Government Censorship Is the Worst Cancel Culture of All


dreamstime_l_76042410

Almost a year to the day that Louisville police officers killed Breonna Taylor during a no-knock raid, the Kentucky Senate passed a bill which makes it a crime to insult and taunt cops. If S.B. 211 becomes law, you could get up to three months in jail and a $250 fine if you flip off the fuzz in a way “that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”

It’s just one example of a slew of proposed new laws that are chilling free speech. While freethinkers are rightly worried that private online platforms such as Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are increasingly—and often arbitrarily—cracking down on speech for political reasons, the much graver threat comes from governments at all levels seeking to ban or compel speech. 

If Amazon won’t stock your book, you can still hawk it at Barnes & Noble or on your own site, but when the government says no, there’s nowhere else to go.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Kentucky also introduced legislation that “would make a user entitled to damages if a social media platform deletes or ‘censors’ religious or political posts.” Conservatives who rightly yelled bloody murder when Christian bakers were forced to make cakes for same-sex weddings are now trying to stop social media platforms from running their businesses the way they see fit.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has proposed legislation that would ban Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates. They would face fines of up to $100,000 a day and the new law would also allow regular users to sue platforms for damages if they feel they’ve been treated unfairly.

Similar legislation has been proposed in Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said, without citing actual evidence, that conservative viewpoints are being systematically silenced. “Pretty soon,” he promises, such supposed censorship is “going to be against the law in the state of Texas.” That law, S.B. 12, is poised to pass the state Senate.

Back in the pre-internet days, you could count on conservative Republicans to scream about the need to regulate sex and drugs on TV and in music but these days they seem to want social media companies to do no moderating of content. So maybe that’s progress.

At the same time, liberal Democrats, who themselves used to scream about violent video games, are pushing for more regulation of speech they don’t like. In Colorado, a proposed law would create a “digital communications commission” that would investigate platforms to make sure they don’t allow “hate speech,” “undermine election integrity,” or “disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news”—all exceptionally vague terms that aren’t even defined in the legislation. The commission would have the ability to order changes in the way platforms operate.

At the national level, two congressional Democrats—Rep. Anna Eshoo (D–Calif.) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D–Calif.)—have sent letters to the heads of Comcast, Verizon, Dish, and other cable and satellite companies demanding to know why such private services carry Fox News, Newsmax, and other supposed purveyors of “misinformation.” As Reason’s Robby Soave put it, the letter “was an act of intimidation.” It’s a rare week when high-wattage politicians such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) don’t threaten Big Tech with some sort of reprimand because they don’t like what’s popular on Facebook or Twitter.

The good news is that laws seeking to control individuals and platforms are blatantly unconstitutional because they compel the speech of private actors and because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows broad discretion in running websites and platforms. When challenged in court, they’ll almost certainly be struck down.

The bad news is that the laws just keep coming, because politicians of all stripes want to control speech in a way that favors their agendas and they don’t care about whether a law respects the First Amendment.

We should loudly criticize platforms for kicking people off in arbitrary ways that diminish our ability to freely argue and disagree about politics and culture. We want more participation, not less. But it’s even more important to recognize private citizens’ and businesses’ right to freely associate with whomever they want.

I find it disturbing as hell that a member of the band Mumford & Sons felt compelled to cancel himself for the “pain he caused” after saying he liked a book by the controversial journalist Andy Ngo. I’m deeply bothered that eBay has delisted old copies of Dr. Seuss books and that Amazon, which once aspired to sell every book in print, sees fit to drop titles that rub some activists the wrong way. I’m outraged that Twitter and Facebook banned Donald Trump essentially for being an asshole.

But far worse than such private cancel culture is when politicians tell us we don’t have a right to insult cops, or when they’re the ones setting the rules about what we must prohibit—or allow. That way madness lies and it makes the online outrage of the day look absolutely trivial by comparison.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3c0CXRN
via IFTTT

National Review Not Liable for Mark Steyn’s Blog Post About Michael Mann

Libel lawsuits by public figures famously require that the plaintiff show that the defendant wrote with “actual malice,” which is to say knowing that the statement was false or likely false. But of course most media libel cases aren’t brought just against writers; they are also brought against the media enterprises that published the libel. How do you determine what an organization knows?

