Silicon Valley Billionaire Goes After Online scandal Site Gawker

Gawker is a US based scandal sheet, a sort of online tabloid  that speciaizes in sleazy celebrity gossip and repetition of unsubstantiated rumour. They’ve published stories that have attracted the attentions of copyright and privacy lawyers. There has always been a market for such sleaze and in the contemporary, celebrity obsessed atmosphere, gawker has found an eager audience.

But when Gawker went after wrestler and actor Hulk Hogan it all went pear shaped for the sleaze merchants. Hogan became upset over an intrusive article containing revelations about his sex life, which we would agree is a private matter. So the Hulkster decided to sue.

And a very wealthy and very secretive silicon valley figure, a man obsessed with privacy, decided to help him by hiring a team of the very best lawyers. And then it all went pear shaped for Gawker. Hogan won the case, which was justice. Punitive damages which were out of all proportion to the offence, but would certainly bankrupt Gawker, were awarded. And that was not justice but something very dangerous.

Society and the law are headed down a very dangerous road if the extremely wealthy can use their money and power to avoid scrutiny of their activities and thus can destroy publications they want to silence, not just scandal sheets that reveal sleazy details of their sex lives, but more respectable publications. One of the functions of a free press, we should remember, is to hold to account the rich and powerful and expose any crooked dealings they may be involved in. If the law is perpared to help such people suppress free speech and avoid being held to account, that is an intolerable threat to democracy and free speech. If megamoney damages awards in lawsuits are to be the new weapon in the arsenal of the super rich who believe they are above the law, few publications have the resources or the death wish to scrutinize them closely.

So the question is, in a battle between two piles of shit, which pile of shit should a fair minded person support.

from Talking Points Memo

A Huge, Huge Deal

This morning The New York Times reported an interview with Gawker owner Nick Denton in which Denton said he had begun to believe rumors that some extremely wealthy person had been bankrolling Hogan’s suit. Read the Times article for the specifics. But the gist is that Hogan’s lawyers made key decisions which made zero sense if the goal were to maximize the plaintiff’s settlement. Denton said he thought the person was likely someone from Silicon Valley, where you have a strong overlap between people who have virtually unlimited wealth and people who are not accustomed to the intrusive and aggressive coverage Gawker and its sister sites specialize in. It was a little difficult for me to believe something like this was actually happening. But the evidence of the legal strategy was pretty compelling. And in recent weeks, in the aftermath of the Hogan verdict, there have been a spate of new lawsuits brought against Gawker that are unrelated to the Hogan case. All have been brought by the same lawyer who handled Hogan’s suit.

Now sure enough, this evening Forbes reported that the bankroller of the Hogan suit is none other than Peter Thiel, a prominent Silicon Valley billionaire who styles himself a libertarian but somewhat incongruously is a big time supporter of Donald Trump in addition to numerous other right wing causes, most of which have a distinctly Randian cast.

Regardless of his politics, this news should disturb everyone. People talk a lot about the dominance of the 1% or in this case more like a tiny fraction of the 1%. But being able to give massive political contributions actually pales in comparison to the impact of being able to destroy a publication you don’t like by combining the machinery of the courts with anonymity and unlimited funds to bleed a publication dry.

So one again we see that for all the liberal, politically correct, ‘caring and sharing’ posturing of politicians, the world is increasingly dominated by big money and big power. And everywhere in what we have called ‘the free world’ power is being concentrated in the hands of the obscenely wealthy, and exercised on their behalf by the politicians they control

And whatever label people who support such a system pin to their clothes, liberal, progressive, left wing, socialist, the only label that truly describes it is ‘fascism’.

 

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

The Separation Of Bathroom & State

When the US city of Charlotte, North Carolina passed a local law which became known as ‘the bathroom ordinance’ which gave ment the right to use women’s public toilets, sports facilitity changing rooms and so on, in effect a spineless caving in to the hate politics of the Gay BLT lobby, the state of North Carolina’s response to it — has taken on a life of its own.

In late February 2016, the Charlotte, North Carolina, city council passed the “antidiscrimination” law, scheduled to go into effect on April 1. It was aimed at protecting what, in the view of the city council, are the rights of those in the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. The centerpiece of this law was a clause that prohibited businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from segregating usage of those facilities by biological gender. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. (Note, no proof was required.)

Much of the criticism of the Charlotte bill was centered around two issues: the ‘religious’ freedom of business owners and the privacy rights of people, particularly women, using public bathroom and shower facilities. Most sane people would I think, contend that the issue of religious freedom is irrelevant, providing separate facilities is a matter of common decency.

Similar ordinances have been used to force small business owners like florists, bakers, photographers and bed-and-breakfast owners and others either to conform to a government-dictated viewpoint in violation of those sincerely held religious beliefs or to face legal charges, fines and other penalties that have ultimately caused some to go out of business. I attacted a lot of hate mail when blogging on a case of a bakery in Ireland that refused to supply a celebration cake bearing a message supporting same sex marriage was charged under hate crime laws. My offence was to point out that why a gay couple could demand they business serve them and be backed by law, my wife and I could ask the bakery to make a cake saying “best wishes to Dave and Debbie, thanks for giving us a grandchild,” and the business would have every right to refuse simply because they did not like the look of us. Freedom always has to be a two way street.

