About the Transgender Treatment Censorship Tsunami

The you remember the inorganic wave of brand new "obvious" things we were all supposed to believe and say about transgender topics? I agree with Greg Lukianoff that it was surreal. I spoke up with questions and concerns that were repeatedly blasted with religious fervor. But here we are now, and it's clear that the transgender religious movement distorted everything around it, including our First Amendment rights. One big moment to upright the ship was the Cass Report. Another was the mass closing of transgender clinics. And now a new Finnish study.

[You can see many many posts on this topic (I published more than 150 articles at this site) here:

Greg Lukianoff:

In my career defending academic freedom and free speech, I never saw anything become as immediately radioactive as views that ran counter to the narrative on trans issues. Papers were retracted, compelled speech was treated as normal, and people were canceled for saying things that would have sounded like common sense just a few years earlier. It seemed to become a kind of secular blasphemy overnight. And usually, that is a sign that the true believers know, at some level, that they are on shaky ground.

Continue ReadingAbout the Transgender Treatment Censorship Tsunami

Limited Hangout Week re Epstein “Disclosures”

If the phrase "limited hangout" is not yet part of your vocabulary, it's time to add it to your repertoire. Grok offers this definition:

A limited hangout is a strategy, often used in espionage, politics, or public relations, where a partial truth or selected information is disclosed to the public or investigators to prevent the discovery of more damaging or sensitive facts, effectively acting as a form of damage control when a full cover-up is no longer viable. The term originates from CIA jargon, as described by former official Victor Marchetti, who explained it as admitting "some of the truth when tight lips have slipped" but withholding the key details to mislead further inquiry.

Here is the only thing you can do to make sure you are not a victim of limited hangouts: Repeatedly ask: "What else have you not yet told me?" Ask this repeatedly, especially when dealing with people, government officials and corporate news outlets you have previously trusted. Consider these recent examples:

DOJ under Pam Bondi redacted a photo of Benjamin Netanyahu with Jeffrey Epstein from the files.

Redactions are admittedly an imperfect way of engaging in limited hangouts, but they work well enough often enough, given the limitations of human attention and memory.

DNC mega-donor Reid Hoffman was mentioned 2,600 times in the Epstein files. David Sachs: "The NYT story on Epstein & Silicon Valley has paragraphs on Elon, Peter Thiel … Reid Hoffman barely gets mentioned despite having the deepest Epstein relationship and having lied about it."

New York Times forgot to mention that one of its own reporters worked closely with Epstein well after Epstein was a known child sex trafficker. And see here.

The DOJ briefly uploaded — then removed — an 86-page document titled “Investigation into Potential Jeffrey Epstein Co-Conspirators.”

Amidst all the chaos, Rep Thomas Massie emerges: with some common sense:

Rep. Thomas Massie says he’s ready to use the nuclear option if the DOJ refuses to un-redact the names of Epstein’s clients. He warns he will simply start reading Epstein’s client names publicly if Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice does not release them. “If the victims want to give them to me, I’ve expressed that I’m willing to do that.” See also here.

Continue ReadingLimited Hangout Week re Epstein “Disclosures”

EU Directly Attacks the First Amendment

The EU is trying to destroy the First Amendment. It is an attack on the United States. Greg Lukianoff of FIRE quotes this article by the Editors of The Free Press:

“The stated reasons for the fine are a lack of transparency, a violation of advertising rules, and misleading users with “deceptive” design. The real reasons have little to do with those allegations, and everything to do with the kind of speech the EU wants to suppress: perspectives that have not been filtered through bureaucrats, academics, or media professionals; views that go against the received wisdom of policymakers; and views that have not been vetted and found to be acceptable by governments. Any company that utters the wrong kind of speech should now know that the meter is running.”

Mike Benz has been explaining that the actions of the EU must be considered a direct assault on the lives of all Americans:

This is the day I’ve warned the Trump Admin every day for 7 years would come, since 2018’s EU Disinfo Code, to 2019 when the DSA was floated in concept, to 2020 when it became a formal draft EU law while I was at State, to its 2022 adoption, to its 2025 mandatory Disinfo Code.

I keep telling you exactly what to do and exactly what bad things will happen next if you think you can ignore this and not do anything, and each thing I keep saying will happen next literally keeps happening next and happening exactly as I told you it would if you didn’t act.

How could anyone in the admin be surprised the EU censorship law would fine/extort X ??? That’s WHY they made the law, whose enforcement teeth JUST kicked in this summer! This is like letting a flesh-eating cannibal sleep on your chest then being surprised it bit your heart

My lovely DC policymakers who are doing so much good, this €120M fine is N-O-T-H-I-N-G compared to what happens in 2026, 2027, 2028 if this — the first fine — isn’t smacked the fuck out of the air hard, mercilessly and with a message. Is @USAmbEU briefed enough to be armed?

