China has announced the first human case of an H3N8 bird flu infection in a statement but said the risk of it spreading among people was low. It is known to infect horses, dogs, and seals, but has not previously been detected in humans.
China has already reported that the H5N6 bird flu has jumped to humans:
Keep in mind, that the rulers have previously told us that they already know about the “next pandemic”. It has been announced by CDC director, Robert Redfield:
If the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director is correct, the mortality rate will be 10-50% once they splice the Spanish influenza virus of 100 years ago with seasonal influenza now, they can get a “mutant hybrid” virus that is highly infectious and could cull up to half of the world’s population.
As Christian of Ice Age Farmer says in another video: “There is an untold story involving Bird Flu, gain of function research, the Gates Foundation, and Ukrainian Biolabs — and it is time to tell it. As hundreds of millions of birds are killed due to Bird Flu “PCR outbreaks,” Europe is warning of chicken and egg shortages, and many states have now outright banned the sale of chicks to the public. The largest egg producer in the US has culled birds and fired its workers. In this Ice Age Farmer exclusive, Christian breaks down the sordid story of this virus, and asks: will weaponized H5N1 be the next human pandemic?”
With immune systems destroyed by the COVID-19 vaccines, a weaponized flu virus could cause real damage and death if they attempt to pull this off. Plan for the worst, hope for the best, but stay alert and understand the end game. Continue to stock food. They are obviously coming for food security. –SHTFPlan
China’s National Health Commission on Tuesday said a four-year-old boy living in central Henan province tested positive for the strain after being hospitalized earlier this month with a fever and other symptoms. The boy’s family raised chickens at home and lived in an area populated by wild ducks, the NHC said in a statement.
China said that this is a “one-off cross-species transmission, and the risk of large-scale transmission is low” while simultaneously warning people to stay away from birds and seek medical attention for a fever respiratory symptoms.
INFLATION IS RUNNING AT 40-YEAR HIGHS!
NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES ARE TAXING SAVERS,
CREATING FOOD SHORTAGES
AND MAKING LIFE MISERABLE IN THE UNITED STATES!
There’s Little Time Left Before the REAL DISASTER occurs!
During the COVID crisis, the US military used contact tracing to identify individuals with a high risk of catching the virus and sent them and their families, with little warning to filthy barracks for 10 days.
A report coming out of Korea discussed the military’s tactics there to combat COVID. The result was a trampling of soldiers’ freedoms and privacy. A post at trmlx.com discussed what happened in the military when COVID hit.
A lot of things took place across the broad spectrum of the DOD during 2020 and 2021 which have been unethical at best and flat out illegal at worst…
…A system of surveillance rose up in South Korea during 2020 in a supposed effort to tackle the high volume of Covid positive individuals that were popping up all over the peninsula. Right out of the gate I’ll declare that it was illegal and runs afoul of a number of laws we have in place to protect American citizens from abuses at the hands of their own government.
Under the leadership of General Robert Abrams, a method of contact tracing involving the use of CCTV (closed circuit television, or security footage) was used to track the movement of personnel on Camp Humphreys, collect and store their information, then remove them from their homes and put them in isolation/quarantine facilities.
COL Tremblay (pictured on right and Garrison Commander of Camp Humphreys at the time) says, “we’re gonna find out who you are because we have other ways of finding you. Whether it’s through CCTV or a number of our other capabilities…”
The process for identifying and tracking personnel worked like this:
When people entered the PX (post exchange or mini mall) they would scan in with their CAC (common access card or ID) and sign their name along with the time.
If someone tested positive for Covid, they would use those sheets and CCTV footage to identify anyone who may have had close contact with the individual while out shopping.
Screenshots would be taken from the saved CCTV footage and posted to the Camp Humphrey’s official facebook page and pushed out for all to see.
The Covid tracking team was called the Covid Surveillance Cell. After personnel were identified and tracked based on the collected and stored information, a contact clean team, along with a team to collect the individual and/or that person’s family to send them into isolation, were sent out from the command.