In the face of public outrage from the herterosexual majority who were quite happy with the status quo, the state of North Carolina’s responded by imposing a law at state level that ruled all toilets (or rest rooms as the somewhat prissy American left refer to them) and changing facilities did not have to be politically correct and non discriminatory. This prompted the Gay BLT lobby (yes, I know that is offensive, if the politically correct clowns claim the right to ffend me, then in the name of equal rights and diversity, I claim the right to offend them,) and their supporters the progressives to take up arms against sanity and demonstrate once more that when they screech about equal rights, what they really mean is very unequal rights or privileged status for favoured minorities.

In fact the North Carolina law did not discriminate agains transgender freaks or men who, usually for highly unsavoury reasons, want to ‘identify’ as women in order to use women’s toilets and changing rooms, what it did restore freedom and property rights to business owners while respecting the rights of people, mostly women, to share facilities only with people of their own gender and to guarantee those rights across the state. In fact it should surprise me that the feminists and ‘progressives’ who have screeched about womens rights for fifty years are now prepared to brush aside womens’ rights because the cause of chicks-with-dicks rights is more fashionable.

I say it should surprise me because I have been exposed to the double standards, hypocrisy, authoritarianism and sheer selfishness of US ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ that nothing they do or say could surprise me now unless they all succumbed to a plague of common sense and decency.

Now as a man I am not particularly worried about who I share public toilet facilities with, but I do understand why women do not want to share with us lads as we curse, fart, scratch our bollocks and exchange crude remarks. And I understand why males who are going through the lengthy gender ‘reassignment’ program would feel unsafe in a mens’ facility. But if such people are sensible and do not make a big deal of the fact that they have dangly bits or make typically male comments (e.g. “nice tits love, show us your knickers”) to women then there is no problem.

However, under the Charlotte law gender specific facilities would be illegal, people would be forced to share. And that is not acceptable, what’s more there is nothing liberal or progressive about imposing the moral values of a minority on the majority.
The law in North Carolina that ‘progressives’ (i.e. fascists) are angry about does not prohibit businesses from having bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc., that allow use by people of all genders defined biologically, psychologically, or whatever. In a “myths vs facts” explanatory statement put out by the governor of North Carolina this was made quite clear:

Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with …
Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. …The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.

In other words, where the US Constiution codifies the separation of church and state, the state of North Carolina has now gone a step further and codified a basic libertarian principle: the separation of bathroom and state.
The only places in North Carolina where bathrooms, showers, etc., must conform with biological sex is in government owned facilities — courtrooms, city halls, schools, etc., where this separation is not possible. So yes, in North Carolina prurient 14 year old old boys, as defined by certain biological features, may not use the girls’ locker room and showers after gym class at the local public middle school. In private middle schools, governors are free to do what they want. If not accepting this is unjust discrimination makes me a bigot, then so be it. Under the Charlotte arrangement the aforementioned prurient 14 year old boys can use facilities according to how they self identify. If you cannot see what is wrong with that arrangement then you know nothing of: a) fairness and b) 14 year old boys.

Leftists all over the USA and some on Europe are accusing North Carolina of bigotry while, in the name of tolerance, a growing list of pop stars, show biz luvvies and businesses are boycotting the state. Unfortunately, what has gotten lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it.

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … Daily Stirrer …[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Aggregator]

Wikileaks To Reveal more On Obama’s Dirty Free Trade Treaties

For at least two years now, from the moment we became aware of the nature of the Obama Administration’s free trade’ deals (which are really about freeing global corporations from competition and legal constraints rather than free trade in any conventional sense,) Little Nicky and his friends at Boggart Blog, The Daily Stirrer, Boggart Abroad and elsewhere (see links at foot of article) have been trying to raise awareness of the biggest threat to invividual liberty and national sovereignty since …. well ever.

WikiLeaks has fed up by regularly publishing leaked documents relating to the highly secret Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade treaty negotiations, which are taking place behind closed doors and involve EU and American bureaucrats and corporate lawyers but exclude our democratically elected representatives in national parliaments and assemblies.

Many campaigners agains TTIP and TPP feel these treaties, which will give corporate lawyers the ability to rewrite national law in the interests of increasing profitability, are the culmination of a long term policy to establish and unelected global government, a meritocracy of bureaucrats and academics.

Two game-changing trade agreements are now perilously close to completion.

Their basic aims are three-fold: to elevate the rights of “investors,” that is of corporations, above the rights of citizens; to transfer sovereignty from the seats of national government to the corporate HQs of the world’s largest multinationals; and to cement Western domination of the global economy for the foreseeable future.

Naturally, few voters are likely to support such a radical program. Hence the acute need for secrecy, obfuscation and lies throughout the negotiation process. Eventually, even they are not enough. The lies start showing through and the flimsy facade begins to slip. In the later stages — roughly where we are now — the only way to finish the job is to incrementally, almost imperceptibly snuff out the institution of representative democracy itself. To do that, one must still keep the illusion of democracy alive, at least until the ink on its death warrant (i.e. a fully signed trade agreement) is dry.

This explains the European Commission’s constant empty promises of increased transparency, accountability and public consultation. The latest installment in this ridiculous charade came not from Brussels but from the US government, which announced that it will open up reading rooms in its embassies across the EU, so that national politicians can read secret documents related to TTIP.

