choice, for now.

The free and open internet as we know it is under attack. It is centralized and controlled by no more than a handful of companies who provide these services:

  • Hosting
  • DDoS protection
  • Payment Processing
  • Domain Registrars
  • Mobile device hardware and software distribution

Without any of these things an individual website can not possibly compete and operate at scale. If left unchecked, these centralized platforms will continue their dominance and control the means of all information, personal data, and communication on the internet.

Perhaps it would help if you understand that I don’t believe that free speech exists anymore than equality does.

Bake the damn cake

Instapundit observes that the Kennedy Ministry’s case against the SPLC may have interesting implications for Amazon:

BAKE MY CAKE OR SUFFER THE PENALTIES: As Ed Driscoll reported yesterday, the D. James Kennedy Ministry is suing SPLC, GuideStar, and Amazon over “Hate” labeling. I’ve had a chance to go through the Complaint, and my view is the defamation claims may have enough merit to proceed, the Trademark claims are weak, but the most interesting thing — and what may be the most impacting aspect of this suit — is the claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 4 2000(a), which the Plaintiffs point out:

“Because the Amazon Defendants are operating a public accommodation(s), it is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a), for the Amazon Defendants to deny the Ministry the privileges and advantages of the AmazonSmile program on the basis of the Ministry’s religion and the beliefs that are inherent to that religion.”
Now here’s where it gets interesting. If the Commerce Clause gives government the authority to trump a businessman’s personal beliefs, even if couched as a First Amendment expression, then the same logic that requires Christian fundamentalists to bake “gay” wedding cakes against their beliefs ought to mean that Amazon has no right to deprive the Ministry of a public accommodation because they “don’t like” that Church’s view on gay marriage.
I’m betting if Amazon doesn’t settle, that this issue is headed to the Eleventh Circuit, and maybe even SCOTUS. This is right in Justice Gorsuch‘s wheelhouse. Stay tuned.

It occurs to me that the Big Tech Left is handing the Right a golden opportunity for profitable lawfare. Whereas it might have been difficult before to argue that one has been materially harmed by defamation when falsely labeled a “Nazi” or a “White Supremacist”, the demonetization and deplatforming of various “Nazis” and “White Supremacists” is putting a material price tag on those labels.
If you’re a licensed attorney in the USA, the UK, or Australia, and you’re interested in helping out those who are being defamed in this manner, shoot me an email. It would appear to be an increasingly target-rich environment.

A presidential pardon

President Trump Pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Arpaio’s life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service. After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics. After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA’s branch in Arizona.
In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement. He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County. Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio confirmed his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.

Good on the God-Emperor. This sends an important signal to the pro-American movement.

Antifa = Alt Left

In one fell swoop, the God-Emperor changed the rhetorical game:

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right’? Do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump said. “They came charging with clubs in their hands,” he said of the counter-protesters.
Trump effectively reopened the debate, despite insistence from politicians in both parties that white supremacists and other racists deserved to be singled out.
“You had a group on one side that was mad, and you had a group on the other side that was violent. Nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say that,” he said.
Trump defended the cause of those who gathered to protest the removal of a statue honoring Gen. Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy.
“Was George Washington a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status?” he said. “What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? Do you like him? … You’re changing history. You’re changing culture.”
While Trump condemned the driver who rammed the crowd and killed a counter-protester, he declined to label the action specifically as an act of terrorism.

That’s the power of the bully pulpit. And that’s the work of a master of rhetoric in action. Trump is right to decline to label the action of the driver as terrorism, because the chances are extremely good that he’s never going to face trial.
This is not the first time someone has run over and killed protesters blocking the road. In previous cases, the drivers were found not guilty of any wrongdoing. No doubt the video of masked antifas smashing the car with metal bars is going to go a long way towards exculpating the killer driver.

It starts with one

“We’ve seen a lot more mistakes lately than rebounds. Its time to go on a domestic policy winning streak.”
– Nate

Ask and ye shall receive.

Speaking from the Roosevelt Room at the White House Wednesday morning, President Trump expressed support for the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act, RAISE, in an effort to shift America’s immigration system away from low-skilled labor to one based on merit and skills. If passed, the legislation would represent the largest overhaul of the U.S. immigration system since the 1960s.

“Struggling American families deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first,” the President said. “The RAISE Act ends chain migration and replaces our low-skilled system with a new points-based system.”

“The green card reforms in the RAISE Act will give American workers a pay raise by reducing unskilled immigration,” he continued.

The President, standing with Republican Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, argued the influx of low-skilled immigrants has greatly disadvantaged working class Americans by depressing wages and eliminating jobs.

“We’re not committed to working class Americans and we need to change that,” Senator Tom Cotton, a co-author of the legislation, said. “We bring over a million immigrants into this country a year. That’s like adding the population of Montana.”

“Our current system  is over a half-century old. It is an obsolete disaster,” he continued.

The legislation significantly limits legal immigration, by 15 percent, and favors immigrants who have strong English language abilities. It prioritizes immigrants who have high skills to benefit the American economy and reduces eligibility for immigrants to receive welfare.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare,” the President said.

Is it a perfect plan? No. Is it everything that is so desperately needed? Also no. But anything that upsets the mainstream media this much is definitely on the right track. And the shift from discussing illegal immigration to reducing legal immigration is a vital one; the problem has never been the “illegal” aspect as so many cucks and cons had it, but the “immigration” aspect.

It’s not certain that shutting down all immigration and deporting 30 million people would be sufficient to prevent the breakup of the United States, so obviously the RAISE Act will not be enough either. But the voyage of a thousand leagues begins with a single step; it took 50 years to break US demographics so the problem is not going to be fixed overnight either.