TRMLX then discusses why this was illegal:
Executive Order 12333 dictates very clearly what is and isn’t allowed within the context of United States Intelligence Activities. This order is well known by commanders at every echelon due to the ramifications it holds if it’s broken.
Elements of the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain, or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or by the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order, after consultation with the Director.
Generally you may not intentionally target, collect, retain, and disseminate information on U.S. persons whether CONUS or OCONUS.
It goes on to clarify that law enforcement has the authority to retain information on U.S. persons for up to 90 days who pose a threat to DOD personnel, resources or activities, but I don’t think you could find a sober attorney alive who would argue that shopping at the PX poses a criminal threat to the DOD.
After individuals and their families were identified and teams came to collect them, it was often a hurried process to get them out of their domicile and into isolation.
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and President Donald Trump during a visit to the White House, in 2019. (Photo by: Alan Santos/Planalto Office)
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has celebrated the sale of Twitter to Tesla CEO Elon Musk. About an hour after the confirmation of the change of command of the social network, Bolsonaro retweeted a message from Musk in which he defends freedom of speech on Twitter.
In another message, Bolsonaro shared an article from a website explaining how to deactivate a Twitter account. “Good article,” Bolsonaro said.
Brazil’s Minister of Communications, Fábio Faria, was also congratulated on Musk’s acquisition.
“Congratulations, @elonmusk! Once again you are two steps ahead of the other players and now you are gesturing to the world and in defense of freedom!”, Faria said.
Jair Bolsonaro has already been a victim of censorship on Twitter. In March 2020, the network deleted two posts by the Brazilian President in which he criticized the quarantine and argued that people should work, because isolation would cause economic crisis and leave poor families in a bad situation.
In another post, which was also deleted by Twitter, Bolsonaro appeared to be meeting with supporters criticizing the quarantine and advocating the use of hydroxychloroquine against the Chinese virus. Twitter said that Bolsonaro’s message “violated Twitter rules.”
Springfield Armory has announced the latest addition to their growing family of 1911 pistols – the 9mm Garrison 1911. This new configuration of the Springfield Garrison combines the classic 1911 look and feel with the more affordable and more popular 9mm cartridge. The new 9mm Garrison will be available in a stainless steel configuration as well as a more classic hot salt blued carbon steel version. Both pistols will feature forged frames, slides, and barrels, as well as low profile sights, extended safety controls, Thinline grips, and 9-round magazines.
The Garrison in 9mm is designed to appeal to those who respect tradition and appreciate the flat-shooting aspects of a full-size 9mm 1911,” says Springfield Armory’s Vice President of Marketing, Steve Kramer. “With a forged steel foundation for strength and heirloom-quality construction, this is a pistol that offers a modern take on a proven classic.
Frame and Slide: Forged Stainless or Forged Carbon Steel Blued
Grips: Thinline Wood
Length: 8.6″
Height: 5.5″
Weight: 38 oz
Recoil System: GI Style
Sights: Low Profile Combat 3-Dot
Magazines: (1) 9-Round Magazine
MSRP: Stainless: $899 Blued: $849
The Garrison is a more classic representation of your typical 1911 pistol. The 9mm Garrison is similar with the notable exception of the chambering. Like the 45 ACP version, the 9mm Garrison feature a traditional barrel bushing system and wood grips. Enhancements made to the Garrison line include a skeletonized hammer, a match-grade stainless steel barrel, and an extended beavertail grip safety with a memory bump. In essence, it is similar to a Restomod in that it keeps the classic charm of the 1911 platform alive but also adds modernized performance and comfort features.
The 9mm Garrison 1911 handgun is available now through all of Springfield’s dealers which include big box stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shops.
What are your thoughts on the new 9mm version of the Garrison? Have you had experience with the 45 ACP version? If so, what have your thoughts been on it so far? If you’re looking for a good review of the .45 ACP version of the Garrison 1911, TFB writer Rusty S did a great 1,000-round review on the piece back in November of 2021, be sure to check that out if you’re curious!