It turns out that, generally speaking (and in particular in libel cases), you focus on what its employees know. Thus, if a newspaper or magazine publishes a libelous article by its employee, and the employee knows the statement is false, then the publication is also on the hook. But if it publishes an article by a nonemployee third party (e.g., a syndicated columnist or an occasional op-ed writer), then it’s only liable if some employee (e.g., an editor) knew the article was false.

Hence the result in Mann v. National Review, Inc., decided today by Judge Jennifer M. Anderson (D.C. Super. Ct.):

On July 15, 2012, Mark Steyn … posted an article titled “Football and Hockey” on National Review Inc.’s … website’s blog section, The Corner. On July 23, 2012, Plaintiff Dr. Michael Mann’s counsel sent a letter to National Review threatening to sue over Defendant Steyn’s post. On August 22, 2012, Rich Lowry …[,] editor of National Review, wrote an article in National Review, addressing Plaintiff’s threatened lawsuit. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants National Review, Steyn, Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”), and Rand Simberg. Plaintiff alleged libel per se against Defendant National Review for the allegedly defamatory statements in Defendant Steyn’s article and Mr. Lowry’s article [though the lawsuit over the Lowry article was dismissed on appeal].

The court granted National Review’s motion for summary judgment:

[1.] “Actual malice [i.e., knowledge that the post was false or was likely false] cannot be imputed to a company based on the state of mind of a writer who is an independent contractor. See Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 57 n.15 (D.C. 1979).” Mann hadn’t sufficiently alleged that Steyn was an employee of the National Review, though he was authorized to post to its blog, so the National Review can’t be on the hook just because of the employer-employee relationship.

[2.] Mann had alleged that Steyn, as a blogger at The Corner, was the National Review’s “agent,” but that’s not enough for imputing liability: “courts have consistently declined to impute actual malice to a defendant from another defendant if there is not an employer-employee relationship between them.”

[3.] The National Review of course could be held liable if its own employees had the requisite knowledge of likely falsehood; but “Plaintiff has not alleged that any National Review employee was involved in the post that Defendant Steyn published on National Review’s blog, The Corner, in July 2012, or knew or suspected it was false.” (Note that, to my knowledge, Mann wasn’t suing on a theory that the National Review had continued to keep the article up after learning that the article was false, so the arguments in my new duty-to-correct law review article don’t seem applicable here.)

The lawsuit against Steyn and the other defendants appears to still be proceeding.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30VUBQy
via IFTTT

The Media Got It Wrong: Police Captain Didn’t Say the Atlanta Spa Killer Was Having a ‘Bad Day’


policeshit3

A moment from the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office press conference on Wednesday quickly went viral: Jay Baker, a spokesperson for the police department handling the investigation into the horrific Atlanta spa murders, said that suspect Robert Aaron Long was having a bad day.

“He was pretty much fed up, kind of at the end of his rope, and yesterday was a really bad day for him and this is what he did,” said Baker.

The comment struck many people as overly sympathetic toward Long, as if Baker was making excuses for someone who stands accused of killing eight Asian-American women in cold blood. A 20-second video clip of Baker’s statement was shared on Twitter by Vox journalist Aaron Rupar and swiftly went viral, earning widespread condemnation. Many saw it as evidence that cops are desperate to discount the culpability of white male criminals. For instance, Kimberlé Crenshaw, a law professor and inventor of the term “intersectionality,” described Baker’s comments as “bone-chilling,” and castigated him for refusing to acknowledge “the misogynistic dimensions of anti-Asian racism.”

A police officer excusing Long’s actions as merely the result of him having a “bad day” would indeed be contemptible. But that’s not what Baker did. In fact, many of the people so infuriated about the quote were misled by Rupar’s edit of the video.

The full video (the relevant section starts at about 13:50) makes clear that Baker was not providing his own commentary, but rather summarizing what Long had told the investigators. The “bad day” line was proceeded by a clarification that this was Long’s own explanation, as related to the police. Baker did not endorse it.

Nor did the captain endorse Long’s statement that the killings were unrelated to racism. He makes clear he’s relaying comments from Long. “He claims that—and as the chief said this is still early—but he does claim that it was not racially motivated,” said Baker. Again, the police spokesman is telling reporters what Long said, not applying his own spin. Later, when another reporter asked about this, Baker stepped aside so that Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms could explain the efforts being undertaken to protect Asian Americans at this time of heightened concern.

