The “News” Media is the Dying Canary in the Coal Mine

I have lost respect for many institutions over the past few years. Not so much the members, but the leadership (which causes many member to fall silent). Exhibit A is our so-called "news" media. I have been collecting dozens and dozens of examples at my website, Dangerous Intersection.

It often boils down to these organizations failing to be curious about what is going on. Failing to question powerful people. Failing to vigorously cross-examine the leaders of the political parties they obediently serve. Journalists should be out there pissing off ALL of our leaders with probing questions, but they are too often serving as stenographers and megaphones for highly questionable positions. This great danger to our country is invisible as long as you cling to one side or the other (democrat serving or republican serving) "news" media.

I challenge anyone reading this to start reading "the other side" and, better yet, independent journalists, in order to get a much better view of what is going on. You'll find many of those independent journalists have left mainstream news to strike out on their own (e.g., on Substack), disgusted with what has happened to their employers.

Here's a recent example: Why were reporters failing to grill Pfizer executives and our political leaders on whether the vaccinations would stop transmission of COVID? How many dozens of bad policies resulted because our "news" reporters decided to parrot public officials rather than vigorously question them?

Continue ReadingThe “News” Media is the Dying Canary in the Coal Mine

Statement by FIRE on Attempts by Venmo and PayPal to Deny Financial Services based on the Speech and Viewpoints of Users

FIRE Statement on Free Speech and Online Payment Processors Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression by FIRE (September 30, 2022):

The issue: Online payment processors like Venmo and PayPal often deny Americans access to these vital services based on their speech or viewpoints.

The concern: When these companies appoint themselves the arbiters of what speech and views are acceptable, shutting people and organizations out of the online financial ecosystem for wrongthink, they seriously undermine our culture of free expression.

Imagine you could no longer use PayPal, Venmo, or another online payment processor because you run an organization that defends free speech for controversial speakers, operate an independent media outlet that challenges mainstream narratives, sell erotic fiction or “occult” materials, or . . . tried to submit an article about Syrian refugees into a newspaper awards competition.

These are not hypotheticals. They’re real, and they illustrate why online payment service providers should stay out of the business of policing their users’ speech and views.

Follow the link for the entire article by FIRE. The article includes numerous examples of abuses by these financial services companies.

Continue ReadingStatement by FIRE on Attempts by Venmo and PayPal to Deny Financial Services based on the Speech and Viewpoints of Users

Ag-Gag Law Struck Down

An Ag-Gag Law has been struck down by an Iowa Federal Court. Trespass is already prohibited and those who trespass can be punished for trespassing. Ag-gag laws go further and impose additional penalties on those who seek to engage in free speech regarding the things they notice while trespassing. Here is an excerpt from the Des Moines Register:

A federal judge has struck down the third attempt by the Iowa Legislature to stop animal-welfare groups from secretly filming livestock abuse, finding once again that the law passed last year violates free-speech rights in the U.S. Constitution.

The decision Sept. 26 rejected the law approved by Iowa lawmakers in April 2021 that makes it a crime to trespass on a property to place a camera to record or transmit images. The law, which had support from Republicans and some Democrats, made the first offense punishable by up to two years in prison and subsequent offenses a felony.

The case is one of many so-called ag-gag laws that have surfaced in the U.S. in recent years that pit the right of farmers to protect their property from trespassers against animal-welfare advocates. Farmers argue intruders could track in disease and want to unfairly portray their livestock practices, while animal-welfare groups say producers don't want the public to see how farm animals are treated.

Here is the conclusion of the court:

[T]he Act provides protection with respect to the exercise of a First Amendment right. The United States Constitution does not allow such a singling out of the exercise of a constitutional right. The decision to single out this conduct is most plainly shown by Defendants' description of the Act as “enhancing the penalty for conduct that is already prohibited by law.” That is the issue with the law—it is enhancing a criminal penalty based on the exercise of speech (or a predicate component of speech). The law does not limit its reach to specific instances of using a camera, such as a peeping tom situation. Rather, the Act only punishes a trespasser exercising a constitutional right. Section 727.8A burdens the exercise of speech and Defendants have not proffered a sufficient justification for such a burden.

