Month: August 2024

Authored by Luis Cornelio via HeadlineUSA.com,

Remember when the government colluded with Big Tech to censor news detrimental to Democrats ahead of the 2020 election? Well, they’re at it again, this time openly bragging about their latest collusion.

California has announced the first-ever “partnership” with Google and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) to fund local newsrooms and launch a government artificial intelligence program. 

With a price tag of $250 million—$175 million from taxpayers and $55 million from Google—this program will provide direct financial support to newsrooms. 

The deal emerged as a settlement between Big Tech and the state government after California Democrats threatened to impose fees on platforms that profit from news content. 

The multi-million-dollar fund will be managed by the UC Berkeley School of Journalism and disbursed to newsrooms over five years, with annual approvals required. 

Critics have warned about the dangers of government and social media giants sponsoring the news. 

“This is beyond Orwellian,” said Dan Schneider, the vice president of a free speech department at the Media Research Center (MRC).

“With a tiny portion of its annual revenue, Google is going to use every reporter and news outlet to remake society in its own warped image.”

MRC has released several reports accusing Google of interfering in the 2024 election by burying Republican campaign websites while promoting those of Democrats.

The Media Guild of the West echoed Schneider’s concerns, stating, “California’s journalists and news workers oppose this disastrous deal with Google and condemn the news executives who consented to it in our names.” 

The union rebuked the newsrooms celebrating what it described as an “opaque deal” involving taxpayer funds and “minimal financial commitments from Google to return the wealth this monopoly has stolen from our newsrooms.” 

In contrast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom hailed the deal as a “major breakthrough” to ensure the survival of newsrooms and bolster local journalism. 

“The deal not only provides funding to support hundreds of new journalists but helps rebuild a robust and dynamic California press corps for years to come, reinforcing the vital role of journalism in our democracy,” he claimed.

While Newsom lauded the agreement as a lifeline for journalism, it comes amid growing scrutiny of Big Tech’s influence and manipulation of content.

Google and Facebook are currently under investigation by the House Oversight Committee for allegedly censoring searches and content related to an assassination attempt on President Donald Trump

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

So here we are, with a handful of winners declaring the system is working great and high-fiving each other, too busy congratulating themselves to see the tsunami of karma racing toward shore.

It’s a toss-up which is wider: the widening gap between the top 10% and the bottom 60%, or the gap between the complacency of the top 10% and the reckoning that’s overdue. Call it karma, just desserts or the wheel of history, the unfairness and inequality of a rigged system generates blowback, and the longer it is suppressed, the greater the eventual swing of the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

But really, who cares about the bottom 60% being left in the dust by a system rigged to benefit the top 10% because hey, the S&P 500 is going to 6,000–yippee! More free money for everyone who bought assets years or decades ago before the Federal Reserve decided the best way to “boost growth” was to inflate assets to generate “the wealth effect” among those who already owned the assets being inflated.

And once the fortunate few were awarded the vast majority of the Fed’s unearned largesse–the top 10% own 93% of stocks–they have the wiggle room to ignore inflation. The bottom 60% living on wages–well, not so much.

Readers remind me that many of Americans’ financial ills are self-inflicted: poor money management, instant gratification over making sacrifices for long-term gains, getting into credit card debt with 22% interest rates, buying vehicles they can’t afford, paying $100 for an oil change instead of learning how to change the oil themselves, and so on–all of which indeed make modest financial circumstances much more difficult.

Having been in the bottom 60% in terms of earnings most of life, I constantly preach the virtues of frugality and anti-consumerism, learning how to do things for ourselves so we don’t have to pay for them, and building networks of reciprocity–I help you, you help me–that make all the difference between financial security and insecurity. These are the fundamentals of Self-Reliance.

But better money management doesn’t erase the rigged system that has sluiced the lion’s share of the nation’s gains to the top 10% and left the bottom 60% in the dust. If the rising tide raises all ships, then how is it the bottom 50% own a rounding-error share of the nation’s financial wealth– 2.6%:

The bottom 50% own 11% of the nation’s real estate value–a mere fourth of the 44% owned by the top 10%.