It would be naive of the police—or the public, or anyone else—to accept what alleged killers say at face value. It’s similarly naive to assume that the sex and ethnicity of the victims tells us everything we need to know about the crime. The police should investigate the matter dispassionately, and relay to the public whatever information they gather. Too often, law enforcement uses such press conferences to engage in wild speculation; this was a refreshing example of the cops not doing that.

But media coverage of the “bad day” comment gave almost zero indication that it was a paraphrase of Long’s confession. The Washington Post, for instance, wrote about Baker being taken off the case and used this headline: “Captain who said spa shootings suspect had ‘bad day’ no longer a spokesman on case, official says.” The article’s introduction contains no context, and incorrectly parrots Rupar’s bad framing:

The backlash began with the sheriff spokesman’s statement to reporters that the mass shooting suspect was having a “bad day.”

“He was pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him and this is what he did,” Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office Capt. Jay Baker said Wednesday. He was describing the 21-year-old man accused of killing eight people, mostly Asian and almost all women, in a rampage across three Atlanta-area spas.

The New York magazine and BuzzFeed News versions of the story repeated the error.

Baker is no longer the spokesperson for this case, and he is also under fire for previously posting a picture in a shirt that read “Covid 19: Imported virus from CHY-NA.” The big issue here is not really that Baker got a raw deal—he may well be ill-suited to serve as a police spokesman—but that countless mainstream journalists, beginning with Rupar, engaged in malpractice. They manipulated readers and viewers to be outraged about something that isn’t actually outrageous.

This matters because social media platforms have recently come under tremendous fire from both well-regarded journalists and Democratic lawmakers who assert that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (and even Clubhouse) allow misinformation to spread unchecked. In mainstream circles, it is now common to believe that Big Tech must be compelled to take stronger action against misleading news.

But this view elides all the ways in which the traditional media spreads misinformation—and this story is a perfect example. Numerous writers, in their zeal to assert that the spa killings were absolutely, positively the result of anti-Asian racism, wrongly dinged a police officer for declining to provide support for this theory.

Baker’s performance in the press conference was skewered due to a misleading clip widely circulated by the very same journalists who assert that the loss of the mainstream media’s information-gatekeeping function is a serious threat to democracy. It’s hard to take these people seriously when they continue to make such mistakes.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Qf0hms
via IFTTT

Biden “Proud” As “Theatrical” Alaska Summit Ends In ‘No Breakthroughs’ With China

Biden “Proud” As “Theatrical” Alaska Summit Ends In ‘No Breakthroughs’ With China

During China’s Foreign Ministry press briefing on Friday, spokesman Zhao Lijian put blame squarely on the United States for the somewhat chaotic and “fiery” and “confrontational” talks in Alaska, which is the first time the Biden administration has conducted a face-to-face meeting with Beijing officials. It was essentially a failure by all accounts. Yet Biden said he was “proud” of the US diplomatic team’s performance under Blinken.

The Alaska summit ended somewhat on a quieter and anti-climactic note (compared to the opening war of words the day prior) Friday as the Chinese delegation reportedly stormed out of the hotel in Anchorage, according to CNBC, without giving any comments to the press, with only the US side saying there were “very candid” conversations in talks that were “tough and direct” over many hours, particularly related to issued involving Iran and North Korea. But for all the hype regarding the “diplomacy” of the Biden presidency, the US didn’t announce any level of breakthroughs with Beijing, according to Bloomberg.

Zhao blamed the US delegation for breaching agreed-upon protocol from the start, which threw things off and led to “wanton attacks” and the failure of acceptable “diplomatic etiquette”. Zhao said the US side “exceeded severely the set time limit and wantonly attacked and criticized China’s domestic and foreign policies, provoking disagreements.” He continued, “These are hardly good host manners or proper diplomatic etiquette. The Chinese side has made a solemn response.”

“It is because the US side failed to keep to the set time limit and provoked disagreements first that the opening statements were fiery and theatrical, which is not what China wishes to see.” He concluded, “When the Chinese delegation arrived in Anchorage, their hearts were chilled by the biting cold as well as the reception by their American host.”

The US side issued its own assessment of the unusual tit-for-tat introductory remarks which were filled with mutual scathing and sweeping criticisms of human rights records and even quips of “do not lecture us”. As Reuters details:

Afterwards, the United States accused China of “grandstanding” while Chinese state media blamed U.S. officials for speaking too long and being “inhospitable”.

