While many have condemned Antifa and similar groups for destroying Minneapolis and other cities, Minneapolis city council member for Ward 5 (and son of the Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison) Jeremiah Ellison tweeted Sunday that he is not among them. Indeed, he is declaring his support for Antifa. Some of us have long opposed Antifa as a vehemently anti-free speech group. Ellison does not seem to include free speech among his priorities for voters in Ward 5.
Ellison tweeted:
“I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA,” Ellison said. “Unless someone can prove to me ANTIFA is behind the burning of black and immigrant owned businesses in my ward, I’ll keep focusing on stopping the white power terrorist THE ARE ACTUALLY ATTACKING US!”
I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA
Unless someone can prove to me ANTIFA is behind the burning of black and immigrant owned businesses in my ward, I’ll keep focusing on stopping the white power terrorist THE ARE ACTUALLY ATTACKING US! https://t.co/m6jxtDYmTi
I have opposed the President’s declaration that Antifa will be designated a terrorist organization. However, it is baffling to see a city council member embracing this violent group as his own city is burned and looted.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3cq6yRL Tyler Durden
Watch Live: White House Press Secretary Holds First Briefing After Weekend Of Chaos Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 13:55
Update (1425ET): The press conference has begun (20 mins late, as per usual) and the headlines (and tweets) are rolling in:
GOVERNORS MUST ACT, DEPLOY NATIONAL GUARD AS FITS, MCENANY SAYS
TRUMP IS DEMANDING ACTION TO PROTECT CITIZENS, MCENANY SAYS
WHITE HOUSE SAYS THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL ‘FEDERAL ASSETS’ DEPLOYED ACROSS NATION IN RESPONSE TO VIOLENT PROTESTS
‘WE’RE LOOKING AT EVERY TOOL IN THE FEDERAL TOOLKIT’
WHITE HOUSE SAYS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS ‘AMPLE EVIDENCE’ THAT ANTIFA BEHIND VIOLENCE AT PROTESTS
UTILIZING NATIONAL GUARD WAS TOPIC OF CALL WITH GOVERNORS
Asked what the president is doing about the death of George Floyd, @PressSec replies there’s a federal civil rights investigation” but can’t allow antifa to carry out violence in its wake.
Trump’s tweets purportedly calling for police to embrace more violent tactics have aggravated his critics, while many of his supporters largely stood by him as officials who started the weekend blaming white supremacists and “foreign influence” for the devastation in their cities eventually pleaded with “anarchists” and “violent hooligans” commingling with “peaceful demonstrators” for most of the violence.
JUST IN: President Trump unloads on the nation’s governors on a call, calls on them to step up enforcement: “You have to dominate, if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate.”
“Go Big”: BET’s Billionaire Founder Calls For $14 Trillion In Reparations For Slavery Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 13:45
At a moment major American cities are loosing hundreds of millions by the day in rampant destruction during nightly George Floyd protests, the man celebrated as the nation’s first black billionaire has called for trillions in ‘reparations’ for slavery.
“Wealth transfer is what’s needed,” 74-year old Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET) said in a CNBC interview Monday. “Think about this. Since 200-plus-years or so of slavery, labor taken with no compensation, is a wealth transfer. Denial of access to education, which is a primary driver of accumulation of income and wealth, is a wealth transfer.”
Though no longer on the Forbes billionaires list following the 2001 sale of BET to Viacom for a whopping nearly $3 billion, Johnson is currently estimated to be worth over $600 million. Perhaps this is why he wants to “go big” in terms of a figure: he said the US federal government should pay out $14 trillion in reparations, or “damages that are owed” as he put it.
BET founder Robert Johnson with then President-elect Trump in 2016, via AP.
He described what would in effect be the “affirmative action program of all time”:
“Damages is a normal factor in a capitalist society for when you have been deprived for certain rights,” he said. “If this money goes into pockets like the [coronavirus] stimulus checks… that money is going to return back to the economy” in the form of consumption. There will also be more black-owned businesses, he added.