We are committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using the retail links in our product reviews. Learn more about how this works.
With the 2022 midterms on the horizon and their poll numbers falling like an asteroid, the Democrats and the Biden Administration are reportedly in full-blown-panic mode with no plan, at all, to right the ship.
According to the Washington Post, the current messaging strategy for the democrats has as much substance as Jen Psaki “circling back,” with the coherence of a typical Biden speech – zero and zero. It’s so bad, that the Dems apparently can’t even begin to come up with a plan to dig them out of the hole Biden, and their destructive policies, have put them in.
At this point, “there is no finalized, comprehensive strategy,” according to numerous White House sources who spoke to WaPo. So, for now, the playbook seems to be to prop Biden up on the podium and cross your fingers.
“As an anxious Democratic Party hurtles toward the midterm elections led by a president whose approval ratings have dropped precipitously, Biden is beginning to put the pieces together for an aggressive campaign to help limit Democratic losses in November.
But it’s an effort some in the party say is long overdue, and despite Biden’s ramped-up efforts, there is no finalized, comprehensive strategy for the midterms inside the White House. There’s no overarching document that outlines the president’s involvement in key races, nor a set message that will carry the party through November, according to multiple people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.”
One staffer who spoke freely on the condition of anonymity absolutely blasted the current state of the Democrat’s messaging strategy as they prepare for November’s election, comparing the situation to Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.
“‘There is as much a plan to win the midterms as there was to airlift Afghans out of Kabul,’ said one Democratic political adviser who remains close to the White House. ‘They’re putting us all in a bad place.’ The adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the party’s prospects, was referring to the chaotic, deadly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan last summer.
The adviser said the White House’s top-down political decision-making process is often impeded by bottlenecks, which hinder coordination with party committees, state parties, advocacy groups and donors. Information reaches stakeholders at the last minute, the adviser said, which results in resources being wasted or misdirected.”
Brutal.
As for Biden, he acknowledged that his message is not resonating with voters in comments late last week, and even admitted that he would be focusing on campaigning across the country instead of doing his job and fixing the crisis he and his policies have created.
Even the president has acknowledged he is struggling to convey to voters what his administration has accomplished, including a covid relief package, an infrastructure bill, and creating millions of jobs.
“I admit to you, what I haven’t done — and the reason I’m getting out on the road again instead of dealing with the day-to-day emergencies in my office — is making the case of what we’ve done,” Biden said Thursday at a Democratic fundraiser in Portland, Ore.
Unfortunately for Biden and the Dems, he struggles to get more than a dozen people to show up to his incoherent speeches. There are often more protesters than attendees at Biden events. So, if this is the best plan they have, the expected red wave in November might be bigger than originally thought.
That is, of course, if we have a fair election. Although, with the current state of the polls and reports like this, it’ll be nearly impossible to believe if there is anything but a mass shakeup in favor of Republicans come November. So, if there is any rigging, it should be even more obvious than it was in 2020.
100 Percent Fed Up Exclusive – Late in the day on Tuesday, the MI House Republican Caucus, under the leadership of Speaker Jason Wentworth and House Caucus Chair Matt Hall, have expelled the popular conservative MI State Representative Matt Maddock (R).
MI House Speaker Jason Wentworth and Wanna-be Speaker, Caucus Chair Matt Hall
Local far-left media was elated to see the establishment Republicans attacking one of the most popular and consistently one of the top fundraising Republican lawmaker’s in Michigan. Jonathan Oosting of the Detroit Free Press cites sources “familiar with the situation” to accuse Maddock of “allegedly violating caucus rules.”
We spoke with Rep. Matt Maddock, who said he was “never given a reason” for the decision to expel him from the caucus.
So, what was Rep. Maddock’s crime? Why was he expelled from the House Caucus?