“The Chinese delegation … seems to have arrived intent on grandstanding, focused on public theatrics and dramatics over substance,” the official told reporters at the Anchorage hotel where the meeting was taking place.

“Exaggerated diplomatic presentations often are aimed at a domestic audience,” the official added.

…Some even characterized the talks as a “Hongmen Banquet”, referring to an event that took place 2,000 years ago where a rebel leader invited another to a feast with the intention of murdering him.

Still, it was the Thursday evening meeting which the US said was “substantive, serious, and direct” – and even ran past the initially planned-for two hours, according to Reuters. 

Also on Friday Biden weighed in, with the president simply saying he was “proud” of Secretary of State Antony Blinken after the first day of the intense two-day talks, and despite the fireworks that marked the start.

“I am proud of the secretary of state,” the president told reporters at the White House.

Meanwhile, some are asking…

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/19/2021 – 17:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3c0EK9u Tyler Durden

The Domino Effect: How All Four Cases In The Death Of George Floyd Could Collapse With A Chauvin Acquittal

The Domino Effect: How All Four Cases In The Death Of George Floyd Could Collapse With A Chauvin Acquittal

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in USA Today on the approaching trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the alleged murder of George Floyd. Thus far, many in the media have failed to shoulder their own burden to discuss the countervailing evidence in the case.  Indeed, there is a real danger of a cascading failure in the case where a loss in the Chauvin case could bring down the cases against all four officers. This potential domino effect is the result of making the three other cases dependent on the base murder/manslaughter charge against Chauvin.

Here is the column:

The trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd is scheduled to begin March 29 after the difficult task of selecting a jury. The difficulty is not in finding a jury that reflects the community but finding one that does not. And it became even more difficult Monday when Minneapolis announced a $27 million settlement in a civil suit brought by Floyd’s family.

One juror had been dismissed by then after he admitted that he feared he or his family would be harmed if Chauvin was acquitted. Another was dismissed after saying property damage during Black Lives Matter protests might have been necessary to achieve justice. Their problem was that they reflected their community all too well.

Judging from the encampment around the courthouse with barbed wire, fencing and security, authorities are aware of the potential for violence. The greatest threat, however, could be found in how the prosecution has structured the case – and the danger of a cascading failure of not just the Chauvin case but of the cases against all four officers.

An unstable and vulnerable strategy

The prosecutors constructed the cases against Chauvin, Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao like an upside-down pyramid resting on a conviction of Chauvin. The main charges against Kueng, Land and Thao are as aiders and abettors to Chauvin’s alleged murder or manslaughter. If Chauvin is acquitted or the jury hangs on the charges, the prosecution of the other three officers becomes extremely difficult.

Prosecutors are aware of the instability and vulnerability of that strategy. For that reason, they fought to restore a third-degree murder claim to give the jury another option for a compromise verdict between the second-degree murder claim and the second-degree manslaughter case. In a case that is best suited for a manslaughter claim, there is a risk of overcharging a case that undermines the narrative of the prosecution. The second-degree murder claim does not require intent to murder Floyd but still requires a murder committed in the course of another felony. The third-degree murder charge requires a showing that Chauvin perpetrated “an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.“

There are some very significant challenges for the prosecution, even with the infamous videotape of Chauvin with his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than 9 minutes. There is a palpable fear that even mentioning countervailing defense arguments will trigger claims of racism or insensitivity to police abuse. However, the jury must unanimously convict on the basis of beyond a reasonable doubt after considering a variety of such arguments, including:

  • When called to the scene due to Floyd allegedly passing counterfeit money, Floyd denied using drugs but later said he was “hooping,” or taking drugs.

  • The autopsy did not conclude that Floyd died from asphyxiation (though a family pathologist made that finding). Rather, it found “cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).” The state’s criminal complaint against Chauvin said the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.” He also was COVID-19 positive.

  • Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner, strongly suggestedthat the primary cause was a huge amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s system: “Fentanyl at 11 ng/ml — this is higher than (a) chronic pain patient. If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD (overdose). Deaths have been certified w/levels of 3.” Baker also told investigators that the autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting Floyd died of asphyxiation.

  • The toxicology report on Floyd’s blood also noted that “in fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/ml.” Floyd had almost four times the level of fentanyl considered potentially lethal.