The top 10% excel at a few things they rarely receive full credit for: one is choosing their parents wisely, another is believing that since they’re doing great, everyone is doing great— a self-serving delusion that doesn’t reflect reality: those who don’t own a share of the $45 trillion in stock market wealth weren’t issued rose-colored glasses:

The 10% below the top 10% reckon they’re “middle class,” but how can the top 20% be “middle class”? The reality that the “middle class” has eroded into the top 20% haves and the top layer of the have-nots who still harbor illusions is conveniently obscured by economic cheerleaders lumping the fantastic gains reaped by the top 10% in with the bottom 90% and declaring the entire population is reaping splendid gains. But statistical trickery can’t obscure the systemic unfairness of a rigged game.

While many finger the abandonment of the gold standard as the Original Sin, this ignores an economic change of equal consequence: the collapse of all societal values other than increasing shareholder value, which optimized hyper-financialization (stripmining the real economy to enrich financiers and corporations) and hyper-globalization, which stripmined the nation to enrich the top 10% who own 93% of all corporate shares.

These forces drastically eroded the purchasing power of wages to the benefit of the owners of assets, who skimmed the vast majority of the immense financial gains of hyper-financialization and hyper-globalization. Those who depend on wages lost out, those who owned assets enjoyed ten-baggers not from genius but from mere luck.

So here we are, with a handful of winners declaring the system is working great and high-fiving each other, too busy congratulating themselves to see the tsunami of karma racing toward shore.

Those of us who did nothing more than buy a house and invest in index funds–the same common-sense steps taken by previous generations to earn modest returns–and who through no special effort reaped enormous gains thanks to the Fed’s “wealth effect”–might benefit from a bit of humility by admitting our gains are the result of a system rigged to benefit all who bought assets before “the wealth effect” rocket-launched the value of our assets. The word few dare utter is “unearned.”

In the end, it won’t matter what we think, like, believe or hope, for reversal is the movement of Tao. Put colloquially, the pendulum of inequality driven by a rigged system will swing to the other extreme, and claiming that payback is somehow “unfair” won’t change the trajectory or the volatility.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

In a strategic move which puts pressure on Ukraine in response to its ongoing Kursk incursion into Russia, Belarus has built-up its troops along parts of its southern border with Ukraine.

A Sunday statement by Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanded that Belarus pull back its forces or risk further escalation and “tragic mistakes”.

The statement described that under the guise of exercises, “a significant number of personnel, including Special Operations Forces, weapons, and military equipment” are present at the border. It additionally named the presence of former Wagner PMC forces.

“We warn Belarusian officials not to make tragic mistakes for their country under Moscow’s pressure,” the Ukrainian foreign ministry continued. “We emphasize that Ukraine has never taken and is not going to take any unfriendly actions against the Belarusian people,” it added.

Belarus and Russia are treaty allies which form a “Union State” – and Moscow utilized Belarusian territory to kick off its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine territory. President Putin last year also ordered the positioning of tactical nuclear warheads at Belarusian bases, overseen by Russian officers. Both countries are under heavy US/EU-led sanctions.

Alarmingly, Kiev has also called out Belarus for threatening nuclear safety, given the proximity of the alleged force build-up, per Politico:

Ukraine’s statement noted the Belarusian troop deployment was concentrated in an area near the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, warning: “Conducting exercises in the border area and in close proximity to the nuclear power facility… poses a threat to the national security of Ukraine and global security in general.”

Kiev’s fresh statement concluded: “We warn that in case of a violation of Ukraine’s state border by Belarus, our state will take all necessary measures to exercise the right to self-defense guaranteed by the UN Charter.”

“Consequently, all troop concentrations, military facilities, and supply routes in Belarus will become legitimate targets for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

Ukraine and its Western partners have been monitoring the presence of Wagner mercenaries in Belarus and in foreign lands…

Russia’s Wagner mercenary group said on Monday that it only operated in Africa and in Russian ally Belarus, and its soldiers were no longer fighting in the Ukraine war. https://t.co/UPdAKjrghF

— Levent Kemal (@leventkemaI) August 26, 2024

Despite several border incidents and accusations, Belarus has by and large stayed on the sidelines throughout the Russia-Ukraine war, though it has allowed Moscow forces to launch drones from its territory. But a feared troop incursion by Minsk forces into Ukraine has never come.

Yet Ukraine’s threats that Belarusian troops could become “legitimate targets” are somewhat empty, given Ukraine’s military is suffering severe manpower problems, and the opening of another war front with Belarus would only exacerbate the crisis.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump would, if elected, veto a national abortion ban, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) said on Aug. 25.