Though not the first time he’s issued a provocative call for massive reparations for the historic evil of slavery in America, the timing comes at a moment events rapidly escalated from ‘peaceful protests’ last week to full-on riots and mass mayhem, where the purpose among some seems to be to unleash as much destruction and chaos as possible as fast as can be accomplished.
“Now is the time to go big.” BET founder Robert Johnson calls for “full and complete” reparations for descendants of slaves. pic.twitter.com/6CoR51OIXL
We doubt federal authorities, or the majority of Congressional leaders, will seriously consider handing out ‘reparations payments’ anytime soon, considering buildings and entire city streets are on fire, as large-scale looting continues in a surge of “everything’s free! mentality, to the frustration of many activists.
Even national monuments in D.C. are reportedly under threat by vandalizing mobs. And in some cities, both black-owned businesses as well as even civil rights-related sites and museums have not escaped unscathed.
Proof that the looters don’t care about racial justice. They just vandalized the International Civil Rights Museum in Greensboro, NC. This is where the “Greensboro 4” started the desegregation movement in NC with a peaceful sit-in protest. See: https://t.co/nWaBg7aDZLpic.twitter.com/MbuMBcZDnB
And as a case in point of the contradictory and chaotic aims of the street demonstrations, a local NBC affiliate confirmed that in Greensboro, North Carolina the International Civil Rights Center and Museum was vandalized.
Meanwhile BET founder Johnson stressed further in the Monday interview:
“I’m talking about cash. We are a society based on wealth. That’s the foundation of capitalism.”
This also as following the first round of coronavirus stimulus check payments paid out directly to American by the IRS, a Democratic Congressional push for further and larger payments has been stalled.
Some analysts have theorized that if the helicopter money dries up, people will further take to the streets. That could be a key element behind some of the chaotic mayhem being unleashed now.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TU7cR9 Tyler Durden
On Friday afternoon, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell did a Q&A session with Princeton economist Alan Blinder. Powell admitted that the central bank had “crossed a lot of red lines,” but insisted he was comfortable with the actions given “this is that situation in which you do that, and you figure it out afterward.”
In his podcast, Peter Schiff called it the Nancy Pelosi version of monetary policy. “We need to print the money to see where it goes.”
Binder asked Powell if there is any limit to how much the Fed’s balance sheet can grow. Powell said he wasn’t concerned and the balance sheet has a long way to go. Peter said if Powell really believes there is no limit to the size of the balance sheet — that is a very scary thought. It means there is no limit to the depths to which the dollar can plunge.
That’s all Powell is doing is inflation. He is inflating the money supply. That is the definition of inflation. Expand the money supply. That is what Powell is doing.”
But Powell is not concerned. He’s worried about falling prices.
So, the furthest thing from Powell’s mind is a problem with consumer prices going up. … He thinks he can keep on inflating and there’s nothing to worry about because prices aren’t going to rise. And that is just absurd. I mean, they’re already rising. There are plenty of prices that are going up.”
Of course, there are some prices that have gone down. But they’re not going to stay down. When you have a demand collapse as we’ve seen with the COVID-19 lockdowns, you will naturally have some contraction in prices. But as inventories deplete and production capacity falls, the glut of merchandise disappears and prices readjust back upward.
That’s when the effect of all the new money is going to be hitting consumer prices. That lag, you’re going to see all this money arriving just as all the goods have diminished, the supply of goods to buy. So, the fact that Powell is not at all worried about inflation despite the fact that he’s creating so much of it — that’s why you should be buying gold and silver.”
As far as “crossing red lines,” Peter said Powell’s overall message was basically to act blindly, hope for the best, and then see what happens. He said it reminded him of Nancy Pelosi’s famous words, “We’ve got to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”
That’s basically what Powell is doing with monetary policy. We’ll just print the money, and then we’ll see where it goes. Who cares? Because things are just so bad that we might as well just do this.”