  • Floyd notably repeatedly said that he could not breathe while sitting in the police cruiser and before he was ever restrained on the ground. That is consistent with the level of fentanyl in his system that can cause “slowed or stopped breathing.”

  • Finally, the restraint using an officer’s knee on an uncooperative suspect was part of the training of officers, and jurors will watch training videotapes employing the same type of restraint as official policy.

Serious challenges in proving this case

These facts do not negate a claim of manslaughter since Floyd was clearly in distress, and Lane suggested that the officers move Floyd in light of his complaints. Chauvin overruled that suggestion.

Even with a manslaughter conviction, however, the case against officers like Lane would be difficult. Lane is shown as the officer who first confronted Floyd after he refused to show his hands. Lane yelled at Floyd to show his hands. After Floyd replied, “Please don’t shoot me, man,” Lane said, “I’m not shooting you, man.” Later, when Floyd struggled not to get into the police car and said he cannot breathe, Lane is heard offering to sit with him, roll down the windows and turn on the air conditioning. It is also Lane (who had only been on the force a couple days) who encourages Chauvin to move Floyd from the knee restraint position.

Lane might never see a trial if the case against Chauvin fails and causes a cascading failure. Not only could Chauvin be acquitted or left with a hung jury, but the impact could be the collapse of all four cases. That will be up to the jury. But if there is violence after the verdict, it will be far worse if the public is not aware upfront of the serious challenges in proving this case.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/19/2021 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3f3vqE1 Tyler Durden

White House Shrugs Off Debate Challenge: Biden Will Meet Putin “When Time Is Right”

White House Shrugs Off Debate Challenge: Biden Will Meet Putin “When Time Is Right”

Just before the dramatic and deeply concerning stumble up the stairs footage in which Biden appeared to nearly injure himself trying to board Air Force One, the president was asked by reporters about Vladimir Putin’s debate challenge issued the evening before, to which he responded, “I’m sure we’ll talk at some point.”

The White House meanwhile issued a statement Friday saying that Biden will meet with Russia’s leader “when the time is right”. However, it’s increasingly looking like a ‘live’ debate scenario with the much nimbler 68-year old Putin is a thing that could have only been contemplated in years past. And on the question of whether sanctions are coming on Russia, Biden said “that’ll come in time”.

“I’ve just thought of this now,” Putin had told a Russian state television reporter Thursday in response to Biden’s ABC interview wherein he agreed Putin is “a killer” with “no soul”…

“I want to propose to President Biden to continue our discussion, but on the condition that we do it basically live, as it’s called. Without any delays and directly in an open, direct discussion. It seems to me that would be interesting for the people of Russia and for the people of the United States.”

It appears Putin was serious about a live TV debate: 

“I don’t want to put this off for long. I want to go the taiga this weekend to relax a little,” Putin said.

“So we could do it tomorrow or Monday. We are ready at any time convenient for the American side.”

The Russian leader also said he wished Biden “good health.”

“I would say to him: ‘Be well.’ I wish him good health. I say that without any irony, without jokes,” Putin said.

Given that it has been over 60 days since President Biden has taken questions in a formal press conference, we highly doubt anyone at the White House would ever entertain such a possibility, and particularly after Friday…

…Leading some online commentators to jokingly question whether Putin’s “good health” wishes a mere less than 24 hours before was in fact a “curse” by the Russian president.

The Kremlin also late this week responded to the possibility of a “new Cold War” erupting. 

A Russian presidential spokesperson responded when asked about a new Cold War between the two countries: “We, of course, always hope for the best, but are always ready for the worst. As far as Russia is concerned, President Putin has clearly stated his desire to continue ties.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/19/2021 – 16:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eXIzOL Tyler Durden

This Year’s March Madness Is the Biggest Legal Sports Betting Event in American History


iconphotosfive755022

In the two years that have passed since the last college basketball national champion was crowned, more than a dozen additional states have legalized betting on sporting events—which means this year’s March Madness will be the largest legal gambling event in American history.

That’s not just good news for anyone who wants to make the madness a little more interesting, but likely will help ensure that the games themselves are free from the influence of black-market betting.

Roughly 74 million more Americans will be free to wager on the outcome of March Madness this year than in 2019, according to the American Gaming Association, an industry group. Sports betting is now legal in 25 states and Washington, D.C.