The case is ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., BAILING OUT BENJI, FOOD & WATER WATCH, and IOWA CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY REYNOLDS, in her official capacity as Governor of Iowa, TOM MILLER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Iowa, Case No. 4:21-cv-00231-SMR-HCA, United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division.

Continue ReadingAg-Gag Law Struck Down

Criticizing Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Can Ruin the Careers of Journalists: The Case of Katie Halper

Matt Taibbi interviews Katie Halper, recently fired from The Hill. An excerpt:

The controversy began when Michigan Democrat Rashida Tliab spoke at an online seminar on September 20th and said, “It has become clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values, yet back Israel’s apartheid government.” Tliab gave her talk in the wake of the shooting of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed in the West Bank City of Jenin in May. Abu Akleh’s family met with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in July, and asked the International Criminal Court to open a case two weeks ago, simultaneous to Tlaib’s seminar.

Tliab’s comments inspired an immediate reaction from the Anti-Defamation League, which deemed them anti-Semitic. CEO Jonathan Greenblatt ripped Tliab for ostensibly telling “American Jews they must pass an anti-Zionist litmus test to participate in progressive spaces.” The ADL reaction got wide play on stations like CNN.

Katie’s “Radar” argues Tliab’s comments laid bare what has long been a source of tension among self-described progressives, who often tiptoe around the subject of occupied Palestine. As you’ll see above, she approached her subject with great care, leaning on statements from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Agree with her or not, her editorial certainly wasn’t fake news, or flippant, or gratuitous. It’s what the media business normally wants: a decisive, well-argued opinion.

However, the Hill thought otherwise, and what makes the situation unusual is a media company saying the proverbial quiet part out loud. When editors refused to run the “Radar,” Katie asked flat-out if the problem was the subject of Israel. Though there was some hemming and hawing (at one point she was told the problem was that the show’s focus was on domestic and not foreign policy, despite running content about Brazilian elections, Italy’s new prime minister, and multiple Ukraine pieces that week), eventually they just told her that was, in fact, the case. The next day, she was let go via a curt email ending, “We wish you all the best.”

Continue ReadingCriticizing Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Can Ruin the Careers of Journalists: The Case of Katie Halper

PayPal and Etsy Cancel Colin Wright Because He Teaches Basic Biology in his Writings

Biologist Colin Wright explains how PayPal and Etsy banned him for taking the position that there are only two sexes and that they are biologically grounded. He explains the PayPal actions at about the ten-minute mark.

Consider also the context: Colin Wright's background as a Ph.D student studying biology:

Min 8:04:

"I had maybe 100 applications out actually turned my my twitter I locked it down for maybe six months while I was applying for jobs um and when I was writing this one essay the first one I wrote for Quillette called "The New Evolution Deniers." I sent it to my advisor at the time and some of my mentors. They both came back and they said, "This is a fantastic essay. I agree with everything it's completely right, but you cannot publish this. This will ruin your career. If you do publish it don't put your name on it."

To me when the first thing they said was "this is fantastic and it's true." Then, to me, everything after the "but." If I would have not went ahead and published it, that would have just been--every reason that I wanted to get into science in the first place and to be a scientist to pursue truth, to pursue what's real about biology and the natural world--all of a sudden it seemed like academia really wasn't what I wanted it to be like. Do I want to work in an environment that is not going to allow me to say completely obviously true, things is that male and female exist? So really I no longer even wanted to have that job anymore given how much it's changed, since I had gone into it you know 12 years ago now at this point um so yeah so I was actually okay with it destroying my career um because I wanted to to be able to speak the truth."

Continue ReadingPayPal and Etsy Cancel Colin Wright Because He Teaches Basic Biology in his Writings