Tag: wrongthink

“GAY FURRY HACKERS” CLAIM CREDIT FOR HACKING HERITAGE FOUNDATION FILES OVER PROJECT 2025

SIEGEDSEC, A COLLECTIVE of self-proclaimed “gay furry hackers,” has claimed credit for breaching online databases of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that spearheaded the right-wing Project 2025 playbook. SiegedSec released a cache of Heritage Foundation material as part of a string of hacks aimed at organizations that oppose transgender rights, although Heritage disputed that its own systems were breached.

In a post to Telegram announcing the hack, SiegedSec called Project 2025 “an authoritarian Christian nationalist plan to reform the United States government.” The attack was part of the group’s #OpTransRights campaign, which recently targeted right-wing media outlet Real America’s Voice, the Hillsong megachurch, and a Minnesota pastor.

In his foreword to the Project 2025 manifesto, the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, rails against “the toxic normalization of transgenderism” and “the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology.” The playbook’s other contributors call on “the next conservative administration” to roll back certain policies, including allowing trans people to serve in the military.

“We’re strongly against Project 2025 and everything the Heritage Foundation stands for,” one of SiegedSec’s leaders, who goes by the handle “vio,” told The Intercept.

In its Telegram post, SiegedSec said it obtained passwords and other user information for “every user” of a Heritage Foundation database, including Roberts and some U.S. government employees. Heritage Foundation said in statement Wednesday that SiegedSec only obtained incomplete password information.

The remainder of more than 200GB of files the hackers obtained were “mostly useless,” SiegedSec said.

Keep reading

Three Columbia deans permanently removed over disparaging texts containing ‘antisemitic tropes’

Three Columbia University deans have been “permanently removed” from their posts for sharing “very troubling” texts that “disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes,” school officials said Monday.

The three administrators — Susan Chang-Kim, Matthew Patashnick and Cristen Kromm — have been on leave since last month since it emerged they’d been involved in the disparaging text exchange that unfolded during a panel discussion about antisemitism on campus.

“This incident revealed behavior and sentiments that were not only unprofessional, but also, disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes,” Columbia president Minouche Shafik said in a statement.

“Whether intended as such or not, these sentiments are unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community that is antithetical to our university’s values and the standards we must uphold in our community.”

Provost Angela Olinto said that “the three staff members involved have been permanently removed from their positions at Columbia College and remain on leave at this time.” It was not immediately clear what their current status was on staff.

Keep reading

A Law Professor’s Beef With a First Amendment ‘Spinning Out of Control’: Too Much Speech of the Wrong Sort

“The First Amendment is spinning out of control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns in a New York Times essay. While Wu ostensibly objects to Supreme Court decisions that he thinks have interpreted freedom of speech too broadly, his complaint amounts to a rejection of the premise that the principle should be applied consistently, especially when it benefits speakers and messages he does not like.

The immediate provocation for Wu’s diatribe is yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions in two cases challenging Florida and Texas laws that aimed to restrict content moderation on social media. Although the justices remanded both cases for further consideration by the lower courts, Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion in Moody v. NetChoice made it clear that the “editorial discretion” protected by the First Amendment extends to the choices that social media platforms make in deciding which content to host and how to present it, even when those decisions are inconsistent, biased, or arguably unfair. And that discretion, she said, includes the use of algorithms that reflect such value judgments.

Although Wu has reservations about “the wisdom and questionable constitutionality of the Florida and Texas laws,” he thinks “the breadth of the court’s reasoning should serve as a wake-up call.” He faults the justices for “blithely assuming” that “algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.” The ruling, Wu says, reflects a broader trend in which “liberal as well as conservative judges and justices have extended the First Amendment to protect nearly anything that can be called ‘speech,’ regardless of its value or whether the speaker is a human or a corporation.”

As Wu sees it, freedom of speech should hinge on the “value” of the ideas that people express. It is hard to imagine a broader license for government censorship.

Keep reading

Boy, 12, is referred to counter-extremist Prevent officers by his own school after declaring there ‘are only two genders’ and ‘I’m gay not queer’

A 12-year-old schoolboy has been investigated by counter-extremism officers after he declared there ‘are only two genders’.

The child made a video, posted online, in which he also stated: ‘There’s no such thing as non-binary’.

And in response to school bullies who mistakenly believed he supported transgender ideology, he said: ‘[I’m] gay not queer.’

Originally a homophobic slur, trans activists claim the word ‘queer’ now describes people who don’t adhere to ideas of sex or gender.

But the school told the boy’s mother they would refer him to Prevent, the Home Office programme that attempts to stop people becoming terrorists, amid fears he could be at risk of being radicalised by the far-right.

The Mail is aware of the boy’s identity but has agreed not to disclose it, and has also viewed the social media posts.