“If you’re not supporting it as the president of the United States, you fundamentally have to veto it,” Vance, Trump’s running mate, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The president can sign or veto a piece of legislation that reaches his desk after being approved by both chambers of Congress.

Members can override a veto. That requires two-thirds of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate.

The Republican vice presidential nominee said a Trump–Vance administration would not impose a national ban on abortion.

“I can absolutely commit that,” he said.

“Donald Trump I think has staked his position and made it very explicit,” Vance added later.

“He wants this to be a state decision, states are going to make this determination themselves.”

Trump has not said explicitly that he would veto abortion ban legislation, but he has said that abortion restrictions should be left up to states.

“Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights,” the former president said in a video on social media earlier this year.

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both.”

Trump supported the U.S. Supreme Court in overturning its own precedent established in Roe v. Wade, which concluded that access to abortion was a constitutional right. The justices, including three appointed by Trump, ruled in 2022 that this conclusion was erroneous.

The ruling also reversed a 1992 Supreme Court decision that had prevented states from imposing significant restrictions on abortion before a fetus could survive outside the womb.

The ruling was “only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote on his platform, Truth Social, at the time. “It was my great honor to do so!”

Vance said on NBC that Trump “wants to end this culture war over this particular topic” and that “Trump’s view is that we want the individual states, and their individual cultures, and their unique political sensibilities to make these decisions because we don’t want to have a nonstop federal conflict over this issue.”

Instead, the federal government “ought to be focused on getting food prices down, getting housing prices down,” Vance said.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who is running against Trump, has told voters that Trump supports a federal ban on abortion.

“Trump hand-picked three members of the Supreme Court because he intended for them to overturn Roe v Wade—as he intended, they did,” she wrote on the social media platform X recently.

“If he is re-elected, we know he will sign a national abortion ban. As president, I will restore reproductive freedom.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said on X, “God have mercy on this nation if this is now the position of what was the Pro-Life Party.”

Trump, meanwhile, took to social media on Aug. 23 to say that his second term “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”

He told reporters hours later, at an event in Las Vegas, that he is “very strong on women’s reproductive rights,” including access to in vitro fertilization.

Authored by Lear Zhou via The Epoch Times,

Homeless people in San Francisco are adapting to the city’s new encampment sweeping policy, which was enacted after a recent Ninth Circuit ruling paved the way for the city to clear out homeless camps.

Previously, the city had to offer shelter to the homeless individuals every time it swept out a camp. After the new ruling, it can clear a recently swept area without shelter offers.

San Francisco has thus performed a citywide homeless encampment sweeping in the last few weeks, targeting the largest encampment areas.

An Epoch Times reporter visited the corner of Mission Street and Van Ness Avenue on the evening of Aug. 8 and found no tents in the neighborhood, which used to be a major encampment site near downtown. Some of the homeless people from that area are now scattered into smaller encampments, with tools like bicycles that give them the mobility to set up tents for the night.

That same evening, on Folsom Street on the block between 17th Street and 18th Street, which was also a large encampment site, the reporter found only five tents left. One unhoused person with a bicycle mentioned to the reporter that the others had probably moved to another spot.

If that spot is in San Francisco, they are still risking being swept out by the city. San Francisco will continue to address homeless encampments, the mayor’s office told The Epoch Times on Aug. 8 via email.

“Enforcement against camping on San Francisco’s streets will consist of progressive penalties,” Mayor London Breed stated in a memo.

The penalties start with a warning and could escalate to citations or even arrest in some cases.

“Our work still centers around helping every person living on our streets find their way indoors to shelter and services or to a better opportunity with friends or family if that resource is available to them,” the mayor’s office stated.

The Public Defender’s Office declined to comment when The Epoch Times asked if it had seen a surge of requests for help due to the encampment sweeping.

Lawsuit Against San Francisco

A case called Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco was filed in September 2022, challenging San Francisco’s encampment sweeps on the grounds that they violate the Eighth Amendment regarding cruel and unusual punishment.

In December 2022, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing San Francisco from sweeping homeless encampments without offering shelter to the homeless individuals.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in September 2023 that the city could clear homeless encampments if the homeless people living there refused an offer of shelter, according to a May press release from the mayor’s office. With that clarification, San Francisco was able to reduce the number of homeless tents and structures from 609 in July 2023 to 360 in April 2024, and after that there were only nine encampments left that had five or more tents or structures.