After the COVID-19 pandemic canceled last year’s tournament, sportsbooks are betting there will be an unprecedented amount of action in the next few weeks. Dustin Gouker, head of content for PlayUSA, tells MarketWatch that the expansion of legal gambling over the past few years means as much as $1.5 billion could be bet on this year’s National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament. For comparison’s sake, this year’s Super Bowl saw about $500 million in legal sports betting.

The market for legal sports betting has exploded since May 2018 when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that effectively banned gambling on sporting events outside of Nevada and a few other places that were grandfathered into a 1992 federal ban. That ban, by the way, is likely responsible for the huge popularity of March Madness “bracket pool” games that allow contestants to bet on the outcome of all 63 NCAA tournament games by filling out their own versions of the tournament bracket. Because that doesn’t involve betting on the outcome of one specific game, those wagers weren’t subject to the federal ban.

But now that Americans can bet on games (without taking a special trip to Las Vegas), lots of them are doing it. A Morning Consult poll commissioned by the AGA found that an estimated 30.6 million Americans will place traditional bets on games in this year’s tournament, up from 17.8 million in 2019.

The popularity of sports betting is even forcing the infamously stodgy NCAA to change with the times. As of 2019, the association was still refusing to allow March Madness games to be hosted in states with legal sports betting. This year, the entire tournament is being played in a state, Indiana, where sports betting is legal.

The surge in wagering on the outcome of games does trigger some overblown worries about the potential for corruption. Back when sports betting was more widely illegal, college basketball dealt with a series of scandals involving so-called “point shaving“—usually involving players who were paid to avoid winning by a large enough margin to cover the spread.

Now, bringing sports betting out of the black market means regulators and tournament officials can track betting patterns and more easily identify attempts to influence outcomes. Both the NCAA and Indiana Gaming Commission, ESPN reports, are working with third-party firms to track “irregularities” in the market to prevent corruption.

Legalized sports betting means more freedom and fun for Americans who love March Madness. It means officials can have greater control over the integrity of the games. And it means this might finally be the year you win big—but probably not.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bYZXAO
via IFTTT

This Year’s March Madness Is the Biggest Legal Sports Betting Event in American History


iconphotosfive755022

In the two years that have passed since the last college basketball national champion was crowned, more than a dozen additional states have legalized betting on sporting events—which means this year’s March Madness will be the largest legal gambling event in American history.

That’s not just good news for anyone who wants to make the madness a little more interesting, but likely will help ensure that the games themselves are free from the influence of black-market betting.

Roughly 74 million more Americans will be free to wager on the outcome of March Madness this year than in 2019, according to the American Gaming Association, an industry group. Sports betting is now legal in 25 states and Washington, D.C.

After the COVID-19 pandemic canceled last year’s tournament, sportsbooks are betting there will be an unprecedented amount of action in the next few weeks. Dustin Gouker, head of content for PlayUSA, tells MarketWatch that the expansion of legal gambling over the past few years means as much as $1.5 billion could be bet on this year’s National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament. For comparison’s sake, this year’s Super Bowl saw about $500 million in legal sports betting.

The market for legal sports betting has exploded since May 2018 when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that effectively banned gambling on sporting events outside of Nevada and a few other places that were grandfathered into a 1992 federal ban. That ban, by the way, is likely responsible for the huge popularity of March Madness “bracket pool” games that allow contestants to bet on the outcome of all 63 NCAA tournament games by filling out their own versions of the tournament bracket. Because that doesn’t involve betting on the outcome of one specific game, those wagers weren’t subject to the federal ban.

But now that Americans can bet on games (without taking a special trip to Las Vegas), lots of them are doing it. A Morning Consult poll commissioned by the AGA found that an estimated 30.6 million Americans will place traditional bets on games in this year’s tournament, up from 17.8 million in 2019.

The popularity of sports betting is even forcing the infamously stodgy NCAA to change with the times. As of 2019, the association was still refusing to allow March Madness games to be hosted in states with legal sports betting. This year, the entire tournament is being played in a state, Indiana, where sports betting is legal.

The surge in wagering on the outcome of games does trigger some overblown worries about the potential for corruption. Back when sports betting was more widely illegal, college basketball dealt with a series of scandals involving so-called “point shaving“—usually involving players who were paid to avoid winning by a large enough margin to cover the spread.