The boy’s mother was visited by Prevent and Northumbria Police officers this week, in a meeting she described as ‘an interrogation’.

Officers listed a string of allegations to illustrate the boy was at risk of radicalisation.

The boy’s mother said: ‘We think that he was targeted as the children believe gay people agree with trans ideology.

‘He made a video which I uploaded to YouTube where he said there ‘are only two genders’ and ‘I’m gay not queer’.

‘The school phoned up and were incensed by it. They said that they would refer him to Prevent for that video.

‘They said that he was at risk of radicalisation – not that he had been, but was a risk when he gets to 13 and is entitled to his own social media accounts.

Keep reading

German Politician Hit With Hate Crime Investigation For Demanding Migrant Criminals Be Deported

A CDU politician in Germany is under investigation for hate crimes after he reacted to a knife attack by an Afghan migrant by calling for the expulsion of foreign criminals from the country.

On the opening day of the Euro 2024 football tournament, a knife-wielding Afghan migrant went on a stabbing spree in Wolmirstedt which left one person dead and multiple others injured.

Detlef Gürth, a state lawmaker for the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Saxony-Anhalt, reacted by posting on X, “This pack has to get out of Germany.”

And that was literally it.

That’s all he said before subsequently deleting the tweet.

However, it was enough for left-wing state politician Henriette Quade to file a criminal complaint against Gürth for allegedly committing a hate crime, which is now being investigated by the Halle public prosecutor’s office

“The description of Afghans as a ‘pack’ who are denied the right to live in Germany is an insult to parts of the population,” Quade ludicrously claimed.

“Those designated in this way are denied their basic right to life as equal individuals in the community and their human dignity is thus attacked. Furthermore, the post cannot be interpreted with any understanding other than that all Afghans living in the country are (potential) murderers. The post also incites hatred against parts of the population,” she added.

Gürth was clearly referring to migrants who engage in violence, not all Afghans, but his relatively tame comment was reported to authorities anyway in another stunning example of how many in the German political establishment are more concerned about not hurting the feelings of migrants than they are stopping the wave of migrant-driven violence that has plagued the country for years.

Keep reading

US Army Revises Standards On Prohibited Extremist Activity

The U.S. Army issued new, more specific guidance on Wednesday to address extremism within its ranks and ensure disciplinary action against those who engage with or promote extremist views.

Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth signed off on a pair of memos, published on June 26, that refine how the service will handle protests and extremist or gang activity within the ranks, and report suspected prohibited behavior. One memo a directive for “Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities“ and the other is a directive for ”Reporting Prohibited Activities.”

The memo on Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities states that prohibited activity within the Army can include distributing extremist materials online. This new Army memo reinforces a policy approach articulated by the U.S. Department of Defense in a November 2021 memo, which states that “an action taken to replicate content from one online location to another” can qualify as distributing extremist content online. The new Army memo now states the prohibited online distribution of extremist activity can include liking, sharing, and “re-tweeting” said content.

“Military personnel are responsible for the content they publish on all personal and public internet domains, including social media platforms, blogs, websites, and applications,” the memo states.

The Army’s existing policy, updated in July of 2020, had previously said prohibited online conduct could include “hazing, bullying, harassment, discriminatory harassment, stalking, retaliation, or any other types of misconduct that undermines dignity and respect” but was less specific about online extremist activity, stating only that “military personnel must reject participation in extremist organizations and associated cyber activities.”

The new memo on Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities also states soldiers who “knowingly” display paraphernalia, words, or symbols in support of extremist activity, including on flags, clothing, tattoos, and bumper stickers—whether on or off a military installation—can run afoul of the Army’s prohibitions on extremist behavior.

Keep reading

Welsh Police Pay Home Visit to Man For Displaying Reform UK Political Sign

A video shows Welsh police visiting a man’s home because he displayed a Reform UK political sign on the wall, despite this being a completely normal sight during election season.

Voice of Wales posted a clip to X showing an officer at the man’s house talking about how “concerns” had been expressed about the sign and that he needed to take a photo of it.

The officer also took a photo of another Lest We Forget Flag that is sometimes displayed outside homes to honor Britain’s war dead.

Apparently, such signs are apparently offensive and worthy of police investigation based on a single complaint, despite the fact that people in the UK routinely display signs of parties they support outside their homes during election season.

Such “concerns” were deemed a potential threat despite the fact that, according to polls, around 15-20 per cent of the British population is set to vote for Reform UK in the national election on July 4th.

According to Voice of Wales, the complaint was made by the charity which who owns the house next door, which is set to be turned into accommodation for asylum seekers (economic migrants).

As part of its manifesto, Reform UK has pledged to drastically cut mass migration and stop the flow of small boats containing illegal immigrants entering Britain.

This is by no means the only example of Brits receiving home visits from police over their political views.

