Mediaboss Marketing

from the authoritarian-nonsense dept

We've been writing a number of pieces lately about how incredibly dangerous China's internet censorship has been during COVID-19, from silencing medical professionals to hiding research results tod trying to ignore Taiwan's success in fighting COVID-19, it's shown a pretty clear pattern that Chinese internet censorship is literally killing people. This is not to say that the US government's response has been much better -- it's obviously been a disaster, but at least we have more free speech online and in the press, which is enabling all sorts of useful information to spread.

But you might not know that if you read this odd piece in the Atlantic by Jack Goldsmith and Andrew Keane Woods arguing that China has the right approach to handling free speech online during a pandemic, and the US has not. While the overall piece is, perhaps, a bit more thoughtful than the headline and tagline, it has moments that simply defy any sense of what's happening in the world.

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a societys norms and values.

Again, this defies all evidence of what we've seen to date.

The piece, bizarrely, conflates pervasive digital surveillance with open free speech online:

Two events were wake-up calls. The first was Edward Snowdens revelations in 2013 about the astonishing extent of secret U.S. government monitoring of digital networks at home and abroad. The U.S. governments domestic surveillance is legally constrained, especially compared with what authoritarian states do. But this is much less true of private actors. Snowdens documents gave us a glimpse of the scale of surveillance of our lives by U.S. tech platforms, and made plain how the government accessed privately collected data to serve its national-security needs.

And that's got literally nothing to do with America's approach to free speech online.

The "second" wake up call does relate to speech, but perhaps not in the way the authors mean:

The second wake-up call was Russias interference in the 2016 election. As Barack Obama noted, the most consequential misinformation campaign in modern history was not particularly sophisticatedthis was not some elaborate, complicated espionage scheme. Russia used a simple phishing attack and a blunt and relatively limited social-media strategy to disrupt the legitimacy of the 2016 election and wreak still-ongoing havoc on the American political system. The episode showed how easily a foreign adversary could exploit the United States deep reliance on relatively unregulated digital networks. It also highlighted how legal limitations grounded in the First Amendment (freedom of speech and press) and the Fourth Amendment (privacy) make it hard for the U.S. government to identify, prevent, and respond to malicious cyber operations from abroad.

Yes, the Russians conducted a misinformation campaign -- but it still remains unclear how effective that was beyond at the margins (and, to be fair, in a close election, the margins can be meaningful). But that's hardly a reason to throw out the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment has also allowed there to be widespread discussion and debate about all of this, and has helped to get companies better situated to deal with and respond to disinformation campaigns. It has also allowed tons of people to be on the digital frontlines pointing out mis- and dis-information and working on responding to it to limit its impact. There will always be some and there will always be attempts to exploit it, but the idea that China's approach is better seems totally counterfactual to reality (or what plenty of people who have suffered from Chinese internet censorship will tell you).

Incredibly, the authors blame Section 230 for "the free for all" online... but then when they talk about the companies trying to combat disinfo just two paragraphs later, they somehow miraculously leave out the fact that it's Section 230 and the 1st Amendment that allow them to moderate the content on the platform:

Ten years ago, speech on the American Internet was a free-for-all. There was relatively little monitoring and censorshippublic or privateof what people posted, said, or did on Facebook, YouTube, and other sites. In part, this was due to the legal immunity that platforms enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And in part it was because the socially disruptive effects of digital networksvarious forms of weaponized speech and misinformationhad not yet emerged. As the networks became filled with bullying, harassment, child sexual exploitation, revenge porn, disinformation campaigns, digitally manipulated videos, and other forms of harmful content, private platforms faced growing pressure from governments and users to fix the problems.

[....]

After the 2016 election debacle, for example, the tech platforms took aggressive but still imperfect steps to fend off foreign adversaries. YouTube has an aggressive policy of removing what it deems to be deceptive practices and foreign-influence operations related to elections. It also makes judgments about and gives priority to what it calls authoritative voices. Facebook has deployed a multipronged strategy that includes removing fake accounts and eliminating or demoting inauthentic behavior. Twitter has a similar censorship policy aimed at platform manipulation originating from bad-faith actors located in countries outside of the US.

It's the American approach to free speech that makes this even possible.

Then the article argues that misinformation in the age of COVID-19 is something... new. And that it's so serious that perhaps we should change how we think about free speech:

What is different about speech regulation related to COVID-19 is the context: The problem is huge and the stakes are very high. But when the crisis is gone, there is no unregulated normal to return to. We liveand for several years, we have been livingin a world of serious and growing harms resulting from digital speech. Governments will not stop worrying about these harms. And private platforms will continue to expand their definition of offensive content, and will use algorithms to regulate it ever more closely. The general trend toward more speech control will not abate.