In June this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a different court case that enforcement of laws against public camping does not count as cruel and unusual punishment. On July 8, the Ninth Circuit revised the injunction against San Francisco, allowing the city to enforce its public camping laws.

Eric Smith at the corner of Haight Street in San Francisco. Lear Zhou/The Epoch Times

Homelessness in San Francisco

The mayor’s memo stated that police officers will look for small homeless camps and will work with Public Works staff to address them and prevent them from becoming larger encampments.

Breed stated in an executive order issued Aug. 1: “We will not be a city with a reputation for being able to solve the housing and behavioral health needs of people across our country.”

The executive order requested that all city workers first offer relocation services to homeless persons, enabling those from outside San Francisco to return to their hometowns, before offering other services such as shelter.

According to the executive order, 40 percent of unsheltered people in San Francisco did not live there before they arrived.

San Francisco had a homeless population of 8,323 as of Jan. 30, among whom 4,354 were unsheltered, according to the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH).

The San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) Healthy Streets Operations Center (HSOC), the main entity implementing the encampment sweepings, was launched in January 2018 before Breed assumed office in July 2018. The purpose of HSOC is “to coordinate the City’s response both to homeless encampments and to behaviors that impact quality of life,” according to a report from the Controller’s Office.

The task force combines city staff from SFPD, Public Works, the Department of Public Health, HSH, and the Department of Emergency Management.

In HSOC’s first year, it reduced the number of tents citywide from 568 in July 2018 to 341 in January 2019, and it reduced the number of encampments with 5 or more tents or structures from 17 to 5 in the same time span, the Controller’s Office reported.

However, HSH reported that in January 2020 the number of large encampments was 19. In February 2020, HSH counted 1,545 tents and structures.

Large encampments, defined as those with more than five tents or structures, have higher levels of substance abuse and infectious disease and can increase public health and safety concerns in and around them, according to an HSOC presentation in 2018.

Homeless individuals are also at constant risk of having their belongings stolen.

Eric Smith, who lives in the Haight-Ashbury District and has been homeless since the COVID-19 pandemic began, told The Epoch Times that he has been robbed multiple times but often finds his possessions lying on the street, including items that used to belong to his mother or grandmother.

To Smith, homelessness was like being “a refugee in my own country.”

By Benjamin Picton, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Speaking at the Jackson Hole Symposium on Friday evening, Jerome Powell confirmed the worst kept secret that the Fed is poised to deliver an interest rate cut in September. Powell said that “the time has come for policy to adjust”, but didn’t give any clues as to whether the first move would be the standard 25 basis points, or a supersized 50 basis point cut. Market pricing suggests that traders are unsure on that score. The OIS futures currently have 29bps priced in for September, which is near enough to a coin flip.

Early in his prepared remarks Powell noted that the cooling in the labor market was “unmistakable”.   He suggested that the pace of hiring has slowed, the ratio of vacant jobs to unemployment (the Beveridge Curve) has returned to pre-pandemic levels and both hiring and quit rates also resemble the situation that prevailed prior to Covid19. In Powell’s estimation, “it seems unlikely that the labor market will be a source of elevated inflationary pressures anytime soon.”

Powell says the economy is still growing at a “solid pace”, but he made it clear that the focus has now shifted from fighting inflation to the other side of the dual mandate: maximum employment. To whit, Powell said that upside risks to inflation have receded, but that the Fed does not “seek or welcome further cooling in labor market conditions.”

With clear signals of imminent easing, asset prices reacted in much the way that you would expect. The S&P500 closed 1.15% higher, the NASDAQ pumped 1.47%, 2-year Treasury yields fell 9bps, 10-year yields were down 5bps and both crude oil and gold prices firmed. The Bloomberg Dollar spot index was down by 0.78% on the day, producing a death cross on the chart as the 50 DMA moved below the 200 DMA.

Our own US Strategist, Philip Marey, recently updated his forecast on the path of Fed policy rates. Philip had previously tipped a cut in September followed by another in December and two more in the first half of 2025. Ahead of Powell’s speech, Philip revised this to bunch his four cuts into consecutive meetings (September, November, December and January) owing to the clear signs of labor market softening and our house view that the United States is trending toward recession, or at least a substantial downturn.