Keep reading

The U.S. Power Structure is Blindly Dedicated to Israel

Recently there was an important event at Columbia Law School. The school’s law review published a piece on a sweeping legal theory of the Nakba by Harvard law student Rabea Eghbariah — and the board of the law review stepped in in unprecedented fashion to shut down the publication online. After the Intercept reported that the website had been “nuked,” the authoritarian move became an embarrassment; and the piece was restored. Though students obviously feel chilled.

This story reminds us that the U.S. establishment is firmly and blindly pro-Israel. The board that squashed the students included operators of the highest order: professor Gillian Metzger, who also serves in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; Justice Department senior counsel Lewis Yelin; and Ginger Anders, a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.

We used to call people like this the ruling class. These high appointees understand what American values are, and today American values are standing by Israel even as it massacres thousands of children. These values surely have to do with the importance of Zionist donors to Joe Biden and universities, but they go beyond that to the makeup of the U.S. establishment. Pro-Israel voices — including Jewish Zionists — are a significant element of corporate culture. They are a generational force. Young progressives and young Jews are rejecting Israel. But they aren’t in the power structure.

One of the most telling stories about the establishment came and went last November. Two dozen leading law firms sent a letter to the leading law schools, including Harvard and Columbia, saying that they would not hire students from law schools that failed to crack down on antisemitism. And one of those firms, Davis Polk, rescinded job offers to three students who had taken part in pro-Palestinian protests. The letter said:

“We look to you to ensure your students who hope to join our firms after graduation are prepared to be an active part of workplace communities that have zero tolerance policies for any form of discrimination or harassment, much less the kind that has been taking place on some law school campuses.”

A partner at Sullivan & Cromwell told the New York Times that Jewish students feel “actually scared,” “threatened,” and “betrayed.” 

The letter was a shot across the bow of prestige schools well before Congress brought down the boom on the Harvard and Penn presidents in December. After all, the function of these schools — the reason young people clamor to get into them — is to gain employment in prestigious jobs upon graduation.

Just a week after the letter — shockingly — Columbia suspended the Palestinian solidarity groups Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).

The law firms’ letter was “spearheaded,” the firm Paul, Weiss bragged at the time, by two Jewish chairs at two white-shoe firms (Joe Shenker, former chair of Sullivan and Cromwell, and Brad Karp, current chair at Paul, Weiss).

The letter was published at a time when many corporate leaders were issuing condemnations of the Hamas attack on Israel. Paul, Weiss chair Brad Karp explained to the Times that he was disappointed that more leaders weren’t doing so — and that being for Israel was no different than other great progressive causes, civil rights and women’s rights included.

Keep reading

Bankruptcy Trustee to Shut Down Infowars, Liquidate Its Assets to Pay Sandy Hook Families

A bankruptcy trustee on Sunday filed an emergency motion to shut down Infowars and Alex Jones’ parent company Free Speech Systems and liquidate its assets to pay the Sandy Hook families.

Earlier this month a federal judge ordered the liquidation of Alex Jones’ personal assets.

Judge Christopher Lopez approved Alex Jones’ request to convert a Chapter 11 business reorganization bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy.

However, a couple of weeks ago the judge dismissed the bankruptcy reorganization of Infowars and its parent company Free Speech Systems.

Legal experts said the Sandy Hook families could go back to the bankruptcy court and demand Alex Jones liquidate his company to pay off the Sandy Hook debt.

On Sunday the bankruptcy trustee said he intends to conduct an “orderly wind down” of Alex Jones’ media company.

Keep reading

Wales Moves Forward With Plan To Punish Politicians For Telling Lies

Will Rogers once said that “if you ever injected truth into politics, you’d have no politics.” In Wales, it appears that the government is challenging that assessment. However, if the new legislation criminalizing political lies is successful, the Welsh are likely to find themselves with the same abundance of lies but little free speech.

A proposal in the Welsh parliament (or the Senedd) would make it the first country in the world to impose criminal sanctions for lying politicians. Adam Price, the former leader of the liberal Plaid Cymru Party is pushing for the criminalization, citing a “credibility gap” in UK politics.

Astonishingly, this uniquely bad idea has received support from a key committee. Once on track for adoption, this is the type of law that can become self-propelling through the legislature. Few politicians want to go on record voting against a law banning political lies. The free speech implications are easily lost in the coverage.

The new law would make it a criminal offense for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. There is a six-month period for challenges to be brought.

The law allows a defense that a statement could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. If guilty, the politician would be disqualified from being a Senedd member.

The defense is hardly helpful.

It creates an uncertainty as to which statements would be deemed an opinion and which would be treated as a statement of fact. It invites selective and biased prosecutions. After all, what does it mean to accuse a politician of trying to “mislead” the public?

Keep reading