Note that they seem to be conflating a few things here. There is the US government's approach to speech (bound by the 1st Amendment, there are very few areas where speech may be limited), and there are internet companies' approaches to hosting speech upon their private platforms. And while those platforms are becoming more aggressive in cracking down on misinformation, there remain plenty of other platforms online that are chock full of misinformation as well. But that's got little to do with our laws (beyond the fact that, as noted above, the 1st Amendment enables platforms to decide for themselves how to handle these things).

But it seems odd for an article that suggests a governmental approach to stifling speech is a good idea literally days after the US President suggesting injecting disinfectant into people as a way to deal with COVID-19. It's not the internet that is the cause of misinformation, guys. And saying that government should crack down on misinformation isn't going to work when it's the head of state spouting off the misinformation, which is then broadcast live by TV networks.

The article then tries to tie free speech to surveillance, but I'm unclear why or how those two things are as connected as the article suggests they are. You can have one without the other -- yet the article continues to assume that if you want free speech, then you must have mass surveillance along with it. It uses the examples of Clearview AI and Ring as examples of greater surveillance, but those have little to nothing to do with the American approach to free speech.

The article all too glibly insists that private company data tracking is the "functional equivalent" of the infamous social score now used in China, without recognizing a number of fundamental differences -- with the largest being the fact that the social score in China is a government program and is used in all sorts of nefarious ways. Yes, the article argues that thanks to COVID-19 it's likely that the US government and companies will be more closely tied, but gives no reason to support that conclusion as inevitable:

Apple and google have told critics that their partnership will end once the pandemic subsides. Facebook has said that its aggressive censorship practices will cease when the crisis does. But when COVID-19 is behind us, we will still live in a world where private firms vacuum up huge amounts of personal data and collaborate with government officials who want access to that data. We will continue to opt in to private digital surveillance because of the benefits and conveniences that result. Firms and governments will continue to use the masses of collected data for various private and social ends.

The harms from digital speech will also continue to grow, as will speech controls on these networks. And invariably, government involvement will grow. At the moment, the private sector is making most of the important decisions, though often under government pressure. But as Zuckerberg has pleaded, the firms may not be able to regulate speech legitimately without heavier government guidance and involvement. It is also unclear whether, for example, the companies can adequately contain foreign misinformation and prevent digital tampering with voting mechanisms without more government surveillance.

The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement. Americans understanding of these laws, and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.

COVID-19 is a window into these future struggles.

Perhaps. It will certainly be interesting to see where the future heads, but the idea that COVID-19 inevitably means that the US will be less speech protective in the future is far from the only possible path forward. And the idea that China somehow has the right idea has little support anywhere. The authors may be correct that the government will try to expand surveillance and limit speech, but that's been happening for years. COVID-19 changes little in that regard.

Filed Under: andrew keane woods, authoritarianism, censorship, content moderation, covid-19, free speech, freedom, internet, jack goldsmith, moderation, pandemic, surveillance

Read more:
How Can Anyone Argue With A Straight Face That China's Approach To Speech Online Is Better Than The US's During A Pandemic - Techdirt

Floridas junior US senator is quite a guyas hed be the first to tell you. Hes worth over $250 million, and youre not.

Rick Scott has no sympathy for these grasping whiners who lost their little jobs in the coronavirus pandemic and now have the gall to expect a government hand-out.

Who do they think they are: Boeing?

Scott sent a fundraising email on April 23rd to his well-connected and richly-upholstered campaign donors complaining that, Businesses looking to reopen are telling us their employees dont want to come back to work because they collect more on unemployment.

Under Congresss Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, these laid-off layabouts could theoretically get $600 a week to do absolutely nothing.

(Scott, of course, voted for CARES, but it pained him. Truly it did).

After all, $600 a week is lavish: enough to cover the rent, maybe the car payment, some ramen noodles, and a four-pack of tuna. You might have to let the health insurance slide, but theres always the emergency room, right?

Most of the aid money is federal, but you have to apply though the state.

Problem is, the state system, to put it mildly, aint working.

You cant get anyone on the phone; it can take a week to breach the online portal; and half the time, it crashes. Around 40 percent of those who somehow manage to fill in the forms discover they are supposedly ineligibleeven though they meet all the criteria.