Now, bringing sports betting out of the black market means regulators and tournament officials can track betting patterns and more easily identify attempts to influence outcomes. Both the NCAA and Indiana Gaming Commission, ESPN reports, are working with third-party firms to track “irregularities” in the market to prevent corruption.

Legalized sports betting means more freedom and fun for Americans who love March Madness. It means officials can have greater control over the integrity of the games. And it means this might finally be the year you win big—but probably not.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3bYZXAO
via IFTTT

America’s Worst Drug Crisis Ever Is Causing The Streets Of Many Cities To Look Like “Zombie Apocalypse” Has Arrived

America’s Worst Drug Crisis Ever Is Causing The Streets Of Many Cities To Look Like “Zombie Apocalypse” Has Arrived

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

America has been battling illegal street drugs for decades, but we have never seen anything like this.  When the COVID pandemic hit the U.S., illegal drug use dramatically surged, and that has carried over into 2021.  As I discussed a few days ago, the amount of meth that CBP agents have seized is up 9 percent so far in fiscal year 2021 and the amount of cocaine that CBP agents have seized is up 64 percent so far in fiscal year 2021.  But the largest increase has been in fentanyl traffic.  At this point, CBP agents have seized “more than 4,900 lbs of fentanyl during the first five months of FY21, already surpassing the total for all of FY20”.

The big drug cartels absolutely love fentanyl for a couple of reasons.

  • First of all, it is extremely inexpensive to make, and it is very easy to move it long distances.

  • Secondly, it is exceedingly addictive, and so customers constantly come back for more.

But the only problem is that many of those customers don’t last too long.  Tens of thousands of Americans are dropping dead from fentanyl overdoses, and this has become a major national crisis.

Once again tonight, vast hordes of addicts will congregate in urban areas where they know they will be able to score some fentanyl.  One of those areas is Kensington Avenue in northeast Philadelphia…

The video looks like a scene from an apocalyptic movie – dozens of disheveled people shivering in the middle of a winter night as they camp out around a trash bin on fire among a street strewn with litter.

But the footage isn’t a Hollywood production but a candid snapshot of Kensington Avenue in northeast Philadelphia – an area that has been likened to the infamous Skid Row section of Los Angeles.

The neighborhood has previously been dubbed the ‘East Coast’s largest open-air drug market’ by DEA officials, according to the New York Times.

You can see footage of Kensington Avenue at night right here.  If you didn’t know better, you would probably be tempted to think that it was pulled right out of a post-apocalyptic horror film.

On Kensington Avenue, addicts can purchase a bag of fentanyl-laced heroin for as little as five dollars…

The Kensington section of Philadelphia, where anyone can buy a lethal dose of fentanyl-laced heroin for $5 a bag, has been known locally as the ‘ground zero’ of America’s opioid epidemic, Philadelphia Magazine reported.

It is not uncommon for locals who pass by the area to notice men lying motionless on the sidewalk.

Syringes and needles are also frequently seen out and used in plain sight.

Sometimes the men that are lying motionless on the sidewalk never get up, and that is because they have dropped dead from an overdose.

Of course scenes like this play out on a nightly basis all over America.  At this point, synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have become the leading cause of overdose deaths in the United States…

In 2016, synthetic opioids, primarily illegal fentanyl, passed prescription opioids as the most common drugs involved in overdose deaths in the United States, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

It is incredibly easy to overdose on fentanyl.  In fact, an amount of fentanyl equivalent to “two grains of salt” is apparently enough to put you in the grave…

Some families are facing a fentanyl crisis and law enforcement is sounding the alarm. The tasteless, odorless drug is driving up the number of fatal overdoses.

People who are battling a substance use disorder are being fooled by fentanyl. Lisa Smittcamp, the District Attorney in Fresno County, California, says the amount it takes to overdose is about the size of two grains of salt.

For a number of years, this was primarily a problem in the eastern half of the nation, but that has all changed.

Fentanyl use is now spreading like wildfire in the western half of the country, and that spike is pushing the overall death toll dramatically higher.  The following comes from NPR…

The spike in fentanyl deaths in the West contributed to a record number of fatal overdoses last year, with roughly 72,000 Americans dead.

“It’s just getting worse, and it’s killing too many people,” said Matthew Donahue, deputy chief of operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Sadly, the final number for 2021 is expected to be even higher.