Rep. Maddock’s crime was supporting President Trump and Trump-endorsed candidates in Michigan. Instead of supporting candidates simply because they’re incumbents, Maddock has taken a more thoughtful approach and has thrown his support behind America-first candidates who will fight to support Trump’s agenda.
Maddock’s most serious crime, however, might be his happy marriage to the intelligent, outspoken, conservative, and beautiful MI GOP Co-chair Meshawn Maddock, who has never wavered in her steadfast support for President Trump.
On Saturday, Michigan establishment Republican lawmakers were humiliated when 2,000 GOP delegates voted at the state convention to choose Kristina Karamo as their secretary of state candidate and Constitutional Attorney Matt DePerno as their candidate to run in the general election. Both are grassroots candidates, and with a few exceptions, like Rep. Matt Maddock, they got no support from members of the GOP majority Republican House.
MI GOP candidate for SOS Kristina Karamo and MI GOP candidate for Attorney General Matt DePerno
The majority of House and Senate Republicans in Michigan fought hard to convince delegates to support DePerno’s strongest opponent, Tom Leonard, for the AG spot. Leonard is a fellow establishment Republican who ran for AG in 2018 and lost to Dana Nessel, giving Michigan America’s most lawless attorney general.
Michigan GOP delegates, who’ve openly expressed their frustration with Republican leadership in Lansing for refusing to conduct a forensic audit of the 2020 election, rebuffed attempts by establishment Republicans, and overwhelming chose the Trump, and Meshawn Maddock endorsed candidates, leaving GOP leadership in Lansing with egg on their faces.
The Maddocks, whose influence has grown exponentially in the Michigan Republican Party over the years, are not afraid to rock the boat with establishment Republicans. But on Tuesday, House Speaker Jason Wentworth and House Speaker wanna-be Matt Hall put the couple on notice—do it our way—or we will strip you of any power or influence, and we’ll publicly shame you in front of fellow lawmakers.
It’s worth noting that House Speaker Wentworth, who is term-limited, and House Speaker wanna-be Matt Hall are keenly aware that by stripping one of the most popular grassroots lawmakers in Lansing from the House Caucus, they can also prevent the Trump-endorsed Maddock from running for Speaker in 2022.
Their plan is eerily reminiscent of the Democrats’ plot to impeach President Trump for the Jan. 6 incident, when they hoped their demonization of Trump would cause him to lose favor with his base. Speaker Wentworth and Caucus Chair (Speaker wanna-be) Hall may have overplayed their hand this time, however, as their scheme is relatively transparent and will likely cause Maddock to become even more popular with members of the House after they realized the dirty tactics employed by Wentworth and Hall in an attempt to take Maddock out of the running for Speaker.
President Trump’s endorsement of Rep. Matt Maddock for Speaker of the MI House.
The MI GOP Caucus meets three days a week before they go onto the floor to discuss legislation. Every elected GOP Rep. is a member of the caucus. Being excluded from the caucus means you are alienated from discussing or debating bills with members of your own party before voting, essentially stripping members of the ability to better understand bills they’re voting for or against. In the very rare case that a lawmaker is expelled from the caucus, they are expected to simply show up and vote.
Maddock’s expulsion from the House Caucus means he can no longer communicate with other members of the MI GOP about upcoming bills or any other issues on a private caucus thread. Maddock’s name was also removed from the MI GOP House website. What that means is that spiteful MI lawmakers have made it impossible for Maddock’s taxpaying constituents to locate him on the MI GOP House website.
Only twice in the last 7 seven-year has a member been removed from the GOP House Caucus.
Three Democrats have been in serious trouble over the past year-and-a-half. Not one of them has been removed from their House Caucus.
Only one year ago, MI State Rep. Jewell Jones (D) was pulled by Michigan State Police officers for suspected drunk driving after crashing his vehicle in a ditch. His blood alcohol of more than .19, nearly twice the legal limit. Rep. Jones and the woman in the passenger seat both had their pants pulled down when he was pulled over. Jones fought back against police officers resisted arrest, was tased by police officers and repeatedly name-dropped MI Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Rep. Jewell Jones was never removed from the Democrat House Caucus.