To date, more than 1.8 million people have applied, but only about eight percent have received a check.

Now, who do you suppose we have to thank for what one Republican insider calls this sh-t sandwich?

Rick Scott.

Scott, you see, shelled out $77 million in taxpayer money for the glitch-prone, security-challenged, crash-happy, slow-as-Christmas CONNECT system. It never worked right. It wasnt supposed to. As an adviser to Gov. Ron DeSantis (whos been highly critical of CONNECT) recently told Politico, it was designed to fail.

The former governor, elected to the Senate by the skin of his capped teeth two years ago, signed legislation in 2014 requiring people trying to get that princely $275 a week in unemployment compensation to answer a 45-question skills questionnaire and prove they tried to get hired by at least five possible employers every week.

Many were rejected anyway, owing to some ill-defined charge of misconduct.

Scott, a person of limited imagination, thinks that if youre poor its your faultand your sorry bone-idle ways should not be rewarded with a handout.

Like many pols, including Donald Trump, hes so thoroughly bought into his mythologized background he thinks he struck it rich entirely thanks to his own hard work and geniusinstead of what we might describe as a certain ethical flexibility.

Trump talks about his success as if the money he got from his dubious daddy and the loans from the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank were incidental, as if he pulled himself up by his own bone-spur-friendly boot straps.

Scott talks about himself as if he were born destitute in a log cabin he helped build and split rails until he joined the Navy, founded the hospital chain Columbia/HCA, made money, and became governor of the Sunshine State.

In truth, his Navy career was remarkable only for the way he bought Cokes onshore and re-sold at hugely-inflated prices to his fellow sailors. At Columbia/HCA he presided over one of the largest healthcare frauds in history. He invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination 75 times; and he finally walked away with $300 million in stock and optionssome of which helped him buy his way into the Florida Governors Mansion.

Like Trump, Scott equates money with intelligence and skilland quite possibly divine favor.

Business ber alles.

Those who pursue low-paid but intellectually-enriching fields are losers.

Public employees are losers. Teachers are losers.

When he was governor, Scott tried to force universities to push students into what he saw as lucrative careers in STEM subjects, instead of useless nonsense like anthropology, which should not be supported by state funds.

His own daughter majored in anthropology, but thats different. She comes from money.

Scott invented all kinds of ways to torment what he saw as the Undeserving Poor. He undercut public health facilities. He tried to mandate drug testing for all state workers, who are among the lowest-paid in the nation.

He also thought it would be a grand wheeze to drug test welfare recipientsat their own expense. If they didnt come out clean, they wouldnt get their benefits.

Scotts family happened to own a string of clinics which perform drug testing. What a coincidence.

Though he had allegedly gone to law school (SMU), Scott seemed to have never heard of the Fourth Amendment. The courts slapped him down.

Taxpayers still ended up paying $1.5 million in his legal fees.

In the midst of this deadly pandemic, Scott wants to underline the fecklessness of those who need public assistance and the way profligate Democrats enable them.

In a hysterical (not in the funny way) column for Fox News, Scott splutters that while decent American families stick to a budget, reusing tinfoil and cutting their own grass, Big Gubmint throws money to the unworthy.

He quotes Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois saying of the CARES Act: if we err on the side of giving a hard-working family an extra thousand dollars or two thousand dollars because of our approach, so be it.

Clutch those pearls! You taxpayers, who have shelled out a mere $133 million (so far) to pay for Donald Trumps golf outings, should rise up and say this waste, fraud and abuse will not stand!

Rick Scotts counting on you to be as wet-hen mad as he is. Hes running for president in 2024 and rage is all hes gotrage and contempt.

See the article here:
Rick Scott, a man of no sympathy for "whiners who lost their little jobs" and try to access FL's glitch-prone, crash-happy unemployment...

More than half of respondents in the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com say they do not trust the medical-related information widely reported on the news.

Of more than 1,500 respondents, 56% say they do not trust the information at all. Another 32% say they only "barely" trust the information.

One percent (1%) say they trust it "a lot" and 11% say they trust it "so-so."

Read the full results below. Meantime, be sure and vote in our latest poll at SharylAttkisson.com on the home page. Look for the black box in the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site!

1% A lot

11% So-so

32% Barely

56% Not at all

1% Don't know/don't care

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

See the original post:
Most do not trust the medical-related info widely reported on the news (POLL) - Sharyl Attkisson

The coronavirus infection spreading across the United States prison system is throwing Ross Ulbrichts confinement into sharp relief.