Peter said Powell is basically treating the economy like a terminally ill patient who is going to die anyway. Just try anything.
Things are so bad that it doesn’t even matter if the cure kills us because we’re going to die anyway.”
Powell continued to insist the Fed wasn’t planning on negative interest rates. Peter said it doesn’t matter what they’re planning on; it’s all about what they’re going to do.
I think if the market demands it, then the Fed will supply it.”
Powell said he was reluctant to try negative rates because there is no proof they work.
Well, there’s no proof that zero works either, and we’re at zero.”
In fact, Powell is sending mixed messages because he’s already told us he’s just going to figure it out after the fact. Why demand proof for negative rates?
So, I don’t believe Powell when he says he’s not going to do something just because there’s no proof that it works. I mean, the reason that central banks do this is not because it works. It’s because they’re desperate, and they know if they don’t do it, there’s going to be a crisis. So, they do it even if that means there’s a bigger crisis later on.”
Peter said the real question is the efficacy of central bank policy to begin with. If you cut to zero and you still need more stimulus, “maybe what you’re doing ain’t working.”
Maybe the fact that you had to bring rates down to zero, and you still have a problem, means that cutting rates is not the solution to that problem. In fact, maybe it’s the rate cuts that are perpetuating the problem. Maybe we wouldn’t have a problem but for rates going down. In fact, had the Fed let rates go up, that would have actually solved the problem. Maybe it would have been a painful cure, but it would have worked. But just giving a drug addict more drugs in ever-increasing doses, which is all the Fed is doing, that’s never going to work.”
In this podcast, Peter also talked about the rally in gold and silver, economic data, Mark Cuban’s view on printing money, Goldman Sachs and bitcoin, and Trump’s war of words with China.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gLoCcg Tyler Durden
“Most Of You Are Weak”: Trump Slams Governors Following Violent Weekend Riots Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 13:05
President Trump slammed governors in Democrat-run states as “weak,” after nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd turned into violent riots.
“Most of you are weak,” Trump told the nation’s governors during a Monday morning phone call – while Attorney General Bill Barr, who was on the call, advised them to “dominate” the situation and “take back your streets,” according to AP, citing multiple sources familiar with the call.
The president told the governors they were making themselves “look like fools” for not calling up more of the National Guard as a show for force on city streets.
Attorney General Bill Barr, who was also on the call, told governors that a joint terrorist task force would be used to track the agitators and urged local officials to “dominate” the streets and control, not react to crowds, and urged them to “go after troublemakers.”
Trump’s comments come as images of smouldering cities followed a night of escalating violence, looting and clashes with the police – for which he has come under increasing pressure from both sides to deliver a formal address. So far, Trump has responded with a flurry of tweets over the weekend blaming the demonstrators, the press, and slamming former VP Joe Biden and his staff for donating money to bail out rioters in Minneapolis.
“These were the people that trashed Seattle years ago. Who’s paying for these people. I was appalled that 13 of Joe Biden’s staff were donating money to bail people out in Minneapolis. They should have stayed in jail until this is over (and beyond).” @newtgingrich@foxandfriends
The Lamestream Media is doing everything within their power to foment hatred and anarchy. As long as everybody understands what they are doing, that they are FAKE NEWS and truly bad people with a sick agenda, we can easily work through them to GREATNESS!
According to AP, “Trump’s advisers discussed the prospect of an Oval Office address in an attempt to ease tensions. The notion was quickly scrapped for lack of policy proposals and the president’s own seeming disinterest in delivering a message of unity.”