MI State Rep. Mary Cavanaugh (D) was arrested in February for drunk driving. She was seen by officers driving on two flat tires when she was pulled over. When asked how much she had to drink, MI Dem Rep. replied, “two glasses.” Her blood-alcohol level of .20 was even higher than her fellow Dem Rep Jewell Jones. This was Rep. Cavanaugh’s second drunk driving arrest.
Dem. Rep. Mary Cavanaugh is still a member of the Democrat House Caucus and is now running for a position as a MI State Senator.
During the testimony on voter fraud in Detroit, House Oversight Committee member, Dem. Rep. Cynthia Johnson attempted to doxx one a City of Detroit whistleblower. The next day, the Democrat state rep. made a threatening Facebook video warning, “You Trumpers—be careful—walk lately,” following up with a video calling on her supporters, “Those of you who are soldiers,” she said, “You know how to do it—make them pay!” MI GOP leadership stripped Johnson of her committees, while Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer asked the GOP leadership to reinstate her, saying her crime didn’t fit the punishment.
Dem Rep. Cynthia Johnson is still part of the Democrat House Caucus.
Trump lawyer Christina Bobb nailed it with this tweet:
And then, we have Emily Lawler, the Free Press politics editor, who reported Rep. Matt Maddock to AP fact-checkers for a quote she found on his Facebook page tonight. LOL! This has to be one of the sorriest “reporters” in America.
Will Elon Musk keep the top person at Twitter who censored and banned conservatives on the Big Tech giant once he takes over?
Vijaya Gadde is responsible for the censorship and banning policies at Twitter. She is famous for this and apparently took great pride in it. In her role she allows the Ayatollah of Iran to promote hate speech on the platform but she took down the account of the leader of the free world, President Donald Trump.
Ms. Gadde through her actions has little regard for the first amendment in the US Constitution which protects free speech. The far-left Democrat Party and communists around the world praise her work. She took down Trump – the biggest and best Twitter user in history – because she and her top management colleagues just didn’t like him. She didn’t hide it.
Vijaya tweeted openly about President Trump who beat the corrupt Clinton and Obama machines and made America prosperous and the world safe again. But she didn’t like him and those who supported him.
Writing for the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post in 2015, Gadde argued that certain users were trying to “silence discourse in the name of free expression.”
“I’m often inspired by the vigorous debates on controversial issues that occur on Twitter, but I’ve also been seriously troubled by the plight of some of our users who are completely overwhelmed by those who are trying to silence healthy discourse in the name of free expression,” she wrote.
As Breitbart News previously profiled, Gadde has a history of donating to Democrats and even publicly defended Yoel Roth, a Twitter official responsible for fact-checking policy, when he called members of the Trump administration “Nazis.”
“No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement actions,” she said. “We are a team with different points of view and we stand behind our people and our decisions to protect the health of the public conversation on our platform.”
Far-left Politico reported on Gadde’s response to Musk’s purchase of Twitter:
Shortly after billionaire Elon Musk bought the powerful social media platform, top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde called a virtual meeting with the policy and legal teams she oversees to discuss what the new ownership could mean for them.
Gadde cried during the meeting as she expressed concerns about how the company could change, according to three people familiar with the meeting. She acknowledged that there are significant uncertainties about what the company will look like under Musk’s leadership.
Twitter spokesperson Trenton Kennedy said Gadde became emotional when discussing her team’s impact and the pride she feels in them.
Under Gadde’s tenure, Twitter got further and further left, eventually banning the President of the United States. When confronted on Twitter’s rules that go against US free speech law three years ago, Gadde ignored the fact that Twitter was a US company and instead claimed its users were global. This appeared to be the justification for banning conservatives on the site.
Ms. Gadde was behind the company’s policies that banned huge numbers of conservatives. President Trump was banned because Twitter determined that the President was behind the violence at the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. Yet, the site took down the President’s tweet condemning the violence and telling people to go home.