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks is still banged up in the Ecudorian embassy in London but is still very involved in efforts to raise opposition to the corporate power grab that is going on all over the world with the complicity of elected governments. In an interview with Australian News Agency Fairfax Media, Mr Assange said that while he does not expect to leave the embassy compound any time soon, WikiLeaks very much remains in the business of publishing the secrets of diplomats and spies.

“There’ll be more publications – about large international so-called free trade deals, and about an intelligence agency,” Mr Assange said.

In a wide ranging interview Mr Assange discussed the recent establishment of a secure internet chat system to enable anonymous sources to contact WikiLeaks and the prospective reintroduction of a secure electronic drop box to facilitate the deposit of leaked documents.

Mr Assange said that a key challenge arose from the fact that any website open to receive anonymous leaks was an “exposed front door that becomes a permanent target” for intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

One part of the solution is to embed the instructions and code for the submission system on every webpage so that potential sources would be concealed amidst the estimated 500,000 unique readers who visit the WikiLeaks website each month.

“That gives a source some cover,” Mr Assange said, “but it’s important to understand that the protection of sources requires much more than a single technological fix.”

Little Nicky Machiavelli will keep you informed of developments.

RELATED POSTS:

Julian Assange On The TPP: “Deal Isn’t About Trade, It’s About Corporate Control”
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, still banged up the the London embassy of the Ecuador government has been speaking on the TPP deal which the Obama admisistration has been trying to fast track through the US Congress withour Senators or Representatives being allowed to debate it or even know what is in it. And from what wikileaks and other whistleblower sites have revealed, it is highly unsurprising the Obama administration is being so seretive …

How Congressional Republicans Lie to Approve Obama Trade Deals
With opposition to Obama’s ‘anything-but-free’ trade treaties Trans Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade And Investment Partnership strengthening both in the USA and Europe, it is interesting to observe how support for Obama’s neo – con inititiative which would grant corporate lawyers the power to overturn national law, is not falling according to the usual political party lines. Billionaires and those on the payroll of global corporations are broadly in support, others are recognising the threat to democracy and personal liberty.

How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics’ Most Powerful Critics
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.

US Senators Block Obama’s Fast Track For Corporate Friendly Trade Deals
As the efforts of the European Union to ‘fast track’ the pernicious and corporate friendly Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) his widespread opposition across the European Union member nations, the far eastern equivalent TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is being derailed by similar fears about jobs, workers’ rights and national sovereignty in the USA.

RELATED POSTS:

One drink a day increases the risk of breast cancer by 15 per cent, scientists claim
Another example of pseudo scientific scaremongering from Harvard University’s Department Of Cutural Marxist Propaganda, using spurious statistics (when they cite risk they do not mean 15% but 15% of 13%) in supprt of liberal / left wing politicians anti alcohol campaign, which is not about health but an excuse to raise taxes. The whole house of cards is demolished here by a writer who really understands statistics and is not ingornant of human nature.


Thousands Take To UK Streets To Demonstrate Against TTIP ‘Corporate Stitch-Up’

nds of people in the UK will this weekend to protest against the “corporate stitch-up” known as Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which has been negotiated in total secrecy between the European Union (Euronazi) bureaucrats in Brussels and for Washington, corporate lawyers working for the global conglomerates that own The Obama Administration …

TTIP Corporate Stitch Up And Revival Of The Loony Left Poses Existential Threat To Nation States
The same threat is coming at us from left and right. A radical shift in direction in this article you might think, I would defend my pov by saying that two threats that seem to come from different directions are in fact the same threat, authoritarianism, and we are in danger of being caught in a pincer movement.

Monsanto, The World’s Most Evil Corporation

the gm tomato of death
Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Tomato Of Death – Waking Times

Corporate power is out of control, corporate finance owns the political systems of the free politicised systems of healthcare, justice, education, employment and the media. It is futile to talk of accountability, there was a time when those who owned businesses, even the huge, global businesses, could be held responsible for what was done in their name. Henry Ford and his descendents owned a controlling interest Ford Motors, Samuel Courtald and his family owned Courtalds Textiles, the Rockefellers owned Standard Oil, the Agnelli’s owned Italy’s giant Fiat company and people named Krupp owned Krupps engineering in Germany. you get the picture?

When I was studying economics and commerce in the 1960s there was a book, a business directory, titled Who Owns Whom. It told those with an interest things like, Brooke Bond Leibig, owners of the Brooke Bond Tea brand also owned Fray Bentos corned beef or that the Lever family firm, Unilever’s interests included Soap Powder, Coffee, Personal Hygiene products, Margarine, Ice cream, sausages and lubricants. Such a volume would be useless now, it is impossible to tell who owns anything, in the corporate and banking environment every company owns every other company. So labyrinthine is the cross ownership that it is quite possible that Corporation A which owns a controlling interest in Corporation B is in fact owned by Corporation B through Corporation B’s holdings in Corporation X and Corporation Y.

In such an environment is it surprisingp the mega cororations are out of control. One Corporate entity above all others has, however, consistently outperformed its rivals in cynical disregard for the environment and the wellbeing of humanity. Monsanto shamelessly, proudly perhaps, wears the crown as “most evil corporation on Earth!”