During Monday’s call, Trump told the governors: “You’ve got to arrest people, you have to track people, you have to put them in jail for 10 years and you’ll never see this stuff again.“
The president also urged governors to deploy the National Guard, which he commended for keeping the peace in Minneapolis Sunday night – suggesting that the same should be done in New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Mpg6BL Tyler Durden
“The Fed Did It” – Riots Across America Are About More Than George Floyd Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 12:50
As we detailed last night, what’s happening to America right now: rioting, looting, pillaging, Americans fighting other Americans and while the media is spinning self-serving narratives that frame the bad guy as Trump, or China, or Russia, or this political party, or that, or some social movement, hides the truth that the culprit behind the upcoming collapse of the US is just one thing, the same one that Thomas Jefferson warned the brand new nation about more than two centuries ago:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”
And as RealInvestmentAdvice.com’s Lance Roberts notes,while the murder of George Floyd was both unjust and tragic, his death was the catalyst that lit a powder keg of dissension, which has simmered beneath the headlines for over a decade.
While we focus on events that fill our media streams, it is worth remembering Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Manuel Diez, Kimini Gray, and Michael Brown. These events, and many others throughout history, show civil unrest has deeper roots. Pew Research made a note of this in 2017:
“The U.S. economy is in much better shape now than it was in the aftermath of the Great Recession. It cost millions of Americans, their homes, and jobs. It led him to push through a roughly $800 billion stimulus package as one of his first business orders. Since then, unemployment has plummeted from 10% in late 2009 to below 5% today, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has more than doubled.
But by some measures, the country faces serious economic challenges: A steady hollowing of the middle class and income inequality reached its highest point since 1928.”
Look at the faces of those rioting. They are of every race, religion, and creed. What they all have in common is they are of the demographic most impacted by the current economic recession. Job losses, income destruction, financial pressures, and debt create tension in the system until it explodes.
It has been the same in every economy throughout history. While the rich eat cake, the rest beg on street corners for scraps. Eventually, those most disenfranchised and oppressed storm the castle walls with “pitchforks and torches.”
“As the coronavirus pandemic continues to pummel the economy, many Americans are decreasing their retirement contributions, but some are raiding their retirement accounts to pay for essentials. A new survey found 3-in-10 Americans dipped into the funds meant for their golden years — and the majority of those who have done so spent their nest egg on groceries.”
America was not prepared financially for the downturn caused by the pandemic. They are angry, financially stressed, and the visible face of their ire has become Wall Street and the Fed.
Since the “Financial Crisis,” the role of the Federal Reserve shifted from its dual mandate of “full employment” and “price stability” to a seeming inclusion of a “third mandate” supporting consumer confidence via the inflation of asset prices. As Ben Bernanke stated in 2010:
“This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose, and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action.
Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending.”
Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way.
Unintended Consequences
As with all things, there are always the unintended consequences which follow. For the vast majority of Americans:
Housing did not become more affordable.
Wall Street bought massive numbers of homes at distressed prices and went into the landlord business, which led to a rise in home prices.
Many Americans, still recovering from the “Financial Crisis” were unable to obtain financing.
For many others, affordability due to suppressed wage growth was the issue.
Lower corporate bond rates didn’t lead to more investment, but rather increased share repurchases which benefited “C-Suite” executives at the expense of the working class.
Instead, as discussed previously, the Fed’s policies led to a growing divergence between the stock market and the economy. To wit:
“The one lesson that we have clearly learned since the 2008 “Great Financial Crisis,” is that monetary and fiscal policy interventions do not lead to increased levels of economic wealth or prosperity. What these programs have done, is act as a wealth transfer system from the bottom 90% to the top 10%.
Since 2008 there have been rising calls for socialistic policies such as universal basic incomes, increased social welfare, and even a two-time candidate for President who was a self-admitted socialist.
Such things would not occur if “prosperity” was flourishing within the economy. “
This is simply because the stock market is not the economy.
Stocks Are Not The Economy
The Fed’s interventions and suppressed interest rates have continued to have the opposite effect of which was intended. I have shown the following chart below previously to illustrate this point.
From Jan 1st, 2009 through the end of March, the stock market rose by an astounding 159%, or roughly 14% annualized. With such a large gain in the financial markets, one would expect a commensurate growth rate in the economy.