If that’s the case, you might be forgiven for wondering why we are sticking with just four 25bps cuts as our view when most estimates of a neutral nominal rate lay somewhere South of that. The reasoning behind our call is the considerable uncertainty about the political situation in Washington. Under a Trump win scenario the imposition of universal tariffs, tax cuts and strong government spending are likely to induce an inflationary boom that would hamper the Fed in cutting rates further. Under the Harris scenario of targeted tariffs, tax increases and strong government spending, the inflation impetus is likely to be weaker, which opens up the possibility of more cuts than we are currently tipping.

There is also the issue of the Middle East bubbling away in the background putting a cloud over supply-side progress. Israel announced over the weekend that it had launched pre-emptive strikes on up to 40 locations in Southern Lebanon where Hezbollah was believed to be preparing imminent rocket and drone launches. 100 Israeli warplanes were involved in the strikes and Israeli sources claim that the attack thwarted the launch of thousands of projectiles into Israeli territory.

Immediately following the Israeli attack, Hezbollah militants launched approximately 320 projectiles into Israel. An Israeli base just outside Tel Aviv appears to have been the main target. Reports suggest that most of the projectiles were intercepted by Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defence system, but Hezbollah leader Nasrallah went on TV late on Sunday to declare the assault a success, rubbish Israel’s claim that they had prevented “thousands” of projectiles being launched and suggest that Israeli sources are hiding the extent of their losses.

Despite the significant exchange of fire between the two belligerents, the events of the weekend may have helped to forestall the threat of regional war, at least in the short term. Hezbollah’s attack on Israel allows it to save face by claiming revenge for the assassination of Fuad Shukr several weeks ago, while the Israeli strike on Hezbollah rocket positions may have prevented civilian casualties that could have demanded a more severe response from Israel later on. At this stage, both sides are signalling limited appetite to escalate further as they remain wary of taking action that could lead to all-out war.

Consequently, markets have not reacted substantially to the news in early trade. However, it would be a mistake to think that the matter is now closed. Nasrallah warned that the events of the weekend were a “preliminary response” and that Hezbollah will “act accordingly” if they assess that the impact of that response was not “satisfactory”.  We are also yet to see significant promised action from other members of the ‘Axis of Resistance’: Iran, the Houthis & Hamas. Their desire to extract a price from Israel and its allies is no secret at all.

Brent crude prices are surging above the $81/bbl mark on Monday morning, driven by two major headlines: 

• Middle East on edge after Israeli strike on Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon
• Libya’s eastern-based government said it will stop all oil production and exports

The primary driver between the two headlines is Bloomberg’s report that Libya’s eastern government plans to shut down oil production and exports after its Tripoli-based rival moved to replace the central bank leadership. 

Libya Eastern Govt Says It Will Stop All Oil Production, Export

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 26, 2024

Eastern authorities said the declared “force majeure” applies to all oil fields, export terminals, and all other oil facilities. 

Infighting between the two governments has been ongoing for the last week, centering around who leads the Central Bank of Libya (CBL). There are mounting risks that a UN-brokered peace deal could collapse. 

“The internationally acknowledged government in the country’s west has been seeking to replace the governor Sadiq Al-Kabir, who has refused to step down. A government delegation entered the regulator’s offices today to take over,” according to Bloomberg. 

Here’s more on the situation from Bloomberg:

The announcement comes amid an attempt to oust CBL governor Al-Siddiq al-Kabir. Earlier this month, the Tripoli-based Presidential Council (PC) voted unanimously to appoint Mohammed al-Shukri as CBL governor, replacing Al-Kabir.

Over the weekend, local media outlets reported that the new board had taken up its duties and that armed men had abducted several CBL officials.

The east-based House of Representatives (HoR) and the High Council of State (HCS) both issued statements condemning what they described respectively as attempts to “storm” and “seize control” of the CBL – in apparent reference to the board taking up office at the CBL headquarters.

Last week, HoR Speaker Aguila Saleh had warned that removing Al-Kabir could result in shutting down oil production and stopping the transfer of oil revenues to the CBL.

In a separate Bloomberg report, the east-based government warned about “attacks” against employees at the CBL and the attempts by “outlaw groups” to enter “the CBL headquarters by force.” 

What’s critical to understand is that a force majeure across all oil fields, ports, and installations will lead to the interruption of oil production, which totaled about 1.15 million barrels a day last month. The biggest oil field, Sharara, pumping about 270,000 barrels, has been halted. 

