Tag: police state

Australia’s Chief Censor To Force Online Digital ID Within Six Months

It’s really a no-brainer both for politicians and those crafting the wording and perception of their policies.

Namely – if you want genuinely complex and controversial initiatives (such as those related to mass surveillance and privacy infringements) fast-tracked both in legislatures and the media/public, just frame them as geared toward “child safety.”

Job done. Not many will even attempt to stand up to this, even if arguments in favor are patently disingenuous.

One gets the sense this is what Australia’s “chief censor” – eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant – is there to do – and she seems to understand her assignment well. Whether she succeeds, though, is a whole different question.

For right now, Grant is not letting up on trying to attack online security and privacy via demands for swift implementation of age verification schemes by online platforms.

Grant is now setting a six-month deadline and threatening mandatory codes unless these platforms play along.

It might bear repeating, and louder, “for the people in the back”: The only way to truly verify anyone’s age online is for adults with a government-issued ID to present a copy of it to the platforms ruling the internet – ruled by governments.

This effectively destroys online anonymity, and in many countries and under many regimes, people’s (physical) safety.

Keep reading

Rapper B.G. Ordered To Turn Over New Song Lyrics to the Feds

Last week, a federal judge ruled that B.G., a rapper known for the hit 1999 song “Bling Bling,” must give the government copies of the lyrics to any new songs as a condition of his supervised release. While prosecutors can generally place a wide range of otherwise illegal restrictions on released prisoners’ conduct, critics argue this restriction is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

In 2012, B.G., whose real name is Christopher Dorsey, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for illegal gun possession and obstruction charges. After serving 11 years, Dorsey was released in February. In May, prosecutors filed a motion alleging that Dorsey had violated the terms of his bond by publishing songs “where he once again glorifies murder, drug dealing, and threatens those who cooperate with the police.” 

“Mr. Dorsey’s conduct directly contradicts the goals of supervised release—rehabilitation and becoming a responsible, law-abiding member of our community,” prosecutors write. “There is no way that any reasonable person can view these new videos…with an understanding of Mr. Dorsey’s past, and conclude that Mr. Dorsey was taking his rehabilitation seriously.” 

Prosecutors requested that Dorsey be prohibited from “promoting and glorifying future gun violence/murder and obstructive conduct in his songs and during his concerts.” Last Friday, New Orleans federal judge Susie Morgan denied this request, writing that the condition might be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Dorsey’s speech.

“The Court finds that, without question, the additional condition is not sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide for the Defendant’s conduct and for those entrusted with his supervision,” Morgan wrote. But despite this admission, she still placed a serious restriction on Dorsey’s speech. “To address the legitimate concerns expressed by the Government, the Court will impose a special condition that the Defendant provide the United States Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics of any song he writes, in advance of his production or promotion of such song, and that those lyrics be shared with the Government.”

While this restriction sounds outrageous, supervised release is a convoluted mess for many former prisoners. “When it was created in 1984, federal supervised release was supposed to be used sparingly to keep tabs on offenders who were public safety concerns or needed extra support to transition back into society,” Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella wrote last month. “However, it’s become used by default…and it’s sending many others back to prison for minor rule violations that might not warrant such a harsh response.”

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Just Opened the Door to a New Orwellian Censorship Regime

The Supreme Court’s decision in a recent case challenging the Biden administration’s censorship efforts unleashed renewed threats to Americans’ ability to speak and listen freely online while effectively putting a legal remedy out of reach ahead of the 2024 election, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Last year on Independence Day, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty issued the initial injunction blocking a range of government agencies from communicating with social media companies to suppress speech, calling the government’s actions “Orwellian.” But one year later, with the Fifth Circuit’s narrower injunction now lifted by the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, officials have free rein to again employ the same tactics.

“It’s basically a roadmap for government actors, not just the federal government, but also state and local government actors, to reach out to social media companies and pressure them into censoring this disfavored speech,” Center for American Liberty associate counsel Eric Sell told the DCNF.

The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in the case, who included two states and five individuals, did not have standing to seek an injunction against the government.

In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the plaintiffs failed “to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms.” She also noted that platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to establish they were harmed directly as a result of the government’s requests.

Justice Samuel Alito worried in his dissent that the Supreme Court’s ruling, though it did not reach the merits of the issue, would send the message that coercive government campaigns against certain speech can run unchecked if “carried out with enough sophistication.”

Keep reading

Civil Unrest Is the Next Most Predictable Crisis for America Now

For the past six months I’ve been writing about the clear uptick in civil war rhetoric within the establishment media in the US, and we all know that the coming presidential election is the reason for it.  The bottom line is that no matter who ends up in the White House in 2025 there will be mass violence, but most of this violence will be reserved for the possibility of Donald Trump’s return.