Fair plsy to them, even now Monsanto is not content to simply rest upon its laurels, to sit atop a plinth inscried with the words “Look on my works, you mighty and despair,*” as it surveys a vast field of skulls and rotting corpses, the corporate are focused as keenly as ever on newer, more scientifically innovative ways to harm the planet and all its people in the pursuit of corporate power and profits.
As true champions of evil, they won’t stop until … they won’t stop, unless we stop them by boycotting their products, voting out of office the politicians why try to give them immunity from prosecution in connection with the harm their scientifically innovative (and often untested) products may cause, or help them bully peasant farmers into a kind of serfdom by passing laws decreeing that naturally produced seed may not be grown or upholding patent violation lawsuits brought when natural crops are accidentally pollinated by pollens from Monsanto’s genetically modified seed stock. Ye, all these things have happened.

But who are Monsanto and how did they learn to get away with being so obscenely evil in the first place? Here’s a history of the Monsanto Corporation – I warn you however, it is far more gruesome than a series of Game Of Thrones.

Monsanto: The Most Evil Corporation In The World

RELATED POSTS:
Corporatism: Government of The People By The Technocrats For The Monopoly Men Of The Global Elite

Britain On The brink Of Tyranny

The Justice and Security Bill, if it now on its way through Parliament will, if it becomes law, for the fist time since King Alfred The Great signed the Liber Judicialis permit judicial trials to be held in secret. It will even become illegal to report them (remember the super – injunctions a few years ago?).

The bill has already passed through all stages in the House of Commons, and goes to the House of Lords for consideration. In other words, The Justice And Security Bill that will place secrecy and surveillance above anything to do with JUSTICE is nearly home and hosed .(http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/justiceandsecurity.html).

The bill’s sponsor in the Commons is Justice Minister, Bilderberger and fat bastard Kenneth Clarke, who is widely believed to be on the steering committee of the highly secretive Bilderberg group. In a foreword to a consultation document, Clarke explains that the excuse forpurpose of this authoritarian withdrawal of civil rights is to enable the government to defend itself against civil claims, with claimants typically seeking significant amounts in damages, but where the facts of the case turn on highly sensitive information.

Yeah right!

Richard Cottrell, in his book ‘Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe’ (http://progressivepress.com/book-listing/gladio-natos-dagger-heart-europe) devotes quite a few pages to this bill. At the time Cottrell’s book was published, the fascistic law had been rejected, but he rightly predicted that it would return. He wrote then: “The Justice and Security Bill has been around for some years, since 7/7 hardly by co-incidence. It proposes that secret courts will inquire into any matters concerning individuals or events that the authorities decide they want to keep secret. This will apply in the case of the as yet unheld inquests on those blamed for 7/7. In other words it’s another fascist promotion of The Labour Party sneaked back in under the Conservatives. How many times have I told you these bell ends are just puppets and we don’t even know the names of the people who really run the government.

“It was also to apply to living accused persons who would be denied under this Orwellian draft the right to represent themselves or have their own lawyers represent them. Nor will they be allowed to know what they are accused of. In the Soviet Union this was perfectly normal. In the place of legal representation the state will appoint Special Advocates who will not be under any responsibility to represent the accused, or explain to that person of what he is accused, and nor will they be under any responsibility to offer a defence.

“The Bill was savaged by the Lords, but returned to the Commons with all the Lords’ amendments struck out. On the day of the vote on gay marriages it slipped through the vote in the select committee with the vote of one backwoods Ulsterman rushed in at the last minute. (The vote was held at the same [time] as members were in the lobbies voting on the gay marriage Bill). … This law when passed, as it will be, can then be applied to all and any offence, even as lowly as a traffic accident. Accused persons will never be told of what they are charged and of course it is very unlikely they would be found ‘not guilty.’”

As Little Nicky has warned you before, whatever political shade of government we have we will be constantly dragged closer and closer to fascism as long as the two parties controlled by the globalists maintain their hegemony. The Liberal Democrats have already sold their souls and their arses to the power elite, so those of you who tell me UKIP are a racist group, why not just admit you are sheeple who never had an intelligent though of your own but merely swallow the propaganda, or have the courage of your convictions and admit that you really think this kind of Nazi shit is just what the world needs.

but don’t expect me to save you from the death camps when you are designated a “useless eater.”

Kudos to The Tap for keeping me updated on this story

RELATED POSTS:
If There Is An Anti EU Surge Across Europe What Should Cameron Do?

Voter Backlash against Media UKIP Smears Is Good For Democracy

Gay and same sex marriage: The Bigotry And Intolerance Of Those Who Describe Themselves As The Liberal Left

Will Bilderberg End Privacy As We Know It? Agenda Suggests The Elite Will Know Everything About You

E U Smart Borders Policy Will Lead To Big Brother Type Surveillance, Green Politician Warns

A European Union scheme to implement new border control technology will result in Big Brother surveillance, a Green Party Member of the European Parliament has warned.

The European Commission’s plans for so-called ‘Smart Borders’ were published on 1 March 2013, revealing the Commission plans to implement automated systems to monitor non-EU citizens entering and leaving the bloc.

“The use of new technologies will enable smoother and speedier border crossing for third country citizens who want to come to the EU. Modernising our systems will also lead to a higher level of security by preventing irregular border crossings and detecting those who overstay,” said Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström.
Jan Philipp Albrecht a German Green in the European Parliament but obviously not a Watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) voiced concerns that the smart borders initiative would create an “e-fortress Europe” adding there is “no evidence to show that this trend towards mass data storage has yielded any improvements for security and criminal investigations.” Data of all passengers traveling from third countries into the EU would be collected, he said.