When others shared documents from Hunter’s laptop they were banned claiming this was basically Hunter’s material and therefore the person sharing the material needed to obtain his approval before sharing, totally discounting the fact that Hunter lost that ownership when he signed a contract with a PC repairman.
Americans hope and pray that the company under Elon Musk addresses Twitter’s bias and protects free speech while censoring Twitter’s bias.
Italian firearms are often nothing short of pieces of artwork as much as they are guns, especially when it comes to shotguns. Rizzini USA is the Utah-based importer of fine handcrafted Italian shotguns and rifles that range from legendary firearms like the Rhino Express chambered in .500 Nitro Express to their new BR110 Sporter IPS (Improved Performance System) 12-gauge O&U shotgun. This new shotgun is made from a combination of a Rizzini BR110 frame and handcrafted Turkish walnut stock featuring a fully adjustable rib that requires no tools.
New Rizzini USA BR110 Sporter IPS (Improved Performance System)
The new Rizzini BR110 Sporter IPS will feature a Grade 2 Turkish walnut stock with 26 LPI checkering and adjustable comb, a Rizzini clean grey anodized steel Sporter frame, a fully tool-less adjustable rib capable of giving you a 50/50 (flat), 60/40 for sporting clays and skeet shooting, as well as the popular 70/30 ratio for use with trap shooting. This turns this one shotgun into a jack of all trades without sacrificing its inherent durability and capability.
The Rizzini BR110 Sporter IPS is currently only being offered in a 10-gauge configuration with either a 30 or 32″ barrel length (this is Razzinis XL bore) black bored barrel and will include 5 extended choke tubes for various applications including a Cylinder, Improved Cylinder, Modified, Improved Modified, and Full chokes. The BR110 will also come with a limited lifetime warranty which should come as no surprise with the shotgun’s $3,450 MSRP price tag.
Reviews from customers who own the previous release of the BR110 Sporter (which comes with a standard vent rib and a nonadjustable stock) have said that their shotguns have run flawlessly and that the fit and finish are characteristic of a quality handmade shotgun with some saying that the BR110 is just as good as comparable Beretta shotguns. As always, we’d like to hear your thoughts on this new shotgun. Let us know what you think down in the comments.
In a major reversal following Chancellor Olaf Scholz only days ago voicing strong resistance, it appears Berlin has bowed to the mounting pressure among allies and approved new tank deliveries to Ukraine from Germany’s own stock, which Scholz had previously said was depleted.
The German Ministry of Defense announced Tuesday that the delivery of Gepard anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine has been approved. As part of Scholz’s earlier rejection of sending heavy weapons systems, he had cited the potential for the West and Russia sliding into a WW3 and nuclear war scenario.
Axiosreports that “The new shipment of the German-made Flakpanzer Gepard was announced by Germany’s Minister of Defense Christine Lambrecht during a meeting with more than 30 defense officials from dozens of NATO and non-NATO countries at Ramstein Air Base.”
Among the officials there at Ramstein for the meeting which was focused onhow to help Ukraine defeat the Russian invasion were US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin – the latter fresh off his trip with Secretary of State Blinken to Kyiv where they met with President Zelensky. Representing Ukraine at the Ramstein meeting was Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov.
As for Scholz’s prior very clearly articulated warnings against sending items like tanks direct from Germany to the Ukrainians, here’s what he told Spiegel in an interview published only last Friday…
“We need to do everything to avoid a direct military confrontation between NATO and a heavily armed superpower such as Russia, a nuclear power,” the chancellor said at the time. “I will do everything to avoid an escalation that could lead to World War III – there can be no nuclear war.”
Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht made the announcement at Ramstein…
“That’s why it is all the more important that we consider each step very carefully and coordinate closely with one another,” Scholz had stressed.