What Happens if We Lose All of Libya’s Crude Oil Exports?

Daily Energy Report #Oil #Libya #OPEC #Russia #LNG https://t.co/UrSfvvIRdH pic.twitter.com/O1wL57sUpQ

— Anas Alhajji (@anasalhajji) August 22, 2024

Brent crude prices jumped 2.6% in markets to $81.09/bbl. Prices have been range-bound since early 2023, basing around the $75-$80 level and occasionally jumping above $90 on geopolitical risks stemming from the Middle East. Down pressure on Brent in recent months originated from economic slowdowns in China and risks mounting of a downturn in the US. 

Two weeks ago, we outlined to readers that bullish positioning in Brent by investors was cut to the lowest level on record, mostly due to rising concerns over a global economic slowdown. To us, this signaled a ‘price rebound’ was ahead. 

“Oil blockades are a time-honored tradition in Libya. Unlike recent ones, that have been driven mostly by locals demanding jobs and better living conditions and are relatively easy to resolve, this one is political in nature. Political blockades tend to last several months. A Libya disruption will likely amplify the price impact we’ve seen over the weekend from the latest round of the Israel-Hezbollah airwar,” said Fernando Ferreira, director of geopolitical risk service at the Rapidan Energy Group.

Citigroup analysts noted earlier that a decline in exports could temporarily push Brent prices into the mid-$80s range. Combined with rising geopolitical risks in the Middle East, further deterioration could send crude prices even higher.

Authored by Kenin Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

The Supreme Court had multiple opportunities during the last term to end the censorship of conservatives by social media. It chose a different path. Now, Democrats are free to double down on the Biden-Harris administration’s massive censorship enterprise.

There is every indication they intend to do so. 

The bedrock of American democracy, the First Amendment, prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The prohibition also applies to executive actions and state governments. Until recently, there was bipartisan agreement on the centrality of free speech to American liberties. Today, nearly a third of Americans believe free speech rights go too far.

When Donald Trump was elected president, Democrats in Congress threatened social media platforms with antitrust actions and repeal of the libel protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if they failed to rein in conservative speech. When Joe Biden took office, the federal government institutionalized a censorship enterprise that coerced and collaborated with social media platforms to censor, suppress, and demonetize disfavored views.

The New York Times acknowledges the left has long sought to limit “unfettered speech.” Former president Barak Obama told a Stanford University conference that government controls must be imposed to stop so-called “disinformation.” Vice President Kamala Harris announced a White House task force to block disinformation involving women’s issues. Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz told MSNBC, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” In fact, both are generally protected by the First Amendment. The Democrat platform sees controlling disinformation as a priority.

By contrast, in July, the Republicans adopted a platform that states: “We will ban the Federal Government from colluding with anyone to censor Lawful Speech, defund institutions engaged in censorship, and hold accountable all bureaucrats involved with illegal censoring. We will protect Free Speech online.”

In Murthy v. Missouri, healthcare professionals, Missouri, and Louisiana sued to block the Biden-Harris censorship regime. During discovery, officials testified that they knowingly sought to end-run the prohibitions on government interference in free speech by working with and through third parties, including Stanford, non-profit associations, and social media companies. After reviewing extensive discovery, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty found that the Biden-Harris administration had engaged in “a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government” and issued an injunction to stop it. A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the findings but tailored the injunction to eliminate ambiguities and exclude some agencies.

Florida and Texas then passed laws to make it more difficult for social media platforms to ban political speech. The 11th Circuit struck down Florida’s law, finding that it impermissibly limited editorial discretion, while the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas’ law, concluding that content moderation activities are not speech.

Last term, the Supreme Court weighed in on both cases.

In Murthy v. Missouri, a 6-3 Court overruled the Fifth Circuit, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate that their speech was specifically censored by specified actions of identified government officials. The majority found that the platforms had independent incentives to censor content, “often” exercised their own judgment, and likely would have censored the same content without government coercion or encouragement.

In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the court unanimously decided that the Florida and Texas appeals courts had inadequately analyzed the First Amendment. It sent the cases back for reconsideration, though warning the Fifth Circuit that content moderation usually involves editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment.

The court’s use of the left’s preferred euphemism, “content moderation,” in these decisions, rather than “censor” or “suppress,” is troubling. And, while the court is properly wary of states intruding in the editorial choices made by social media platforms, it expressed no similar concern about the federal government. Murthy was inconsistent with NetChoice, precedent, and the evidentiary record.