After 3-massive Federal Reserve driven “Quantitative Easing” programs, a maturity extension program, bailouts of TARP, TGLP, TGLF, etc., HAMP, HARP, direct bailouts of Bear Stearns, AIG, GM, bank supports, etc., all of which totaled more than $33 Trillion, cumulative real economic growth was just 5.48%.
While monetary interventions are supposed to be supporting economic growth through increases in consumer confidence, the outcome has been quite different.
Low, to zero, interest rates have incentivized non-productive debt, and exacerbated the wealth gap. The massive increases in debt has actually harmed growth by diverting consumptive spending to debt service.
“The rise in debt, which in the last decade was used primarily to fill the gap between incomes and the cost of living, has contributed to the retardation of economic growth.”
Financial Shortcomings
The recent economic downtown caused by the pandemic has once again exposed the financial weakness that plagues the broader economy. The report by MagnifyMoney shows nearly 50% of Americans made changes to their plans within the first month of the pandemic for basic necessities.
What this tells you is that individuals could not survive more than ONE MONTH before tapping retirement savings. But what about the 50-60% of individuals that didn’t have a plan to start with?
“A 2018 report from the non-profit National Institute on Retirement Security which found that nearly 60% of all working-age Americans do not own assets in a retirement account.”
Here are some findings from that report:
Account ownership rates are closely correlated with income and wealth. More than 100 million working-age individuals (57 percent) do not own any retirement account assets, whether in an employer-sponsored 401(k)-type plan or an IRA nor are they covered by defined benefit (DB) pensions.
The typical working-age American has no retirement savings. When all working individuals are included—not just individuals with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $0 among all working individuals. Even among workers who have accumulated savings in retirement accounts, the typical worker had a modest account balance of $40,000.
Three-fourths (77 percent) of Americans fall short of conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income based on working until age 67 even after counting an individual’s entire net worth—a generous measure of retirement savings.
Read those finding again.
If we use a more optimistic number of 50%, then 50% of American workers did not have the ability to tap additional “savings” to offset financial hardships during the pandemic.
It’s no wonder they are in the streets rioting.
Only The Few
While the “savings rate” suggests that individuals are “hoarding money” due to the downturn, the reality is quite different. If American’s had savings they would not be tapping into 401k plans and begging for checks. However, Deutsche Bank recently showed the savings rate for 90% of Americans is negative.
This is far different than the Governmental statistics suggesting the average American is saving 33% of their income.
In actuality, if you aren’t in the “Top 20%” of income earners, you probably aren’t saving much, if any, money.
The problem for the Fed is their own policies are what created the “wealth gap” to begin with. As noted by the WSJ.
“As of December 2019—before the shutdowns—households in the bottom 20% of incomes had seen their financial assets, such as money in the bank, stock and bond investments or retirement funds, fall by 34% since the end of the 2007-09 recession, according to Fed data adjusted for inflation. Those in the middle of the income distribution have seen just 4% growth.” – WSJ
This isn’t surprising. A recent research report by BCA confirms one of the causes of the rising wealth gap in the U.S. The top-10% of income earners owns 88% of the stock market, while the bottom-90% owns just 12%.
The Fed Did It
The lack of economic improvement is clearly evident across all demographic classes. However, it has been the very policies of the Federal Reserve which created a wealth transfer mechanism from the poor to the rich. The ongoing interventions by the Federal Reserve propelled asset prices higher, but left the majority of American families behind.
The problem is the Fed has become trapped by its policies, and consequently, started taking direction from Wall Street. Such has led the Federal Reserve to become a “hostage” of its own making.
If the Fed removes any monetary accommodation, the market declines. The Fed is forced to subsequently increase support for the financial markets, which exacerbates the wealth gap.
It’s a virtual spiral from which the Fed can not extricate itself. It’s a great system if you are rich and have money invested. Not so much if you are any one else.
As we are witnessing, the United States is not immune to social disruptions. The source of these problems is compounding due to the public’s failure to appreciate “why” it is happening.