Found guilty of seven charges including money laundering, conspiracy to traffic narcotics and computer hacking, the controversial founder of the Silk Road is currently serving a double life sentence plus 40 years, without the possibility of parole.

As the pandemic worsens conditions for the nations large prison population, Ross spends 22 hours a day behind bars in Tucson, Ariz., where hes currently being held. Outside visits are stopped so Rosss mother, Lyn, and other loved ones, who work tirelessly for his release, are unable to act as Ross lifeline to the outside world. And Ross stands a good chance of being infected, with rates in his part of the system running four times the New York average.

Because of the nature of his crime, Ross is not allowed access to a computer or the internet, not even to check his email. So he spends his time writing, reading and meditating, his mother said, and calling home.

Even though Ross is a grown man, I'm still a mom and can't help reminding him to drink lots of water, wash his hands and take vitamin C when he calls," Lyn Ulbricht said. "He assures me he's doing all that and I don't need to worry, but it's hard under these circumstances. Prisons are probably the most at-risk places for contracting the virus."

The Silk Road holds a storied position in Bitcoins history. Named after the ancient trade routes that connected East to West, the online emporium became the currencys first proven link to the world of internet commerce (it even introduced some well-known crypto folk to bitcoin). Anonymized shoppers could buy anything, as long as it didn't harm a third party, from fake IDs to opioids, or any narcotic, as well as spyware, art and books. For Ulbricht, the innovation wasnt what was sold, but how: voluntary exchange.

What were doing isnt about scoring drugs or sticking it to the man. Its about standing up for our rights as human beings and refusing to submit when weve done no wrong, the Silk Road founder, then operating under the pseudonym Dread Pirate Roberts, said in an interview with Forbes. (It should be said: Lyn and Ross both maintain this quote is not his. Nor has Forbes has not attributed this quote to Ross.)

Despite his alleged crimes, Ulbricht has become a folk hero in libertarian and crypto circles. Ross is an amazing entrepreneur who helped make the world a better place, Roger Ver, founder of Bitcoin.com, said in a direct message. Ver is among thousands of supporters who have fomented a movement seeking to liberate Ulbricht (with the hashtag #freeross).

And the coronavirus crisis could accelerate this process. It certainly doesnt seem like it can hurt his cause, Ver said.

Close, unsanitary quarters are hotbeds for viral infection. Worse, throughout the pandemic prisoners have had limited access to protective or hygienic products and, sometimes, lack basic medical care. These conditions have activists, politicians and even Attorney General William Barr calling for the temporary release of at-risk populations. Others are pushing harder for the amnesty of all non-violent offenders.

The call for criminal justice reform amid a global pandemic echoes the issues the Free Ross campaign has been championing for years.

Begging the system that put him in prison to now take him out seems like an uphill battle

Theres been a lot more attention brought to the subject [of prison reform], said Lyn Ulbricht. There are many people serving horrific sentences in our country now for nonviolent crimes. It shouldn't be like that. We're the biggest incarcerator in the world. That's a national disgrace.

Lyn Ulbricht is the organizing force behind the loosely coordinated campaign seeking her sons release. In 2013, when the 29-year-old Ulbricht was arrested, she created the FreeRoss.org website to raise awareness and funds for his bail, which was ultimately rebuked.

In 2015, ahead of and during the 11-week federal trial held at the Southern District of New York, Lyn spoke frequently at conferences, to media and online arguing Ross case had wide implications for the future of internet commerce, First and Fourth amendment rights and criminal justice.

Then, in 2017, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Ross conviction and sentence essentially eliminating any chance of legal recourse she began seeking clemency through political means. This effort has culminated in a petition directed at President Trump, asking him issue Ulbricht a commutation. The most recent petition has received over 280,00 signatures.

Many who agitate on Ross behalf see his case as representative of the totality of crimes committed through mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex.

We should support anyone who is being persecuted for victimless crimes, Roger Ver said. The police, prosecutors and judges are the ones who are the criminal aggressors in this case, and the world should speak out against them just like we now speak out against the runaway slave catchers of the past.

While Ver had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Freedom Fund He made it possible for us to go to trial, Lyn said he remains pessimistic about the political process. Begging the system that put him in prison to now take him out seems like an uphill battle, he said. This is something Lyn Ulbricht reluctantly admits.

Despite her efforts to reach the Trump administration, his family and even Kim Kardashian who successfully lobbied the president to release a 63-year-old woman serving a life sentence for a nonviolent drug conviction she has had little success.