In Peterson v. City of Greenville (1963), the court held that when the government strongly involves itself in a private party’s conduct, it cannot claim the conduct occurred as a result of private choice, even if the private party would have acted independently. In Norwood v. Harrison (1973), Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that the government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) and Blum v. Yaretsky (1982), the court developed guidelines for when government becomes responsible for private actions by coercing or “significantly encouraging” those actions. In his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. (2021), Justice Clarence Thomas summarized: “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

Since the court’s ruling in Murthy, the Biden-Harris administration has ramped up its censorship enterprise. A July report from the Justice Department recycles the same justification of malign foreign influence it used in defending Murthy to again authorize DOJ collaboration with social media platforms to suppress disfavored postings. Last week, referring to Elon Musk’s interview with Donald Trump on X, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre channeled former Press Secretary Jen Psaki, asserting that social media companies have a “responsibility” to stop disinformation and misinformation.

Though the Court’s rulings leave an opportunity for future plaintiffs to more carefully link coercion to specific instances of censorship, unless Republicans win in November, government-encouraged censorship of conservatives will only get worse.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, and podcasts.

French judicial authorities have extended the detention of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov following his surprise arrest at Paris’ Le Bourget airport on Saturday. 

The list of charges include fraud, drug trafficking, organized crime, terrorism promotion and cyber-bullying on the popular encrypted messaging platform. “It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform,” the company has said in a fresh statement.

The 39-year old Russian-born Durov, who also holds French and UAE citizenship, is being held for “questioning”. Le Monde is reporting Monday that his detention has been extended by the investigative magistrate.

His detention “was extended beyond Sunday night by the investigating magistrate who is handling the case, according to a source close to the investigation.”

“This initial period of detention for questioning can last up to a maximum of 96 hours,” Le Monde continues. “When this phase of detention ends, the judge can then decide to free him or press charges and remand in further custody.”

So at this point the initial 48 hours was extended to the max of 96 hours, during which time the judge must charge him or release. However, in more serious cases the detention period can reportedly be extended for up to 144 hours, or six days.

Le Monde reviews further:

France’s OFMIN, an office tasked with preventing violence against minors, had issued an arrest warrant for Durov in a preliminary investigation into alleged offenses including fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, organised crime and promotion of terrorism, another source said. Durov is accused of failing to take action to curb the criminal use of his platform.

Russian officials and media have been especially vocal in calling out France’s dubious case against Durov…

Today’s Russian papers on Pavel Durov’s detention in Paris:

* “The blow to Telegram threatens to become a blow to Russia.”
* “Telegram might become a tool of Nato…”
* “If Telegram crashes, how will [our army] fight?”#ReadingRussia pic.twitter.com/q4IYalPjHM

— Steve Rosenberg (@BBCSteveR) August 26, 2024

Absurdly, some American pundits are suggesting ‘Russian links’ and are seeking to justify Durov’s detention based on political alliances, smearing those speaking out on the obvious free speech issues: “Certain quarters…”

Most Americans have no idea who Pavel Durov is, what Telegram is, or why it might be important to the Kremlin. But his arrest swiftly drew attention from certain quarters. pic.twitter.com/a6jngeE1wb

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) August 25, 2024

The reality is that Durov actually has long been seen as an enemy of Putin and has a deeply antagonistic relationship with the Kremlin.

In 2014, Pavel Durov fled Russia, selling his multi-billion dollar social media company VK after refusing to censor content and share user’s private information with the Russian government.

In 2024, France, an EU and NATO member, arrested Durov for refusing to censor content on… pic.twitter.com/J2M7By1Yr5

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) August 25, 2024

Geopolitical analyst Arnaud Bertrand points out that “This is insane.” He goes on to explain:

Pavel Durov actually acquired French nationality in 2021 through an exceptional procedure: the so-called “eminent foreigner” process. Initiated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it grants French nationality to “a French-speaking foreigner who contributes through their eminent action to the influence of France and the prosperity of its international economic relations”. 3 years later France arrests the guy for doing the very same “eminent actions” they’d granted him citizenship for 3 years earlier. Make it make sense.

Telegram has stated that “Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe.” The company continued: “Telegram abides by EU laws, including the Digital Services Act – its moderation is within industry standards.”