Tag: police state

Supreme Court Appears Wary of Blocking Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Collusion

During oral arguments in a major First Amendment case on Monday, the Supreme Court expressed reservations about restricting interactions between the Biden administration and social media platforms. This concern emerged during the Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) case, which delves into the extent of governmental influence over online content.

Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, presented oral arguments for the petitioners in the case, Biden’s Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy and several other current and former members of the Biden administration.

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

During the oral arguments today though, the justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion. According to Fletcher, the litmus test for legality should be the presence or absence of threats from the government, asserting that using the bully pulpit for exhortations is a right protected under the First Amendment.

Fletcher also tried to argue for the significant power and autonomy of social media companies, noting their capability to resist governmental pressures.

The solicitor general of Louisiana, Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing one of the Republican-led states behind the lawsuit, argued that the government’s actions amounted to coercion, effectively leading to censorship by social media platforms. He highlighted a significant shift in the focus of government-led content moderation. Initially aimed at tackling foreign interference and misinformation, these efforts increasingly targeted speech by American citizens, particularly around the contentious topics of the 2020 election and the pandemic.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga’s viewpoint. “And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country. And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So, can you help me? Because I’m really worried about that.”

Keep reading

No, Imprisoning a School Shooter’s Parents Isn’t Justice

A jury on Thursday convicted a Michigan man of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop his son from killing four of his peers in November 2021, putting an end to a closely watched prosecution that broke new ground in its attempt to punish the parents of a child who committed a school shooting.

James Crumbley faces up to 60 years in prison, as does his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who was found guilty of the same charges last month. Prosecutors posited the two bore responsibility for allegedly ignoring signs that their son, Ethan Crumbley, was depressed, and for gifting him the gun he ultimately used to execute Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling, and Hana St. Juliana at Oxford High School.

It may be hard to find sympathy for the Crumbleys, who have, unsurprisingly, been a magnet for backlash. It’s plausible they were negligent parents. But it can simultaneously be true that punishing them criminally for that sets a very troubling precedent, no matter how much you dislike them.

The prosecution’s argument hinged on a few key points: Ethan Crumbley had mental health issues, which the government said his parents did not do enough to address—a point they emphasized more during Jennifer Crumbley’s proceeding. During James Crumbley’s trial, the government zeroed in on the gun he purchased for his son as an early Christmas present: He was allegedly careless, prosecutors said, with how he stored the weapon, creating a perfect storm that cleared the way for Ethan to carry out that shooting about two and a half years ago.

But, no matter how ruinous their parenting, the case against the Crumbleys in some sense hinged on what the government wanted the law to say—not on what it actually said. As I wrote last month:

Despite the fraught subject matter, and the absolute tragedy of those deaths, Michigan law still appeared inept to apply to the Crumbley parents. Michigan lawmakers have had the opportunity to pass “child access prevention” legislation authorizing criminal charges against adults “who intentionally or carelessly give minors unsupervised access to guns,” noted Reason‘s Jacob Sullum in 2021, but they have on multiple occasions rejected the idea. And while the state has since enacted a “secure storage” law pertaining to safely securing firearms, it was not on the books at the time of the murders.

It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it’s not my idea of a good time, either. But how someone feels about guns generally or politically shouldn’t factor into whether or not a parent is criminally responsible for their child’s actions.

Keep reading

The State of Our Nation No One’s Talking About: Tyranny Is Rising as Freedom Falls

Day by day, tyranny is rising as freedom falls.

The U.S. military is being used to patrol subway stations and police the U.S.-Mexico border, supposedly in the name of national security.

The financial sector is being used to carry out broad surveillance of Americans’ private financial data, while the entertainment sector is being tapped to inform on video game enthusiasts with a penchant for violent, potentially extremist content, all in an alleged effort to uncover individuals subscribing to anti-government sentiments

Public and private venues are being equipped with sophisticated surveillance technologies, including biometric and facial recognition software, to track Americans wherever they go and whatever they do. Space satellites with powerful overhead surveillance cameras will render privacy null and void.

This is the state of our nation that no is talking about—not the politicians, not the courts, and not Congress: the government’s power grabs are growing bolder, while the rights of the citizenry continue to be trampled underfoot.

Hitler is hiding in the shadows, while the citizenry—the only ones powerful enough to stem the authoritarian tide that threatens to lay siege to our constitutional republic—remain easily distracted and conveniently diverted by political theatrics and news cycles that change every few days.

This sorry truth has persisted no matter which party has controlled Congress or the White House.

These are dangerous times.

Yet while the presidential candidates talk at length about the dangers posed by the opposition party, the U.S. government still poses the gravest threat to our freedoms and way of life.