The E U plan consists of a Registered Traveler Programme (RTP) aimed at frequent business travelers or those with relatives in the EU and an Entry/Exit System (EES). The RTP would make use of automated border control systems such as automated gates for pre-screened visitors.

The EES would digitally record the time and place of entry and exit of third country nationals and issue an alert to national authorities when there is no exit record by the expiry time. The current practice when checking a third country national wanting to cross the EU’s external borders is based mainly on the stamps in the travel document. It is easy to foresee that as social breakdown continues due to the failure of the single currency, high unemployment due to insane industrial policies and the inefficiency of high tech policing, the system would quickly be extended to monitor the movements of all citizens even within their own community.

The plan calls to mind the U K Labour government’s plan to force us all to carry national ID cards loaded with a GPS chip whenever we left our home. The plan was shelved due to public opposition but has never been abandoned. Similarly a clause in the American Healthcare System dubbed Obama care contains a clause that would enable the government to implant an RFID chip in the body of every citizen. Supporters of Obama’s health care plan protest that the bill does not state people will be chipped. This is true, but it does clear legal obstacles in the US Constitution and international human rights law to such a policy.

Together with fellow politician Ska Keller, Albrecht has set up a campaign called Smashborders to oppose the plans, urging EU citizens to fight against “the creation of an enormous database” that would infringe civil liberties.

The proposals will now go before the European Parliament and, if approved there, to the national assemblies of member states for ratification. The Commission hopes the system will be operational in 2017 or 2018.

RELATED POSTS:
Secret Justice Threatens The Right To A Fair Trial

A move to extend the government’s power to order court proceedings to be held in secret and without a jury from only applying to trials affecting national security to anything the government would rather we did not know about threatens the most basic principles of British justice and the right to a fair trial.

The Total Surveillance Society

Surveillance cameras, CCTV,electronic monitoring, data gathering from credit card use and other transactions, all are commonplace. When we start to hear talk of implanting RFID chips in human bodies or making a criminal offence of not carrying an official identity card when outside one’s home, we start to understand how sinister the surveillance industry has become and what threats it poses to our rights and liberties.

RELATED POSTS:

Surveillance leading to totalitarian state

Agenda 21: The Path To Global Fascism

The Tyranny Of Moral Relativism

Prominent American Scientists Call For Global Dictatorship Under UN Rule ‘To Save The Planet’

Big Brother Is Coming To Obama’s Surveillance State.

The Shadow Government.

Will War On Terror Become The Perpetual War Of George Orwell’s ‘1984’

When Human Rights Overrides Majority Rule Dictatorship Follows

The Agenda: How An International Elite Are Destroying Sovereign Nations

How The "Yooman Rights" Brigade Plan To Boot You Off The Internet

For years I have argued that the internet should accept some form of regulation to the extent only that everything posted ought to be identifiable to a source thus imposing the constraints of normal decency on people and curbing the criminal activity the world wide web has spawned.

You should have heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth from lefties and “yooman rights” campaigners about how this would curtail freedom. if you are familiar with how the left operates and how control freakery comes as naturally to them as sucking on a tit comes to a mammilian baby you might have found this commitment to freedom a bit suspect. After all the only freedom the left have ever been concerned with is their own freedom to Impose their ideals and values on the rest of us (by force if necessary).

It should come as no surprise then that the left’s commitment to internet freedom lasted only as long as it took them to come up with a way to get independent websites and blogs off the cybersphere and ensure that we could see ONLY officially approved propaganda. Hat tip to Anna Raccoon for bringing this to my attention.

Last month in a little noticed case in the US, a Federal Judge made a ruling that has implications for us all. We may think that the truly sensitive and the terminally offended have been making inroads into the freedom of the Internet, but they are piffling flea bites compared to the implications of this case.

What the ruling – that the Internet is ‘a place of public accommodation’ – boils down to in plain English is that the Internet has the same status as a Public House, your local council offices, Disneyland, the O2 Arena, and anywhere else you can think of that has to comply with disabled accessibility legislation. It will be your responsibility to ensure that the blind reader has a voice over of your hastily crafted howl of anger at the latest government outrage, that the deaf have suitable sub-titles on your YouTube efforts, and one can only presume, that the terminally stupid have a simplified version in words of one syllable, to ensure that everyone has an ‘enjoyable and enriching experience’ when they land on your blog.

The lawyers are sharpening their quills already, for it matters not that you are penning your anguished prose from a bed sit in Bridlington – your reader may well be a one eyed Albanian asylum seeker in the US, libel law has long since established precedent that if he can access your words in the US, then you are publishing in the US, regardless of where your ‘server’ is.

Could YouTube be obligated to close-caption videos on the site? (This case seems to leave that door open.) Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen? I’m not creative enough to think of all the implications, but I can assure you that ADA plaintiffs’ lawyers will have a long check list of items worth suing over. Big companies may be able to afford the compliance and litigation costs, but the entry costs for new market participants could easily reach prohibitive levels.

One common argument for imposing accessibility obligations on physical businesses is that it is unrealistic to expect the disabled to simply ‘go somewhere else’ if the nearest business can’t accommodate their needs. The Internet doesn’t have territorial limitations – by extending this ruling to the Internet, the lawyers are in effect saying that everyone must make every part of their ‘public life’ accessible to anyone who wishes, worLd wide, to partake of the opportunity.