Now, it would be nice if the God-Emperor would follow up this announcement with something related to the fact that he is going to BUILD THE WALL.

Why Trump is unhappy with Sessions

Andrew Napolitano explains that the former Senator is essentially too much of a pussy senatorially collegial to take on the swamp:

During the past two weeks, President Donald Trump has made no secret of his unhappiness at the management of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Actually, Trump seems most agitated at the growing parts of the DOJ that are not under Sessions’ management.

He is also angry that the trail of the well-known evidence of the crimes of his former opponent Hillary Clinton seems to have been vacated by the DOJ.

How is it that parts of the DOJ cannot be controlled by the attorney general, whom Trump appointed to run the DOJ? And with a mountain of evidence of Clinton’s espionage — her failure to safeguard state secrets, crimes far more treacherous than those alleged against Trump’s campaign — why has she not been prosecuted?

It doesn’t help that Sessions is also wandering around looking like a senile old dinosaur babbling about the drug war when literally no one gives a damn about outlawing drugs anymore, in part because pot is increasingly legal and half the millennials have been on speed or psychotropics all their lives.

AIPAC vs 1st Amendment

In case you didn’t believe that immigrants have never, ever, understood literally the first goddamn thing about the Rights of Englishmen or the U.S. Constitution. Note that limiting the 1st Amendment rights of Americans is AIPAC’s top legislative priority for 2017. Everything below is straight from Congress.gov.


S.720 – Israel Anti-Boycott Act
115th Congress (2017-2018)

Sponsor: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] (Introduced 03/23/2017)
Committees: Senate – Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Latest Action: 03/23/2017 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.

The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:

  • requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and
  • restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.

The bill prohibits U.S. persons engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from:

  • requesting the imposition of any boycott by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States; or 
  • supporting any boycott fostered or imposed by an international organization, or requesting imposition of any such boycott, against Israel.

The bill amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to include as a reason for the Export-Import Bank to deny credit applications for the export of goods and services between the United States and foreign countries, opposition to policies and actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.

Cosponsor and Date Cosponsored
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]* 03/23/2017
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] 03/27/2017
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] 03/27/2017
Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] 03/27/2017
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] 03/27/2017
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] 03/27/2017
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] 03/28/2017
Sen. Young, Todd C. [R-IN] 03/28/2017
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR] 03/28/2017
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] 03/28/2017
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI] 03/28/2017
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] 03/30/2017
Sen. Perdue, David [R-GA] 03/30/2017
Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS] 03/30/2017
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS] 03/30/2017
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND] 04/04/2017
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] 04/04/2017
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] 04/04/2017
Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV] 04/24/2017
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS] 04/24/2017
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] 04/24/2017
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA] 04/24/2017
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] 04/25/2017
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV] 04/26/2017
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] 05/01/2017
Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA] 05/01/2017
Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH] 05/08/2017
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] 05/09/2017
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK] 05/16/2017
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] 05/17/2017
Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN] 05/23/2017
Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC] 05/25/2017
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX] 06/05/2017
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] 06/05/2017
Sen. Strange, Luther [R-AL] 06/05/2017
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] 06/06/2017
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] 06/12/2017
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] 06/12/2017
Sen. Sasse, Ben [R-NE] 06/15/2017
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] 06/26/2017
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] 07/12/2017
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] 07/12/2017
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA] 07/18/2017
Sen. Tillis, Thom [R-NC] 07/19/2017
Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR] 07/19/2017

Criminalizing non-trade

This is, quite possibly, the most insane proposed federal law I have ever heard about. And it has bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year….

The bill’s co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate’s more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Illustrating the bipartisanship that AIPAC typically summons, it also includes several of the most right-wing senators such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Marco Rubio of Florida.

A similar measure was introduced in the House on the same date by two Republicans and one Democrat. It has already amassed 234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans. As in the Senate, AIPAC has assembled an impressive ideological diversity among supporters, predictably including many of the most right-wing House members — Jason Chaffetz, Liz Cheney, Peter King — along with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer.

It is becoming abundantly clear that it is not boycotts of Israel – or anything else – that should be outlawed, but rather, AIPAC. Those corrupters of the already corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make the badthink go away. But it doesn’t work like that; quite to the contrary, it intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.

I don’t boycott Israel myself; one of our best authors is Israeli. But everyone, in every country, should be absolutely free to do business or not do business with Israeli organizations and individuals as they see fit. And every U.S. Senator or Representative who has endorsed this bill should be hounded out of the offices for which they are clearly unfit.

The ever-inept Republicans can’t repeal Obamacare but they have time for this idiocy? And even if you are the most philosemitic Christian Zionist who ever declared his willingness to shed the very last drop of American blood for Israel, you must be able to see that this proposed legislation is not just absolutely and utterly wrong, but completely un-American.

This is further evidence that direct democracy is not merely preferable to representative democracy, but a moral imperative.

Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”

The Magna Carta and Posterity

John C. Wright makes an observation that is not insignificant in relation to last week’s debate on the meaning of Posterity:

The effect of the Magna Carta on later charters of rights, on the Glorious Revolution, and on the Bill of Rights of the American Revolution should be known to all educated citizens in America.

To say nothing of its effect on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Does this sound familiar?

We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

Keeping in mind that the American Revolution was fought to preserve and protect the Rights of Englishmen, which of the three alternative definitions of “Posterity” most accurately represents the term used in the phrase “ourselves and our Posterity” in light of this section of the Magna Carta?

  1. actual legal descendants and heirs
  2. succeeding generations living within the same geographic boundaries
  3. later times
As the authors of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers also demonstrate, the only possible answer should be perfectly clear.