Starvin Larry

“Running a social media company sounds like a terrible job. Sure, you get to be really important and make a ton of money selling users’ private information to political consulting firms and presumably underwear manufacturers, but you also have to figure out how to avoid censorship in an industry where the business model is “hand a megaphone to a bunch of froth-mouthed rage-addicts and let them spend all day screaming every demon-thought that’s ever popped in their heads.”

Such rage addicts seem more attracted to Twitter than to any other social media platform, so you might think the company would have more experience, and thus more expertise, at the delicate balancing act of defending free speech while policing vile and ugly language. However, with a recent tweak to their terms of service, Twitter has made it quite clear that it’s not in the business of creating a platform for people to exchange ideas without being cruel. Rather, it’s in the business of silencing conservative voices and exiling anyone who deviates from the new political-religious orthodoxy.”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/29/twitters-new-trans-speech-rules-emanate-religious-extremism/

https://prolongedfieldcare.org/2018/11/29/podcast-episode-42-wound-care-basics-and-beyond/#more-9507

http://knuckledraggin.com/2018/11/merry-christmas-to-you-goodbye-from-maingun/

“And a fully stocked kit is still just an expensive pile of shit if you don’t know WTF you’re doing with any of it.”

http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2018/11/med-kit-minutiae.html?m=1

https://www.americanpartisan.org/2018/11/medical-references-taking-the-next-step-up/

“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”— Justice William J. Brennan, City of Houston v. Hill

What the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

It’s not an easy undertaking.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, “disorderly conduct” charges have become a convenient means by which to punish those individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

• Fane Lozman was arrested for alluding to government corruption during open comment time at a City Council meeting in Palm Beach County, Fla.
• Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested for “aggressively” questioning Tom Price, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Servicesduring an encounter in the West Virginia State Capitol.
• Robert Bartlett was arrested during an Arctic Man festival in Alaska, allegedly in retaliation for refusing to be interrogated by police and intervening when police attempted to question other people. His case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cases like these have become all too common, typical of the bipolar nature of life in the American police state today: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights and you put yourself at risk for fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

This is the unfortunate price of freedom.

Yet these are not new developments.

We have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now.”

Read the rest @ The Rutherford Institute Here