Its difficult to coordinate efforts. Ive tried to reach out but its not easy to get to them, she said. While she thinks Trump has shown an inclination to reform the justice system with the First Step Act, its a matter of convincing President Trump this is something that is worthy of his attention and mercy.

That doesnt mean she lacks hope. Trump makes instinctual decisions, she said, adding, Anyone who looks at the sentence can see it's wrong. Ulbricht was a first-time offender, convicted on non-violent charges in a trial that shows some signs of malpractice. The charges listed in Ross original indictment wouldve, at minimum, landed him a 30-year prison sentence.

A more lenient sentence would be in line with what busted merchants on the Silk Road have been handed. Not to mention the former U.S. Secret Service agent who skimmed bitcoin from the site while participating in federal investigation to uncover its founder. Instead, Ulbricht received a punishment Lyn argues is unconstitutional.

The Eighth Amendment says no cruel or unusual punishment and this is very unusual for a first time nonviolent offender, and it's certainly cruel, she said. While the conviction has opened her mind to the possible injustices of the law, its something all her hopes are tied to.

[Trump] can sign a piece of paper and Ross would walk out the door, she said.

Criminal justice reform

Seven years ago, Ulbricht found himself behind bars at New Yorks Metropolitan Detention Center while awaiting trial. Today, this municipal prison system has an infection rate of more than 9 percent, according to the Legal Aid Society. This is compared to the 2 percent infection rate on the citys streets.

Prisoners across the country report they are unable to practice social distancing or even properly wash their hands. Found wanting before the outbreak, prison medical care is reportedly incapable of managing a prison outbreak. In a memo to the Bureau of Prisons, Attorney General Barr confirmed the virus is materially affecting operations, and called for the release of vulnerable and at-risk inmates to home confinement.

Still, there is no consistent national approach to manage the virus in prisons, nor federal guidelines to determine which inmates may be eligible for temporary release. And that guidance may not come soon, with Trump decrying the proactive release of elderly and infirm prisoners he called very serious criminals during a White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing earlier this month.

'Even though Ross is a grown man, I'm still a mom and can't help reminding him to drink lots of water, wash his hands and take vitamin C when he calls.'

Its in this landscape that reformist policies begin to make sense. A 2016 report showed nearly 40 percent of people in state and federal prisons were incarcerated without provably presenting a danger to their communities. That means these sentences are strictly punitive, not correctional, Lyn Ulbricht said.

During Ross bail hearing, prosecutors said he operated the most sophisticated and extensive criminal marketplace on the internet today. And while the prosecution accused him of hiring hitmen, Ulbricht is, technically, a non-violent offender.A number of eminent scholars, lawyers and celebrities have weighed in, calling the sentence "a shocking miscarriage of justice," to use Noam Chomsky's words.

Still young at 36, healthy and without any underlying conditions, its unlikely Ulbricht will be released to home confinement during the pandemic. Instead, he, like the majority of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in federal, state and local prisons, jails and other correctional facilities across the country, will spend 22 hours a day in his cage with his cellmate as a precautionary measure, Lyn said.

Lyn has moved three times since 2013 to be closer to Ross in Arizona so she can make weekly visits. These visits are also on hold for the foreseeable future, and its unclear when these restrictions will be lifted. The federal Bureau of Prisons has not responded to a request for comment.

He can be under house arrest with an ankle brace on, Lyn said. Hes not a dangerous person.

Update(April 30, 22:50 UTC):This story has been updated to emphasize that Forbes has not identified Ross Ulbricht as the pseudonymous Dread Pirate Roberts interviewed in 2013.

More:
No Visits, No Parole: Ross Ulbricht Is More Alone Than Ever During COVID-19 - CoinDesk

CHARLOTTESVILLE(Rutherford) Despite all appearances to the contrary, martial law has not been declared in America. We still have rights.

Technically, at least.

The government may act as if its police state powers suppress individual liberties during this COVID-19 pandemic, but for all intents and purposes, the Constitutionespecially the battered, besieged Bill of Rightsstill stands in theory, if not in practice.

Indeed, while federal and state governments have adopted specific restrictive measures in an effort to lockdown the nation and decelerate the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the current public health situation has not resulted in the suspension of fundamental constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and the right of assembly.

Mind you, thats not to say that the government has not tried its best to weaponize this crisis as it has weaponized so many other crises in order to expand its powers and silence its critics.

All over the country, government officials are using COVID-19 restrictions to muzzle protesters.