Eventually, as has repeatedly occurred throughout history, the riots will turn their focus toward those in power.
That, as they say, is when “s*** gets real.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XWeiWC Tyler Durden
Gun Stocks Shoot Higher After Weekend Of Chaos Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/01/2020 – 12:30
Stocks of gunmakers and law-enforcement related equipment jumped on Monday after this weekend’s violent nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd, a black Minneapolis man who died after a white police officer pinned him on the ground by his neck for over eight minutes.
Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson were both up over 10% in early trading, with the latter spiking nearly 30% at first print vs. Friday’s close.
The spike comes as armed residents of upscale Bellevue, WA were seen defending their neighborhood.
BELLEVUE AND SEATTLE PROTEST. These people have multiple guns. They are shouting “GO HOME AND BE SAFE! “ What do you think? #BLM#BLMPROTESTpic.twitter.com/8xX5zp4QQL
Related industries shot higher as well on Monday, including law-enforcement providers ShotSpotter, Vista Outdoor, Sportsman’s Warehouse Holdings, body-cam maker Digital Ally, Inc., and nonlethal restraint company Wrap Technologies, Inc.
And with word that Antifa is planning to invade the suburbs next (the last tweet before one of their primary accounts was suspended), ADT home security stock is spiking as well – up more than 12% as of this writing.
Meanwhile, here’s a chart of the latest FBI background check information, which will be updated later today. Anyone care to guess what the next leg will look like?
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2zREHwr Tyler Durden
What happens when media outlets are held legally liable for defamatory comments visitors post to their Facebook pages? Australians (and the rest of us) may soon find out. The Court of Appeal for New South Wales has just dismissed an attempt by several Australian media outlets to overturn a 2019 ruling that they could be held liable for Facebook comments about Dylan Voller.
In 2016, a television program aired footage of Voller shackled in a restraining chair. The coverage led to a national outrage about the mistreatment of youth in Australian detention systems. Voller then sued some of the media outlets that covered him—not because the news reports defamed him, but because other people writing on the outlets’ Facebook pages were accusing him of having committed various crimes.
Australian courts have not yet ruled on whether these comments defamed Voller. This fight is about whether media outlets could even be sued for Facebook comments.
The outlets argue that they’re not the “publishers” of what people say on Facebook and, in fact, that Facebook does not let them preemptively stop individual readers from posting comments on their page. They do have the option to delete, hide, or report individual comments, but only after they’ve been posted. Facebook comments are not like letters to the editor that they can choose whether or not to run.
But the fact that these outlets have the ability to delete comments after the fact was enough for Judge John Basten to declare them publishers: “They facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory.” Based on that logic, the media outlets “facilitated” the posting of comments simply by sharing the articles on Facebook.
Another judge suggested that a potential solution would be to use filtering tools that recognize certain trigger words and hide those comments automatically. This “solution” means the media would have to censor content on the basis of certain words appearing in the comment and not because the comment itself was defamatory.
If this ruling stands, it’s going to force Australian media outlets to monitor all comments and beef up their social media teams at a time when they’re having to lay off staff and even shut down newspapers.
“It’s a big challenge to the business model of publishers, because it means there is a greater risk any time you create content which is in any way controversial,” the Australian defamation lawyer Michael Douglas toldThe Wall Street Journal. “There is a risk that users will write something objectionable, which will open up the entity behind the account to being sued for defamation.” The Guardianreports that the media outlets are thinking of asking Australia’s Supreme Court to consider the case.
Even if media outlets are able to bolster their social media monitoring presence, they’ll be asked to make snap decisions on what’s defamatory and respond immediately. When media outlets act as publishers and are concerned with possible libel or defamation within news stories, these pieces typically go through several editors (and sometimes even lawyers) before they are published. Sometimes the outlets get sued anyway, and sometimes their internal analysis turns out to be wrong. The most logical result of this ruling is that outlets will delete any comment that says anything critical about anybody in a story or report they’ve shared on Facebook, regardless of whether or not it’s actually defamatory, because they can’t prereview them. Who can afford that level of risk?