Police shootings of unarmed individuals, invasive surveillance, roadside blood draws, roadside strip searches, SWAT team raids gone awry, the military industrial complex’s costly wars, pork barrel spending, pre-crime laws, civil asset forfeiture, fusion centers, militarization, armed drones, smart policing carried out by AI robots, courts that march in lockstep with the police state, schools that function as indoctrination centers, bureaucrats that keep the Deep State in power: these are just a few of the ways in which the police state continues to flex its muscles in a show of force intended to intimidate anyone still clinging to the antiquated notion that the government answers to “we the people.”

Keep reading

Federal Marijuana Prohibition Has ‘No Rational Basis,’ Companies Say In New Court Filing

In a new federal court filing, lawyers for a group of marijuana companies argue that ongoing broad cannabis prohibition has “no rational basis,” pointing to the government’s largely hands-off approach to the recent groundswell of state-level legalization.

The lawsuit alleges that while Congress’s original intent in banning marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was to eradicate illicit interstate commerce, lawmakers and the executive branch have since abandoned that mission as more states have moved to regulate the drug.

“Dozens of states have implemented programs to legalize and regulate medical or adult use marijuana,” the new filing from the plaintiffs in the case says. And by providing consumers with “safe, regulated, and local access to marijuana,” those states “have reduced illicit interstate commerce, as customers switch to purchasing state-regulated marijuana over illicit interstate marijuana.”

The new 32-page document comes in response to the government’s effort in January to dismiss the cannabis companies’ underlying suit. At the center of the case is a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, in which justices held that federal prohibition preempts state-level legalization because of Congress’s interest in preventing illegal marijuana from entering interstate commerce.

Plaintiffs argue that given the changes since then—not only at the state level, but also in terms of the government’s own tolerance of commercial cannabis activity in legal jurisdictions—”the federal government no longer has any basis for insisting that state-regulated, intrastate marijuana must be banned to serve Congress’s interstate goals.”

“The ground-shaking shifts in marijuana regulation since Raich, together with the nation’s long history of marijuana cultivation and use prior to the CSA,” lawyers wrote in the new filing, “demonstrate the widely-held understanding that Plaintiffs’ marijuana activities implicate a liberty interest that requires protection.”

In the overarching lawsuit, filed in October, the businesses behind the case claim that perpetuating marijuana prohibition in state markets is unconstitutional, creating undue public safety risks while precluding licensed cannabis operators from accessing critical financial services and tax deductions that are available to other industries.

Keep reading

ATF Agent Stops Gun Sale Over Marijuana Odor And DOJ Argues Cannabis Consumers Don’t Have 2nd Amendment Rights 

Second Amendment advocates are criticizing a pair of recent developments around marijuana and firearms—issues they say underscore the need for further reform.

Last month during a routine audit of a gun dealer, a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigator reportedly ordered the store to stop the sale of a pistol because the investigator claimed the would-be buyer smelled of marijuana.

“I wasn’t high,” the prospective buyer told the Second Amendment Foundation, according to the outlet Ammoland, which referred to the individual only as Daniel. “None of this makes any sense to me.”

Daniel had already filed federal paperwork saying he was eligible to own a firearm and had passed a background check for the handgun, according to the report. When he went to pick it up at a Plant City, Florida store, however, the ATF industry operations investigator reportedly halted the sale.

ATF spokesman Jason Medina acknowledged that the smell of marijuana could have been from exposure to second-hand smoke and not an indication that the gun buyer himself had consumed cannabis.

“That’s true,” Medina told Ammoland.

Meanwhile in a federal appeals court case, the Department of Justice argued in a filing earlier this month that marijuana users “are more likely than ordinary citizens to misuse firearms,” likening them to “the mentally ill” as well as “infants, idiots, lunatics, and felons.”

Keep reading

Council Orders London Fish & Chip Shop Owner To Remove British Flag Mural

A fish and chip shop owner in London has been ordered by the local council to remove a mural featuring a Union Jack flag and the words “A Great British meal” from the side of his building after some locals complained it is “not appropriate for the area.”

The Daily Mail reports that the award-winning Golden Chippy in Greenwich received the removal order from the council after a “number of complaints about the mural” and the council deciding it constitutes an “unauthorised advert” in a “preservation area.”

Shop owner Chris Kanizi, who is from Cyprus, commented “It’s just something to put a smile on people’s faces. But the council said ‘this is a preservation area – you can’t have that and you’ve got to paint over it.’”

“They also said people had been complaining, but I don’t believe that. Everyone who has talked to me say they love it,” Kanizi added.

Local residents who were asked about it expressed support for the mural.

Keep reading

Kentucky prison officers accused of forcing inmates to drink urine or be tased upon failed drug test

A lawsuit filed on behalf of seven inmates at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex claims they were forced to either drink their own urine or be tased after failing a drug test while in custody.

And Department of Corrections spokeswoman Lisa Lamb acknowledged in a statement that some employees have been fired and disciplined in other ways.

“This incident was thoroughly investigated and multiple disciplinary actions were taken including employee terminations,” she said. “As of now, the Department of Corrections has not been served with the lawsuit and cannot provide further comment.”