He added: “To avoid an escalation towards NATO is a top priority for me,” and “That’s why I don’t focus on polls or let myself be irritated by shrill calls. The consequences of an error would be dramatic.” But given this fresh reversal it seems he did in fact, in his own prior words, let himself “get irritated by shrill calls”.
And certainly, the risks he previously laid out haven’t suddenly or somehow become mitigated, given Monday’s alarming comments out of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who said the risk of nuclear war remains a “serious, real” danger and that “we must not underestimate it.”
INFLATION IS RUNNING AT 40-YEAR HIGHS!
NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES ARE TAXING SAVERS,
CREATING FOOD SHORTAGES
AND MAKING LIFE MISERABLE IN THE UNITED STATES!
There’s Little Time Left Before the REAL DISASTER occurs!
In a forthcoming article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, three law professors propose a novel, legal tort theory of liability. This liability is referred to as “reckless associations,” and it has the effect of allowing a victim to sue a third party for assuming a leadership position in an association if a member of the association intentionally caused harm to the victim.
The professors proposed this secondary liability to crack down on social network agitators that have escaped legal punishment for their content, which they allege falls short of conspiracy and/or incitement. This theory’s immediate effect would be to flood the judicial system with lawsuits purporting to hold wrongdoers accountable. The secondary effect would be to pressure social networking platforms to maintain key network surveillance data readily available for plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The obvious flaw in this legal theory is that it attempts to fix a problem that only affects a very small fraction of all social network users. Though these users make up a fraction of the entire network, they were “central and active nodes in a dysfunctional network—one that has actually and foreseeably caused epistemic failure and resulted in conduct that harmed people outside the network” before the platform’s content moderators banned their accounts. For years, the platforms have maintained community standards and other policies to address content that may be illegal or objectionable. These policies exist to deter the types of content being addressed by the tort.
Progressives and many legal professionals claim that the existing social network environment is inadequate and does not address the real-world harms caused by a small fraction of highly engaged users. This secondary theory of tort liability was drafted to address this perspective and to work around the existing obstacles within the legal system. The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech and association, and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects platforms from civil liability.
While individuals may already be prosecuted for conspiracy and incitement, these legal theories “often fail when applied to group leaders who were not giving explicit orders in real-time, or themselves committing crimes.” This tort similarly targets the inherent challenges of imposing civil liability on platforms rather than on individuals. Section 230 was implemented, in part, as a response to the challenges of content moderation on platforms. Congress’s intention was to “allow online services to moderate content on their platforms in good faith, removing harmful or illegal content while still providing a forum for free speech and a diversity of opinions.” Congress attempted to balance content moderation to deter civil liability and the fostering of an open, digital “public square.”
While the existing legal ecosystem is imperfect, it has allowed a wide range of perspectives to flourish. Institutions, individuals, and ideas that were once not notable now are given an equal playing field with more established institutions, individuals, and ideas. Of course, this can be problematic to established institutions, as it creates necessary competition in the battle of ideas. The article authors call out right-wing influencers like Alex Jones, Infowars, and members of QAnon, saying that platforms like Twitter essentially create an even playing field between them and legacy authority figures. Though this may be true, the “marketplace of ideas” is foundational to the First Amendment right to free speech.
“Reckless association” would cause two major externalities: 1) this secondary theory of liability would deter “intensive participation and engagement in online networks” and 2) the social networks would be required, under court order, to provide extensive metadata to plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Reckless Associations as a Deterrence Mechanism
The most obvious implication to free speech is that social network leaders “will be less inclined to take or remain in a position of influence” if “leaders know that there is a chance that they will incur the costs of litigation and a possible damages award.” As the authors state, “The implicit logic of contemporary debate is that courts cannot reach central nodes of a radicalized network without causing a chilling effort…. While this is true—l[i]ability will cause individuals to avoid becoming authority figures in groups that aggressively traffic in zany theories.” The authors intend to use tort liability to deter even a mere association with what they determine to be a “radicalized network.”