Now I don’t expect this to affect Joe Bloggs blogging from his back room in Bridlington overnight – but it doesn’t require too much imagination to realise that if Google get sued for failing to provide a voice over on their political blogs, they will immediately refuse to host any blog that doesn’t comply. Netfix, the company which the American Association for the Deaf successfully sued for failing to provide sub-titles on the videos which they streamed, may be able to afford the costly technology to comply with this ruling, individual bloggers won’t. Netfix may respond by not hosting movies which don’t carry sub-titles, I would expect Google to take the same route.

Read the full post: Wheelchair access to the blogosphere

Now as Anna says this law willl not be enforced right away to make sure we bloggers, contributors and site owners provide access to a braille translator or a text to voice converter so that your partially sighted visitors can have access to our rants, pithy observations, homilies, philosiphizing, self indulgent rambles and scintillating prose. but once the “yooman rights” brigade find a site that challenges their prejudices and does not conform to these requirements there is not much doubt about which way a court verdict will go.

The answer of course is we can all ignore the law and work on the prinbiciple that they can’t put us all in prison. “OK, but what if they decide to put me in prison to make an example of somebody?” you might well ask.

Simples. At the first sign of trouble take your stuff offline. Back it all up and find yourself a host that operates its servers from Andorra, Costa Rica or some such place that does not have any serious libel laws. Pay with your paypal account. Use a proxy server such as Anonymouse and rebuild your website using a pseudonym to disguisE your authorship (something like Aethelred-Naggernunk is good)

Then the “yooman rights” lawyers can spend their time chasing shadows while you concentrte on building links to your site and getting your ideas out to the widest possible audience and promote the cause of free thinking against the dark forces of “progressiveism”.

UPDATE:
And it is not just the politically correct Thought Police who don’t want you on the web …
Latest Google update favours their own products and sites that pay for traffic

RELATED POSTS:
Internet Threat To CIvilisation
WHY THE INTELLECTUAL ELITE DESPISE THE LOWER CLASSES

Al Qaeda Threaten Terrorist Attacks On Britain If Hate Preacher Abu Qatada Is Deported

Militant Al Qaeda faction Al Shabaab has warned that Britain will face terror attacks if Islamic extemist and hate ptreadcing cleric Abu Qatada is deported to his homeland, Jordan.

The Al Qaeda militants warned of a “disaster” for Britain if the Government attempts to send Qatada home to face charges of sedition and inciting terrorism.

SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors online activity from terrorist groups, said al-Shabaab had issued its warning on militant forums.

“The British public is also forewarned that it will be the British government, as a result of its imprudence, that shall be liable for any disaster that befalls them, or their national interests,” the statement said.. It comes a week after Al-Qaeda threatened to attack Britain if it decides to extradite Qatada.

In a statement signed by Al-Qaeda’s general command and published on jihadist forums, the terror network said Abu Qatada’s extradition would “open the gates of evil” on “Britain and its citizens everywhere.” (Read the full story).

This is nothing much to worry about of course, it’s very likely nothing more than typical middle eastern windbaggery. With any luck a few wannabe martyrs (the lure of 72 virgins is strong) will blow themselves up trying to build bombs, life in Britain will go n unmolested and the majority of law abinding Muslims will ontinue to live peacefully, side by side with their atheist, agnostic and Christian neighbours.

RELATED POSTS:
Beards of terror
A Frenchman Dropped His Trousers
Pastor Penney
Afghan Woman
Fear And Panic And HP Sauce
Government By Fear And Panic
Fondue Of Terror
Allies Neutralise Afghan Beards Of Terror
The politics of Fear And Panic
Firuza Let Your Hair Fall Free
Diabetic And Dangerous
Allies Take Out Beards Of Terror
You Can’t Be Too Paranoid
Surveillance Society – Quis Custrodiat Custodes
Them
Institutional Pognophobia

Debt and the Telephone Thugs

Bullying Telephone Debt Collectors

A little known consequence of the global financial crisis has been that the banks which own many of the major credit card brands, Barclaycard, MBNA, Goldfish, have bundled up bad debt and sold it on for about 10p in the pound to some pretty unpleasant people who are now contracting telephone bullies to recover as much asd they can. As the thuigs who run the debt collection services are paid on commission they have a huge incentive to screw as much as they can out of you by …
READ full post Bullying Telephone Debt Collectors.

Catholic Child Abuse – Left’s Double Standard Showing Again

One thing the self styled “progressive left” can be relied upon to deliver is …. (no, not election promies, don’t be silly) … hypocrisy.

Little Nicky Machiavelli and my chums at The Daily Stirrer have always been highly critical of the Roman Catholic Church’s attempts to sweep under the carpet cases of child abuse by its priests.

Child abuse is a terrible thing both when its involves the violation of a young child and when it relates to the seduction of a prepubescent girl by a middle aged man. Thus we deplore the Church’s cover up of their priests’ crimes and we also deplore cases in which a wealthy, famous man takes advantage of a thirteen year old girl.

It is here we part company with the “progressive left” because they seem to think if the seducer is an artist, a director of stunningly up-his-own-arse films and a supporter of the crackpot ideas of “progressive left” politics called Roman Polanski it is perfectly OK to commit statutory rape on an under age girl.