These are deaths that do not need to happen, but Americans don’t seem to be getting the message that fentanyl use is extremely dangerous.

In fact, since the beginning of the pandemic the number of Americans testing positive for fentanyl use has absolutely skyrocketed…

Use of methamphetamine and fentanyl shot up after the pandemic hit the U.S. in March 2020, with a particularly sharp spike for the latter, according to a new report by drug testing company Millennium Health.

The adjusted positivity rate of urine drug screens was up 78% for fentanyl and 29% for methamphetamine during the first 9 months of the pandemic compared with the same period in 2019, according to the report. While cocaine and heroin saw small increases initially, both fell below pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2020.

This is yet another example of how the fabric of our society is unraveling all around us, and it is only going to get worse.

For years, much of the fentanyl being used in the U.S. was coming in from China, but then international pressure forced the Chinese to ban the sale of fentanyl.

Unfortunately, since that time vendors in China have found ways around that ban…

Under international pressure, China’s government banned the production and sale of fentanyl and many of its variants in May 2019, resulting in a significant reduction in the country’s illicit fentanyl trade.

But more than a year later, Chinese vendors have tapped into online networks to brazenly market fentanyl analogs and the precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, and ship them directly to customers in the U.S. and Europe as well as to Mexican cartels, according to an NPR investigation and research from the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, or C4ADS, a nonprofit data analysis group.

This is one of the reasons why we need strong security on our southern border.

Right now the Mexican cartels are flooding our streets with fentanyl, and the new administration does not seem too concerned about doing anything to stop this from happening.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/19/2021 – 16:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eXGWAI Tyler Durden

‘Stimmy’ Hangover? Stocks Sink As Fed Flubs, Bond Bull-Market Ends

‘Stimmy’ Hangover? Stocks Sink As Fed Flubs, Bond Bull-Market Ends

Quad-Witch sparked the usual chaotic and volatile day (at the cash open and into the close)… Dow & S&P ended red after an ugly close, Small Caps were best on the day…

…capped a choppy week in stocks that saw the Powell promises spark a brief buying panic midweek…

As the market dealt with the biggest non-January options-expiration ever…

And completely shrugged off Powell’s promises of moar-looseness by tightening: first by bringing the timing of a first rate-hike closer…

Source: Bloomberg

And second by accelerating the rate-hike trajectory expected after that…

Source: Bloomberg

The market to Jay Powell this week…

Banks were biffed today as The Fed caved to political pressure and refused to extend the SPR exemption…

FANG Stocks were unchanged after a volatile week…

Source: Bloomberg

Energy stocks were the worst performing sector on the week as crude crashed…

Source: Bloomberg

This was the worst week for energy stocks since September…

Source: Bloomberg

Hedge funds got hammered in the last couple of days after The Fed panic-bid…

Source: Bloomberg

VIX ended the week lower – despite some chaos…

Treasury yields were higher (and the curve steeper) this week with the belly underperforming…

Source: Bloomberg

30Y Yields are back at their highest since August 2019…

Source: Bloomberg

Real yields jumped this week to their highest since June (though still notably negative)..

Source: Bloomberg

And, perhaps even more notably, the decades long bull market in bonds may have just ended as Bloomberg reports that The Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Long Treasury Total Return Index, which tracks bonds maturing in 10 years or longer, has plunged 22% since its peak in March 2020, putting it in bear-market territory.

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar ended the week unchanged against its fiat peers, after plunging on Powell’s promises…

Source: Bloomberg

Mixed and modest describes the week in crypto land – BTC and ETH managed modest gains as LTC slipped, but they have been relatively stable…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin spiked above $60k this week after The Fed, dropped back… then was bid back up to $59k…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices plunged this week, the worst week for WTI since October. The $60 line in the sand continues to hold…

Gold and Silver managed gains on the week with the former holding gains from its bounce off $1700…

Interestingly, we noticed that oil priced in gold had retraced its pandemic losses right before rolling over and plunging this week…

Source: Bloomberg

And that level appears somewhat relevant over time…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, we note that we have just wintnessed seen the greatest 12 month rally in the S&P 500 since the 1930s… (and all it took was $13 trillion in global liquidity injections)

Source: Bloomberg

Amid the second worst bond bear market in 40 years.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/19/2021 – 16:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3vHqHxo Tyler Durden