This is precisely why the attacks on Section 230 of America’s Communications Decency Act are so extremely misguided. If you hold social media platforms and/or media outlets legally liable for commenters, it’s not going to lead to some sort of politically neutral or “unbiased” moderation that protects unpopular opinions from getting deleted. It will lead to much more censorship. It will probably kill off some comment forums altogether.
Even if these reckless attacks on Section 230 fail, what’s happening in Australia can still affect Americans. Countries across the world have been aggressively trying to force websites, search engines, and social media platforms to censor content in a way that crosses virtual borders and affects what people in other nations can see. Last year the European Court of Justice ordered that Facebook must censor any comments posted from anywhere in the world that spoke critically of an Austrian Green Party politician. Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that when Google is forced to remove a link from search results (in this case because the page’s content violates copyright laws), Canada has the authority to make this order global.
The European Court of Justice has applied Austria’s defamation laws to speech that would be protected by the First Amendment here in the United States. Many Western countries have strong free speech protections, but they often don’t go as far as America’s. The threat to the First Amendment here isn’t coming from private platforms censoring speech because of political bias, but by governments attempting to force their censorship rules worldwide.
This ruling in Australia is bad for the media, but it’s even worse for members of the public. They’re the ones who’ll get censored.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eG2ZbM
via IFTTT
The Supreme Court last Friday rejected a Chula Vista church’s request for an injunction against California’s pandemic-inspired restrictions on religious services, an issue that has divided federal appeals courts. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the state’s COVID-19 control measures seem to be consistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” Robert writes. “Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”
Roberts emphasizes that states have broad authority to protect the public against communicable diseases. “Where those broad limits are not exceeded,” he says, “they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”
Four justices—Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—disagreed with Roberts’ analysis. In a dissenting opinion joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh rejects Roberts’ characterization of California’s restrictions as neutral and generally applicable—the standard for avoiding strict scrutiny of policies that impede religious freedom.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom initially planned to let several types of businesses reopen while keeping houses of worship closed—a policy that provoked resistance from thousands of churches and a cautionary letter from the U.S. Department of Justice. On May 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit peremptorily rejected the South Bay United Pentecostal Church’s motion for an injunction against Newsom’s reopening plan. That decision inspired an 18-page dissent by Judge Daniel Collins, who said “there is no denying” that California’s “amalgam of rules is the very antithesis of a ‘generally applicable’ prohibition.” Newsom later revised his plan, saying houses of worship could reopen as long as they limited attendance at services to no more than 100 people and no more than 25 percent of capacity.
“The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries,” Kavanaugh writes. He notes that South Bay United Pentecostal Church “is willing to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene.” But it “objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses.”
Kavanaugh quotes repeatedly from a May 9 decision in which a unanimous 6th Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal to Maryville Baptist Church, which had challenged Kentucky Gov. Andrew Beshear’s lockdown orders. “California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens,” Kavanaugh says. “But ‘restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom.’ What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification.”
Quoting again from the 6th Circuit ruling, Kavanaugh asks: “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?” He adds that “the State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'” Without “a compelling justification (which the State has not offered),” he says, “the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship.”
As far as Kavanaugh and the other dissenters are concerned, it is clear that California is discriminating against religiously motivated conduct. “California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion,” he says, “and such discrimination violates the First Amendment.”
Roberts, by contrast, echoes the position that a unanimous 7th Circuit panel took on May 16, when it declined to issue an injunction against restrictions on religious services in Illinois. The 7th Circuit said Illinois was treating churches the same as other settings that pose similar risks of virus transmission, such as “concerts, lectures, theatrical performances, or choir practices, in which groups of people gather together for extended periods.”