It doesnt matter what the protest is about (church assemblies, the right to work, the timing for re-opening the country, discontent over police brutality, etc.): this is activity the First Amendment protects vociferously with only one qualificationthat it be peaceful.

Yet even peaceful protesters mindful of the need to adhere to social distancing guidelines because of this COVID-19 are being muzzled, arrested and fined.

For example, a Maryland family was reportedly threatened with up to a year in jail and a $5000 fine if they dared to publicly protest the injustice of their sons execution by a SWAT team.

If anyone had a legitimate reason to get out in the streets and protest, its the Lemp family, whose 21-year-old son Duncan was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his familys home.

Imagine it.

It was 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that has most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, when this masked SWAT teamdeployed to execute a high risk search warrant for unauthorized firearmsstormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when theSWAT team directed flash-bang grenades and gunfire through Lemps bedroom window.

Lemp waskilledand his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an imminent threat to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

Now what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of firearms.

So instead of approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaintwhich is what the Fourth Amendment requirespolice instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adoptred flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gunlegal or otherwiseas a threat that must be neutralized.

These red flag gun laws allow the police toremove guns from people merelysuspectedof being threats.

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to stop dangerous people before they act, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is apotentialdanger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words anti-government, extremist and terroristinterchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web ofthreat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged words, and suspicious activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media,behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identifypotentialthreats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to arrest and detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing listshared with fusion centers and law enforcement agenciesof ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeledpotentialenemies of the state.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you are most likelyat the top of the governments terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as aNew York Timeseditorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a.domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that thegovernment is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe theeconomy is about to collapseand thegovernment will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number ofpolitical and/or ideological bumper stickerson your car.

Needless to say, if you happen to be passionate about the Constitution and a vocal critic of government corruption, youve already been flagged in a government database somewhere.

Likely, Lemp was, too.

Now Lemp is dead and his family is devastated, outraged and desperate to make sense of what appears to be an insensible act of violence resulting in an inexcusable loss of life.

As usual in these kinds of shootings,government officials have not been forthcoming with details about the shooting: police have refused to meet with family members, the contents of the warrant supporting the raid have not been revealed, and bodycam footage of the raid has not been disclosed.

So in order to voice their objections to police violence and demand answers about the shooting, Lemps family and friends planned to conduct an outdoor public demonstrationadhering to social distancing guidelinesonly to bethreatened with arrest, a year in jail and a $5000 finefor violating Marylands stay at home orders.

Yet heres the thing: we dont have to be muzzled and remain silent about government corruption, violence and misconduct just because were wearing masks and social distancing.

Thats not the point of this whole COVID-19 exercise, or is it?

While there is a moral responsibility to not endanger other lives with our actions, that does not mean relinquishing all of our freedoms.

Be responsible in how you exercise your freedoms, but dont allow yourselves to be muzzled or your individual freedoms to be undermined.

Understandably, no one wants to talk about individual freedoms when tens of thousands of people the world over are dying, and yet we must.

The decisions we make right nowabout freedom, commerce, free will, how we care for the least of these in our communities, what it means to provide individuals and businesses with a safety net, how far we allow the government to go in protecting us against this virus, etc.will haunt us for a long time to come.

At times like these, when emotions are heightened, fear dominates, common sense is in short supply, liberty takes a backseat to public safety, and democratic societies approach the tipping point towards mob rule, there is a tendency to cast those who exercise their individual freedoms (to freely speak, associate, assemble, protest, pursue a living, engage in commerce, etc.) as foolishly reckless, criminally selfish, or outright villains.

Sometimes that is true, but not always.

As I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, there is always a balancing test between individual freedoms and the communal good.

What we must figure out is how to strike a balance that allows us to protect those who need protection without leaving us chained and in bondage to the police state.

We must find ways to mitigate against this contagion needlessly claiming any more lives and crippling any more communities, but lets not lose our heads:blindlyfollowing the path of least resistanceacquiescingwithout questionto whatever the government dictatescan only lead to more misery, suffering and the erection of a totalitarian regime in which there is no balance.

Feature photo | A nurse stands in counter-protest during a demonstration against stay-at-home orders at the State House, April 25, 2020, in Providence, R.I., during the coronavirus outbreak. Michael Dwyer | AP

John W. Whiteheadis founder and president ofThe Rutherford Institute. His new bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at http://www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted atjohnw@rutherford.org.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

See the article here:
Your Freedoms Don't Have to Be Muzzled Just Because You're Wearing a Mask - Mintpress News