As we have seen in Europe (mainly France), any perceived shift towards conservative influence in government will undoubtedly result in riots from the political left.  The media has so infected the minds of progressives that they truly believe conservatives intend to “end democracy” and launch an era of fascism.  So, in their view, all violence against conservatives (and even moderates) is justified.

Of course, their aggression and hysteria is only inspiring conservatives to respond with aggression in kind.  This is where the potential for civil conflict arises.  One side says only they are exalted enough to be allowed to dictate policy and law and that side’s ideology embraces moral relativism, so you can see where this thing is headed.  People are eventually going to fight back; they have no choice.

In the meantime, I suspect the rioting and looting America dealt with in 2020 will be a cakewalk in comparison to what we will see going into November 2024 and beyond.  Leftists claim they are “protecting democracy” but you will see very quickly that as soon as democracy doesn’t go their way they will abandon it in a heartbeat and try to win using other methods.

This means potential supply chain disruptions in major cities as well as no-go areas in many retail districts.  Sure, you might be able to get into a neighborhood to shop, but will you be able to leave?  And, will those suppliers even have any goods on hand? Or, will the stores be turned into empty husks?

Keep reading

Loss Of Economic Hope Kills, And That Is The Point

I was speaking to a young American recently, and I asked, what do you think forever wars, abortion, poisoned food, bad medical care, deadly vaccines, LGBT, transgender, fentanyl, destruction of the family, destruction of the food supply, all have in common?

The young person’s eyes widened as he replied, “Depopulation?”

“Bingo,” I said.

Add loss of economic hope to the killing machine.

Ever wonder why immigrants get ‘free everything’ yet, working class American get economically shafted?

Our psychotic overlords want a slave class, and they want to kill the American working class, who demands too high of a wage, and values that thing called freedom.

Economic depression is a formidable weapon, used to destroy hope, and foster suicide.

The ‘rich men north of Richmond’ really do hate you and want you dead.

To think of the level of evil this state of mind requires, to intentionally harm an entire class of humans, is sobering.

Keep reading

The Endless War Against People

War is like a big machine that no one really knows how to
run and when it gets out of control it ends up destroying
the things you thought you were fighting for, and a lot
of other things you kinda forgot you had.
– Anonymous
.

When I discuss with others the idea of living in a peaceful, stateless world, I am most frequently asked: “but what about national defense? What if the Chinese, or North Korean, or an aggressive Islamic state, wanted to invade America, destroy our way of life, and enslave us to their regime? How might we defend ourselves from those who want to use force to take us over?”

While such questions reflect legitimate concerns, they overlook one disturbing truth: what people fear took place centuries ago. America was “taken over” by powerful interests who used the machinery of the state to reduce all of us to their violent control; that we might be the resources for the accomplishment of their purposes. That one of the most popular Broadway shows is based on the life of Alexander Hamilton, reflects just how thoroughly most of us have internalized the grasping purposes of the so-called “Founding Fathers.” Should anyone put together a show on the life and thinking of Sam Adams, please let me know!

The problems we encounter through the politicization of society arise from confusions concerning the benefits of organizing ourselves with others. Because we are social beings who could not survive without the help of others – who would have cared for you immediately following your birth? – we have become lazy in distinguishing the organizational forms available for our benefit. We humans have long known of the advantages derived from a division of labor. Beyond living at a subsistence level, in which we consume all of our production just to survive, we are able to generate surpluses that we can exchange with others to increase our well-being. It is this reality that underlies the economic means by which we organize with others.

Keep reading

Sex, Lies, & Racial Hysteria: The Quiet J6 Killing Of Rosanne Boyland

One wonders what thoughts passed through the fevered mind of Officer Lila Morris as she struck the seemingly lifeless Rosanne Boyland over the head with a branch, then struck her again, and then struck her a third time so hard that the branch snapped in half.

If Morris thought Boyland a hateful white supremacist who deserved her fate, one could, if not forgive her, at least understand how she came to think that way. For the last two years, Morris had heard little else about these MAGA minions and the monster who led them.

President-elect Joe Biden had set the tone when he launched his presidential campaign in April 2019, implying President Donald Trump had called the neo-Nazis involved in the Charlottesville dust-up “very fine people.” No major candidate has ever begun a presidential campaign with a more divisive and slanderous opening gambit (one that Snopes conceded was false just this past week).

Biden continued the slander throughout the campaign. Just four weeks before the 2020 election, he weighed in on the well-timed bust of an FBI-massaged plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer. “There is a through line from President Trump’s dog whistles and tolerance of hate, vengeance, and lawlessness to plots such as this one,” fumed Biden. “He is giving oxygen to the bigotry and hate we see on the march in our country.”

If Morris feared the depredations of these Hun-like hordes, she was in good company.