That analysis seems dubious if a state allows groups of people to gather in workplaces for even longer periods of time, especially when churches agree to follow the same safeguards (which, among other things, eliminate the “close proximity” that worries Roberts). Employees of warehouses and factories—two types of businesses that Newsom categorically exempted from the restrictions he imposed on houses of worship—are allowed to gather for eight hours at a time, much longer than a church service takes. Even visits to grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, or laundromats can easily last as long as a church service. Courts that see no First Amendment problem with special restrictions on religious services seem to be reasoning backward from a predetermined conclusion that state and local governments can do whatever they deem appropriate to protect public health.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TZ1xZQ
via IFTTT
The Supreme Court last Friday rejected a Chula Vista church’s request for an injunction against California’s pandemic-inspired restrictions on religious services, an issue that has divided federal appeals courts. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that the state’s COVID-19 control measures seem to be consistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” Robert writes. “Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”
Roberts emphasizes that states have broad authority to protect the public against communicable diseases. “Where those broad limits are not exceeded,” he says, “they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”
Four justices—Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—disagreed with Roberts’ analysis. In a dissenting opinion joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh rejects Roberts’ characterization of California’s restrictions as neutral and generally applicable—the standard for avoiding strict scrutiny of policies that impede religious freedom.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom initially planned to let several types of businesses reopen while keeping houses of worship closed—a policy that provoked resistance from thousands of churches and a cautionary letter from the U.S. Department of Justice. On May 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit peremptorily rejected the South Bay United Pentecostal Church’s motion for an injunction against Newsom’s reopening plan. That decision inspired an 18-page dissent by Judge Daniel Collins, who said “there is no denying” that California’s “amalgam of rules is the very antithesis of a ‘generally applicable’ prohibition.” Newsom later revised his plan, saying houses of worship could reopen as long as they limited attendance at services to no more than 100 people and no more than 25 percent of capacity.
“The basic constitutional problem is that comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries,” Kavanaugh writes. He notes that South Bay United Pentecostal Church “is willing to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses, including the rules regarding social distancing and hygiene.” But it “objects to a 25% occupancy cap that is imposed on religious worship services but not imposed on those comparable secular businesses.”
Kavanaugh quotes repeatedly from a May 9 decision in which a unanimous 6th Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal to Maryville Baptist Church, which had challenged Kentucky Gov. Andrew Beshear’s lockdown orders. “California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens,” Kavanaugh says. “But ‘restrictions inexplicably applied to one group and exempted from another do little to further these goals and do much to burden religious freedom.’ What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification.”
Quoting again from the 6th Circuit ruling, Kavanaugh asks: “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?” He adds that “the State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'” Without “a compelling justification (which the State has not offered),” he says, “the State may not take a looser approach with, say, supermarkets, restaurants, factories, and offices while imposing stricter requirements on places of worship.”
As far as Kavanaugh and the other dissenters are concerned, it is clear that California is discriminating against religiously motivated conduct. “California’s 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion,” he says, “and such discrimination violates the First Amendment.”
Roberts, by contrast, echoes the position that a unanimous 7th Circuit panel took on May 16, when it declined to issue an injunction against restrictions on religious services in Illinois. The 7th Circuit said Illinois was treating churches the same as other settings that pose similar risks of virus transmission, such as “concerts, lectures, theatrical performances, or choir practices, in which groups of people gather together for extended periods.”
That analysis seems dubious if a state allows groups of people to gather in workplaces for even longer periods of time, especially when churches agree to follow the same safeguards (which, among other things, eliminate the “close proximity” that worries Roberts). Employees of warehouses and factories—two types of businesses that Newsom categorically exempted from the restrictions he imposed on houses of worship—are allowed to gather for eight hours at a time, much longer than a church service takes. Even visits to grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, or laundromats can easily last as long as a church service. Courts that see no First Amendment problem with special restrictions on religious services seem to be reasoning backward from a predetermined conclusion that state and local governments can do whatever they deem appropriate to protect public health.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TZ1xZQ
via IFTTT
