Power Grab

A Twitter personality asked Brittany Griner about her anti-American attitude while she was at the Dallas Airport. Her WNBA provided security detail pushed him away and characterized the incident as a hate attack.

No. Asking questions, even inconvenient ones, is what the press does. Griner took a public stance on a political topic, and she doesn’t get a free pass that prevents her from having to answer questions about that stance.

Likewise, Mr Stein is just as much a member of the press as a reporter for the NY Times. There is nothing that says one must be a member of the government approved propaganda Corps in order to be a member of the press.

Furthermore, anyone whether they are the press or not shouldn’t be physically attacked for asking a celebrity a question. The employees of the WNBA attacked a member of the public ina public place because they were asking questions. Nothing about Mr Stein’s questions merited a physical response. At no time did he present a physical threat to Griner’s person, so I don’t see where the physical response was legally justified. Would the WNBA’s security personnel have pushed a reporter from the propaganda corps? Do they feel justified because he wasn’t asking the right questions? I wonder just how deep the WNBA’s pockets are.

The Senate has introduced a bill that would establish a federal agency to regulate AI. This agency would be Federal Law enforcement, complete with police powers, and there is no doubt in my mind that it would have a SWAT team with a million rounds of ammunition. That is because they want you to believe that AI will someday send Terminators out to kill you.

“There’s no reason that the biggest tech companies on Earth should face less regulation than Colorado’s small businesses – especially as we see technology corrode our democracy and harm our kids’ mental health with virtually no oversight,” [the Senator who introduced the bill] said in a statement. “Technology is moving quicker than Congress could ever hope to keep up with. We need an expert federal agency that can stand up for the American people and ensure AI tools and digital platforms operate in the public interest.”

Experts like the ones at ATF who ruled that a shoestring was a machine gun? Made pistol braces illegal after more than a decade, turning 40 million gun owners into felons overnight?

Nope, to understand what the new law is for, simply read the bill and not the hype. Here is a pdf copy of the bill that I got from Bennett’s Senate page. The bill would “empower a new federal agency to create a board that establishes ‘applicable codes of conduct’ on social media and AI platforms. This board will include ‘disinformation’ experts’ whose job it will be to determine what is true, and what is not. That which they deem to not be true will be illegal.

What can they regulate? Here is one definition:

The term ‘‘digital platform’’ means an online service that serves as an intermediary facilitating interactions between users

Twitter, Gab, YouTube, even blogs would fall under the purview of this commission. First Amendment, you say? Well the media (as defined by the commission) gets a carve out:

The term ‘‘digital platform’’ does not include an entity whose primary purpose is the delivery to the public of news that the entity writes, edits, and reports

The Commission shall have jurisdiction over any digital platform, the services of which—
(1) originate or are received within the United States; and
(2) affect interstate or foreign commerce.

So basically, the commission has jurisdiction over the entire Internet. So what will the commission be doing?

The purpose of the Commission is to regulate digital platforms, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, to promote to all the people of the United States, so far as possible, the following:
(1) Access to digital platforms for civic engagement and economic and educational opportunities;

(5) A robust and competitive marketplace of ideas with a diversity of views at the local, State, and national levels.
(6) Protection for consumers from deceptive, unfair, unjust, unreasonable, or abusive practices committed by digital platforms.

I wonder who gets to define what is deceptive, unfair, unjust, or unreasonable? Volunteers that the commission selects, of course.

The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this Act (and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this Act), may—
(i) recruit and train any software engineer, computer scientist, data scientist, or other individual with skills or expertise relevant to the responsibilities of the Commission; and
(ii) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of individuals described in clause (i).

Those people online who constantly are offended at anyone expressing an opinion that they don’t like? Yeah, they will be volunteer Social Media law enforcement.

The law also requires that social media verify the age of everyone on their site. This means that you will have to provide ID in order to post on social media. That is when this becomes important:

SEC. 14. INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may inquire into the management of the business of digital platforms subject to this Act, and shall keep itself informed as to the manner and method in which that management is conducted and as to technical and business developments in the provision of online services.
(b) INFORMATION.—The Commission may obtain from digital platforms subject to this Act and from persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect control with, those platforms full and complete information necessary, including data flows, to enable the Commission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created.

Since the media site will have a copy of your ID, I am betting that a person that posts what is determined to be “disinformation” will then receive a friendly visit from the FBI. Repeat violators will then be vzyali.

Even worse? There is a private right of action, meaning that someone claiming to be offended can sue a digital platform and receive damages.

Any person claiming to be damaged by any digital platform subject to this Act may—

(1) make complaint to the Commission under subsection (b); or
(2) bring a civil action for enforcement of this Act, including the rules promulgated under this Act, in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction.

Then the commission gets to:

If, after hearing on a complaint under this paragraph, the Commission determines that any party complainant is entitled to an award of damages under this Act, the Commission shall make an order directing the digital platform to pay to the complainant the sum to which the complainant is entitled on or before a day named.

Even worse, is that the platform doesn’t actually have to do anything in violation of the act, all that has to happen is that the commission thinks that the platform will do so at some time in the future.

If the Commission believes that a person has violated or will violate this Act, the Commission may issue and cause to be served on the person an order requiring the person, as applicable—
(A) to cease and desist, or refrain, from the violation; or
(B) to pay restitution to any victim of the violation.

Make no mistake, this bill is intended to give the left full control over social media during the 2024 election year and beyond. This is repugnant to the First Amendment, but the likelihood that there will be a resolution in court before the election is nil. Our court system is too slow for there to be any meaningful resolution. We best hope that this doesn’t go anywhere, or free speech is dead.