“Just remember, we’re on the right side of history,” Rep. Val Demings told a colleague as they huddled fearfully in the House gallery on January 6.

“If we all die today, another group will come in and certify those ballots.”

“White supremacy and patriarchy are very linked in a lot of ways,” congressional drama queen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told CNN’s Dana Bash.

“There’s a lot of sexualizing of that violence. And I didn’t think that I was just going to be killed. I thought other things were going to happen to me as well.”

When Bash asked AOC if she thought she was going to be raped, AOC answered, “Yeah, yeah. I thought I was.”

The left has been feeding its base a steady diet of racial fear and loathing for generations.

Ocasio-Cortez is Puerto Rican. Demings and Morris black. Also black is Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police lieutenant (now captain) who shot and killed January 6 protestor and Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt.

Babbitt and Boyland were both white.

The phrase “had the races been reversed” is such a manifest truism that pundits on the right no longer bother to complete the thought

Keep reading

IT’S CLASSIFIED! A DEEP DIVE INTO THE DARK WORLD OF KEEPING SECRETS

Former president Donald Trump has recently found himself embroiled in yet another controversy, following an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago resort and the recovery of classified documents being kept there. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges the former president unlawfully retained these and possibly tried to conceal them. Reportedly, Trump removed over 300 classified documents when he departed the White House in 2021. 

Many of these classified materials were returned to the National Archives in early January. However, following the search of Trump’s Florida golf resort on August 8, the DOJ says FBI agents uncovered boxes full of classified government documents, including some retained at the highest classification levels. 

The specific nature of the classified material allegedly taken by Trump remains shrouded in secrecy. The DOJ’s ongoing criminal investigation, however, has garnered unprecedented attention, casting a floodlight on an area of government that typically remains well in the shadows. 

To cut through some of the confusion surrounding this intentionally hazy subject, The Debrief now takes a deep dive into the murky world of official secrecy to look at how the U.S. government tries to keep the lid on highly-sensitive, classified information. 

Keep reading

I was punished under the Espionage Act. Why wasn’t Joe Biden?

In February, I was released from federal prison, having served 33 months for a violation of the Espionage Act, after I disclosed classified information detailing what I saw as the high moral cost of America’s drone assassination program. Before having time to adjust to the world beyond concrete walls, I was struck by the news of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report [PDF] wherein he lays out the reasons he decided not to charge President Joe Biden for alleged violations of the same law.

I am always encouraged to hear whenever the Justice Department decides against using the Espionage Act. By the time the ink of the 1917 law had dried, it was already being used to silence voices of dissent across the country. Thousands were rounded up and summarily convicted for their opposition to America’s involvement in the bloodiest conflict in human history at the time.

While some of the worst aspects of the law have since been amended, the Espionage Act remains the premier criminal statute for prosecuting government sources who rely upon the press to expose secret government abuses to the public. The decision by Justice Department officials to go after government whistleblowers with the Espionage Act has been a part of a concerted effort to signal clearly that the next person who dares speak with a reporter could find themselves facing decades of incarceration.

After reading Special Counsel Hur’s report, I was curious to find the similarities between my case and that of the investigation into the president. According to the report, President Biden kept classified information outside of a secure facility at his home and office – as did I. The president later spoke with a reporter about the classified information he retained – again, as did I.

Both President Biden and I expressed to our respective reporters the concerns we had about official US policy – his about the failed 2009 surge in Afghanistan (as vice president) and mine about the consequences of that policy. So why the decision to prosecute one and not the other?

Keep reading

Biden’s Real Legacy Will Be As Silencer Of Speech

Happy birthday, America. 

Now, shut up. 

That’s the greeting card President Joe Biden and his merry band of deep staters should send to U.S. citizens after spending the better part of the past four years bludgeoning the First Amendment. From “Disinformation czars” to tongue-cutting gag orders on political enemies, the Biden years will be remembered for unrivaled attacks on primary rights. 

As Jonathan Turley writes in his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Joe Biden is “the most anti-free speech president since John Adams.”

“He has created an unprecedented system of censorship through financial support and his public statements. So the idea that he is really the symbol of constitutional fealty is really alarming, it’s so detached from reality,” the attorney, law professor, columnist, and popular television analyst recently said on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”  

Criminalizing Criticism

Turley isn’t spinning hyperbole. Adams’ wholehearted support of the Sedition Act saw a sweeping attack on free speech and freedom of the press at the dawn of the republic. Political enemies were arrested and sent to prison for criticizing the government.  

One of the “most dramatic” victims of the law was a representative from Vermont, Matthew Lyon, who was imprisoned for speaking out against President Adams’ “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice.” He also featured such rhetoric in his campaign speeches.  

Lyon won reelection — from his jail cell. 

Sound familiar? 

Keep reading