Not only are the “progressive left” supporting Polanski’s attempts to return to the USA thirty years after he fled American justice having entered a plead of guilty to the crime he was accused of, they are clamouring for a Presidential pardon for him.

Ah, but it is alright for Polanski to do such thinks. American leftie air-head, feminist and race hustler Whoopi Goldberg says “What Roman did was not rape rape.” No? Well what kind of rape was it?

Other stars supporting Polanski include Martin Scorsese, Kevin Costner, Susan SArandon and the Fuckwit Of Fuckwits Woody Allen. These people have sent a petition to Barack Obama on behalf of the director. Polanski, you see, was so talented, so special, mortal laws could not apply to such a genius. Yeah right.

Funny, I do not remember this group being so sympathetic towards Gary Glitter. I don’t remember them calling for clemency in the case of a footballer accused of seducing under age girls. I do not recall much support for actor and comedian Chris Langham when he was found to have been visiting child sex sites on the internet. What I do recall is the neo – nazi left howling for blood. No punishment was great enough for the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. In much the same way they are howling for the blood of Pope Benedict now evan as they demand our indulgence for the child – fucker Roman Polanski.

If we are to have rule of law one guiding principle must be honoured.

SAME RULES APPLY

A group that want to apply draconian laws to its opponents but exempt those with whom it sympathises from such rules has nothing to offer a democracy.

The Academic Thugs

I’ve had a few run ins with people I refer to as “boy-scientists” (people whose enthusiasm for all things scientific overwhelms their ability to see things in the correct perspective) here though I do restrain myself because people tend to form the impression that I am anti – science and nothing could be further from the truth.

All we need to remember is that a science is a formal and classified body of knowledge. What I object to is the attitude of people who talk about “scientific methodology” and the “scientific way of thinking” as if parrotting these cliches makes a person’s opinion worth more that that of somebody who says “well that’s how it seems to me, based on my experiences.”

Now OK, I admit I go out of my way to provoke the boy-scientists and get them to reveal that their attitude stems from a deeply held belief that a certain kind of education makes one superior to people who followed a different path. As Oscar Wilde said, “Nothing worth knowing can possibly be taught.”

I am not the only one who feels there is a concerted attempt to create a new academic elite to replace the old aristocracy. In the USA the trend has even been spotted in the election campaign. Here’s an interesting article from Pajamas Media (their spelling) on a particularly warped theory expounded by liberal academics and is gaining currency.

It concerns Barak Obama’s stated intention to change the U.S. Constitution so that rather than all people being equal before the law, the courts are bound to favour “the weak against the strong.”

Yeah, you read that right.

Whining Academics

Austria marches to the right. Don’t Panic!Is free speech to blame?

A bit of a hyperbolic headline there but that is how we must play the game now to get keywords into the title and links and thus earn brownie points from the Googlebot that indexes our blogs.

To business. In last week’s election in Austria the far right political party did well, far better than anybody expected a party broadly sympathetic to holocaust deniers to ever fare in a democratic nation.

Predictably and unfortunately this has led to calls for new international laws limiting free speech. In this article, The Limits of Free Speech it is hard to know what the writer’s point is exactly other than that he thinks neo-nazis are very nasty people and should not be allowed to argue their case or contest elections.

Little Nicky Machiavelli has said before, when commenting on calls to ban the BNP, the best way to raise the profile of far right politics and racist movements is to ban them. Such organisations are highly skilled at exploiting victimhood.

The best way to incite violence against Muslims is to support those extermists who demand that criticism of their religion by non-Muslims be declared an offence. The best way to strengthen the case of Fundamentalist Christians is to try to silence them. Look how they have profited in America from the myth of their being driven out of England by official persecution for trying to practice their own religion.

There is a sliver of truth in that but it grossly misrepresents the reality. Nobody stopped them worshipping as they wished, what got them in trouble was their trying to opt out of the Church of England which was then as much an agency of government as a Christian Church. In effect they were trying to opt out of paying the Church’s tithe and that was like refusing to pay income tax and national insurance.

So trying to gag the far right might turn out to be very counter productive. Better to let them enjoy their handful of victories in local elections. “Free speech” has always been a pipe dream, even in the USA where it is iconised there are plenty of laws available to deal with those who step over certain lines.

The Cases Against Obama

An ongoing story of the American election that has ben fascinating me is the lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania attorney Philip J Berg alleging Barak Obama is inelegible to run for President. BERG – OBAMA CASE: LATEST which has also been chronicled here ( BERG vs OBAMA )

Following this story on the blogs (somehow it has missed traditional media completely – funny when you think how in the past rumours with less substance have brought down candidates) has led me to another ongoing thread, that concerning the relationship of Obama with the convicted mobster Tony Rezko. Stories of Obama’s “business” association with Rezko surfaced when the gangster was arrested on corruption charges. Now convicted on numerous counts Rezko is reported to be looking for a deal, trading information on hia former associates in the Chicago political establishment for a reduced sentence. Again it is strange that the widely rumoured favours Obama received for helping people in “the olive oil business” (if you know what I mean) are ignored by mainstream media where in past campaigns and even in the present election less substantial stories have derailed well supported candidates.

Obama must have a fairy godmother I guess.