BTW, what has Hillary Clinton been up to? Jonathan Turley explains:

Heritage Foundation exposes Hillary Clinton was directly behind getting the European Union to use their Digital Services Act to pressure Elon Musk and America back into censorship ‌

Hillary Clinton flew overseas for a meeting to facilitate this against America ‌

“They (The European Union) gathered in Berlin, and it was the most anti-free speech gathering I've ever been part of — Hillary Clinton was there, and she really fueled the anger. ‌

When Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk, she called on the EU to use the infamous Digital Services Act, which is one of the most anti-free speech pieces of legislation in decades. And she called upon the EU to use the DSA (Digital Services Act) to force the censorship of American citizens, force people like Musk to censor.

It's an extraordinary act by someone who was once a presidential candidate” ‌

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingEU Directly Attacks the First Amendment

Whence Copyright Prosecutions?

It wasn't too long ago that we all had to walk on eggshells to make sure we did not overuse quotations from copyrighted material. We need to make sure that we fell within the fair use doctrine.  Four years ago, I was tagged by Getty (to the tune of $600) for using one photo in a powerpoint I created to illustrate a point (they didn't buy my fair use argument and I didn't want to risk a much higher potential fee (and attorneys' fees) by challenging them in court.

Fast forward, in this day and age of AI, what ever happened to copyright?  Is it, as Balzac wrote: ""Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught"?

And consider [with help from Grok here] some of the surreal scenes along the way, especially the "suicide" of Suchir Balaji, a 26-year-old former OpenAI researcher and whistleblower who publicly criticized the company's use of copyrighted data to train AI models like ChatGPT. He was found dead in his San Francisco apartment on November 26, 2024, in what authorities initially ruled a suicide with no evidence of foul play. Balaji had left OpenAI in August 2024 after four years, citing ethical concerns over potential violations of U.S. copyright law in the firm's data practices, and he was reportedly being considered as a witness in ongoing lawsuits against the company, including those from The New York Times. His death sparked controversy when his parents questioned the suicide determination, filing a lawsuit against San Francisco in February 2025 to challenge the police investigation and seek further details, amid persistent doubts from the family and public figures like Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson, who speculated on podcasts and interviews that it might have been murder despite official findings. No conclusive evidence supporting foul play has emerged, and the case remains a point of debate in tech and AI ethics circles.

Must watch video: Tucker Carlson interviewing OpenAI's Sam Altman on this "suicide" (start at min 19):

And now, Lee Fang asks what happened to copyright enforcement in this age of AI. Excerpt from "What Happened to Piracy? Copyright Enforcement Fades as AI Giants Rise."

Much has changed since advances in artificial intelligence have made the technology the focal point of Silicon Valley innovation. Smith is now president of Microsoft, and the company and its partner OpenAI—which exclusively runs on Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing network and was backed with $13.75 billion in investment funds from Microsoft—are at the center of a very different type of copyright dispute. This time, as the power of the tech industry still looms over Washington, D.C., prosecutors are less interested in going after those suspected of engaging in illegal downloads of copyrighted work.

That is because it is now the tech giants that are accused of exploiting pirated content on an industrial scale. Meta, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, xAI, and OpenAI are competing to vacuum up as much data as humanly possible in a race to develop their respective AI models. The most prized training data, it turns out, are vast quantities of copyrighted material, largely in the form of published works such as academic articles, novels, and nonfiction books.

After decades of FBI warnings about copyright violations and the dangers of piracy, suddenly the federal government is no longer interested in such crimes. That has left law enforcement in the hands of civil litigation class actions, many of which have been filed by authors and writers noting that tech giants are now plundering their works for AI training without authorization, payment, or notification.

The court cases have cast a spotlight on a stratospheric level of hypocrisy.

Continue ReadingWhence Copyright Prosecutions?

John Brennan Flips and Flops on the Hot Seat

This is what happens when someone (I wish I knew who, because he DOES deserve a medal) puts a powerful corrupt deep state partisan on the spot in front of a live audience (with the cameras recording this for potential future criminal prosecution). Notice that John Brennan's go-to response is not to answer the spot-on question, but rather to quickly try to figure out how to smear the questioner.

On FB, I added this: "Those of you who inhabit only the corporate news ecosystem won't have any fucking idea why this video is critically important."

Continue ReadingJohn Brennan Flips and Flops on the Hot Seat