She would not discuss details of the disciplinary action or terminations, including the results of the investigation. 

WDRB News has requested the investigation and disciplinary action taken through the Kentucky open records law. 

In a June 6th memo to Randy White, deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections, an investigator said the findings substantiated that staffers were tasing inmates who failed drug test. 

“This determination is based on the preponderance of evidence,” according to an investigative memo obtained by WDRB. “This evidence includes video footage, staff and inmate witness statements , electronic Taser evidence log … and inconsistencies in suspect interviews.” 

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court’s Eastern District in Ashland, claims four correctional officers told the inmates who failed drug tests “they would be able to ‘throw away’ their urine sample if they chose to be subjected to electrocution by taser or to drink their own urine.”

However, the suit also claims the seven inmates were “forced” to either be tased or drink their urine.

Keep reading

Warden is ousted as FBI raids California women’s prison known as the ‘rape club’

FBI agents raided a federal women’s prison in California this week so plagued by sexual abuse that it was known among inmates and workers as the “rape club.”

The action coincided with the ouster of the new warden from the federal correctional institution in Dublin. Warden Art Dulgov — just a few months into his tenure — and three other top managers were removed from their positions Monday by the federal Bureau of Prisons. Dulgov was the third new leader of the low-security prison since Warden Ray T. Garcia, who, along with more than half a dozen employees, was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple women serving time there.

Dulgov and staff are accused of retaliating against an inmate who testified in January in a class-action lawsuit that alleges “horrific abuse and exploitation” at the prison, with rampant sexual assault of incarcerated persons, according to a court filing.

The developments are the latest twist in a years-long scandal surrounding the facility. Since an FBI investigation was launched and resulted in arrests in 2021, eight FCI Dublin employees have been charged with sexually abusing inmates. Five have pleaded guilty, and two have been convicted by juries. Another employee is slated to go on trial this year.

Last year, Garcia was sentenced to 70 months in prison for sexually abusing incarcerated women and lying to the FBI as part of a cover-up.

Keep reading

FBI sent several informants to Standing Rock protests, court documents show

Up to 10 informants managed by the FBI were embedded in anti-pipeline resistance camps near the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation at the height of mass protests against the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016. The new details about federal law enforcement surveillance of an Indigenous environmental movement were released as part of a legal fight between North Dakota and the federal government over who should pay for policing the pipeline fight. Until now, the existence of only one other federal informant in the camps had been confirmed. 

The FBI also regularly sent agents wearing civilian clothing into the camps, one former agent told Grist in an interview. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or BIA, operated undercover narcotics officers out of the reservation’s Prairie Knights Casino, where many pipeline opponents rented rooms, according to one of the depositions. 

The operations were part of a wider surveillance strategy that included drones, social media monitoring, and radio eavesdropping by an array of state, local, and federal agencies, according to attorneys’ interviews with law enforcement. The FBI infiltration fits into a longer history in the region. In the 1970s, the FBI infiltrated the highest levels of the American Indian Movement, or AIM. 

The Indigenous-led uprising against Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access oil pipeline drew thousands of people seeking to protect water, the climate, and Indigenous sovereignty. For seven months, participants protested to stop construction of the pipeline and were met by militarized law enforcement, at times facing tear gas, rubber bullets, and water hoses in below-freezing weather.

Keep reading

Feds Enforcing Unconstitutional Reporting Law Against Most Businesses

Early this month, a federal judge in Alabama held the Corporate Transparency Act unconstitutional and granted plaintiffs in a lawsuit summary judgment against enforcement of the wide-reaching law, which went into effect this year. For many Americans this raises the questions: “What in hell is the Corporate Transparency Act? Does it affect me?” The quick answer is that it’s a big deal, and if you own an incorporated business, you’ll probably still suffer its intrusive requirements even after the ruling.

“When Congress passed the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, it included a bill called the Corporate Transparency Act (‘CTA’). Although the CTA made up just over 21 pages of the NDAA’s nearly 1,500-page total, the law packs a significant regulatory punch, requiring most entities incorporated under State law to disclose personal stakeholder information to the Treasury Department’s criminal enforcement arm,” Judge Liles C. Burke of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s Northeastern Division handily summarized in this month’s ruling.

Large businesses are exempt; the law applies to companies with 20 or fewer employees.

Justifications for the law laid out in early versions of the legislation invoked a laundry list of alleged financial horribles including money laundering and tax evasion. The word terrorism appears, too, of course, because that has been the lazy, default justification for legislation for 20-plus years. Basically, the law is targeted at anything that might involve a modicum of financial privacy.

To that end, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) set up an online reporting system through which business owners “are required to report information to FinCEN about the individuals who ultimately own or control them.” FinCEN started compiling reports for such “beneficial ownership information” (BOI) on January 1, 2024 with a deadline for compliance of January 1, 2025, or 30 days after creation for companies registered following that date.

Keep reading