Finally there is the Larry Sinclair affair. Former rent-boy Sinclair alleges a sex and drugs encounter with Obama in 1999.

No wonder the Democrats are getting so desperate in their efforts to focus attention on Sarah Palin’s bra size.

What I want to know is why can’t our elections be this interesting?

LINK: Clinton suddenly keen on Obama. What’s going on?

Check out where Little Nicky and the Boggart Blog team have been on the web today with our blogindex

Stop and Question

In his latest attempt to secure himself a legacy Blair, aided and abetted by Crusher Reid is proposing to revive disastrous and divisive “stop and search” policy thinly disguised as “stop and question. It seems the only legacy option still open is to turn Britain into a totalitarian and fascist society.

Under the proposals police will be able to stop and question anybody they think is breathing in a suspicious manner, looking a bit swathy or walking along with their hands in their pockets.
Refusal to answer questions will constitute a crime.

It reminds me of a story that circulated in the Thatcher era. A copper in Liverpool stopped a man who was carrying a parcel and say “hey you, what have you got under your arm.”
“Hairs,” said the scouser.

Cannabis and Common Sense

Following on from yesterday’s post about the apparent absence of common sense in the legal system, today we bring you news of another example of the inability of judges and lawyers to grasp reality.
Sixty – Eight year old Patricia Tabram of Hemshaugh, Northumbria was convicted at Carlisle Crown Court yesterday of possessing cannabis. She had admitted growing three plants in her wardrobe for self medication purposes. Mrs Tabram, who suffers from depression and arthritis mixes the dried, ground laves with various foods to lift her depression and give her respite from the chronic pain in her joints. She claims cannabis it the only therapy which works on her symptoms without causing debilitating side effects. A cup of hot chocolate containing a little cannabis gave her five hours relief from pain, the court was told.
Now this person who does not have much quality of life left nor much to look forward to in her remaining years is faced with the prospect of having to do 250 hours community service (with crippling arthritis, yeah right!) and pay £1000 legal costs. Because of the conviction her home in a sheltered unit provided by a Housing Association is also at risk.
In passing sentence Judge Barbara Forrester said she understood Mrs. Tabram only used the drug for self medication and had no intent to supply but the law limited the scope for leniency.
It has always been a principle of British justice (though too rarely observed in recent centuries when vengeance and retribution seem to be the only principles that matter) that justice should be tempered with compassion. If ever there was a case for a judge set a precedent in the interests of justice this was it.
Sadly, under the bureaucratic dictatorship set up by the bully Thatcher and expanded by the traitor and war criminal Blair, common sense is always overridden by rules and regulations. Judges seem ever more reluctant to give verdicts that challenge a bad law which does not distinguish between a crime and a misdemeanour because the government, which is jealous of the power of an independent judiciary, may use it as an excuse to further undermine that independence. This has led to many deplorable decisions by the dispensers of justice.
Another social commentator at an American website wrote last week of a “social recession” in the free world. It is hardly surprising. When those with the authority to do so are afraid to challenge bad laws, respect for the law breaks down. And when respect for the law breaks down we cease to be a society and become a rat pack.

How The Labour Rebels Lost Their Tongues

The Guardian Comment Is Free Blog yesterday featured a story asking what happened to dissent on Trident.

A blog on The Guardian’s Comment Is Free page yesterday raised the question of what has happened to the anticipated dissent in Labour ranks over the decision to renew Trident. Why are the voices of those erstwhile CND champions such as Hain, Becket, Harman, Straw, Benn so silent?

You may recall from earlier in the week my tetchiness when a commenter asked why I found it so necessary to be negative against New Labour.

Well here is the answer, this bogus party of frauds and hypocrites have betrayed every principle Labour ever stood for, assiduously sucking up to big money and big power. They have introduced stealth taxes on the poor while organising tax breaks for the rich, they have begun the breakup and privatisation of the health service, covering this betrayal by the deception of bogus statistics.
They have “reorganised” the education system constantly until the only thing holding schools together is the fact that if all the teachers left en-masse most would have difficulty finding jobs. I personally know three teachers who have taken early retirement on health grounds due to stress related problems.
Instead of being the party of peace and international co-operation they are now the party of was and oppression, slavishly following America’s isolationist foreign policies.
They have turned the police into revenue collecting bureaucrats, in the process abandoning the streets to lawlessness.
And now they plan to allow greedy property developers to tear up our green spaces and build what the hell they like where the hell they like.

But we will cover that one tomorrow.

New Labour are now well to the right of the BNP, a party that now has more political integrity than Blair’s bogus shower. Because, repugnant as the BNP’s policies are to most of us, at least they are honest enough to tell us what they really stand for.

And for anyone who wants to tell me we should be grateful we live in a free society where we can take the right to free speech for granted, before you hit the keyboard
checkout this post at New Media Cultures blog

Another unenforcable law?

Did you notice the new law on child seats for cars slipped into force this week? According to this, anybody under four feet five has to have a booster seat. This will inconvenience a lot of circus performers and a few little old ladies of course, but I can see it changing the life of a stroppy eight year old.
“You don’t want your life to be made a misery every time we go out in the car? Dump the booster then, I’m not a baby.”
The law is totally impractical of course, but its the kind of law the police like. Nobody is going to report you for not having the kids on booster so the only time an offence will be recorded is when somebody is caught in the act. A crime with a 100% clear up rate.