As an example, let’s say that a prominent Austrian economist is a central node within a network that opposes central banks. There may be individuals within that network that oppose central banks to such a level that they discuss ways to dismantle the central banks. A small fraction of those individuals may even consider violent action or perform violent acts against prominent central bankers.
Under this theory of liability, victims of such violence may be able to sue that Austrian economist for speaking in devout terms against the continued existence of central banks. If this were allowed, it would have a “chilling effect that would inhibit speech and free association.” Central actors or nodes would have to individually vet nodes within their network to deter radicals; this is unlikely to happen, so the effect would be to deter association with controversial ideas entirely and thus stifle debate within a small Overton window.
Surveillance Powers Handed over to Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
As the authors acknowledge, this theory of liability is possible because of advancements in artificial intelligence and network analysis. The platforms would have to share metadata with the plaintiff’s attorney through a court order. The attorney would have to prove each element (language bolded below) of the tort using that metadata.
The tort’s specific language is as follows: “A defendant is subject to liability for a plaintiff if the defendant assumed a position of leadership within an association that recklessly caused a member of the association to intentionally harm the person of the plaintiff.” Proving causation could present a challenge, but “this problem could be overcome with the right sort of data—if plaintiffs’ lawyers are able to access and analyze a meta-network of the third-party actor’s communications across multiple media and platforms,” write the authors. This analysis could prove technically and legally challenging, though it is likely that this same type of analysis is being done by intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
Social networks have been key actors in law enforcement investigations into terrorist activities and other illegal/illicit activities. As Lawfare notes, “Platforms now collect and analyze intelligence on a variety of threats, often in cooperation with law enforcement.” This partnership is strong, in part, because of constitutional and legal constraints, as well the fact that “private companies are generally nimbler than government agencies.” In a sense, these social networks are already captured as tools of the national security state. Expanding their surveillance capabilities to the domain of civil litigation should not present a challenge.
These platforms are well equipped to receive and share data in large quantities. As previously discussed, the platforms maintain processes to share relevant information with law enforcement. Platforms such as Meta’s Facebook have sought to partner with financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and US Bancorp. Public reporting has disclosed that these platforms have similarly cooperated with “keyboard warrants” and “geofence warrants.” These instances demonstrate that the platforms cooperate with law enforcement with minimal pushback. This level of cooperation raises concerns about the platforms’ willingness to share sensitive data with external actors.
Market Forces Have Handled the Issues Being Discussed
Aside from the two major consequences discussed above, this legal theory is unnecessary. The authors express a clear intention to target individuals like Infowars’ Alex Jones and former president Donald Trump. For years, both Jones and Trump have been under intense scrutiny and have undergone costly litigation. Separately, both individuals have been effectively blackballed from all prominent platforms. While one may disagree with the platforms’ rationale for banning these two individuals in lockstep, the market has proven to be responsive.
The platforms have responded to pressure from a wide variety of sources, ranging from elected officials to advertisers to special interest groups to their own employees. Unfortunately, the pressure has been to adopt increasingly censorious positions on content that does not conform to the mainstream narrative. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken note of this problem; Musk recently acquired a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter as a means to press the platform to adhere to fundamental free speech principles. Musk has previously stated, “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy.”
Democracy requires individuals to be able to freely exchange ideas, which is why Congress drafted Section 230 as a shield against overreaching civil liability concerns. To address content that may pose a risk, the platforms already maintain community standards and other policies intended to moderate content. Facebook and Twitter employ thousands of content moderators, in conjunction with algorithms, to review content that may be in violation of policy.
The platforms partner with fact-checking outlets to assess the validity of viral claims made on the platforms. “It became a necessary feature of the new journalistic industrial complex in order to inoculate large tech platforms from government regulatory pressure and the threat of ‘private’ lawsuits from the NGO sector,” writes Tablet. Content shared on these platforms that is flagged as false or misleading gets downgraded by the platforms’ algorithms. While fact-checking organizations are frequently (and appropriately) labeled as partisan, this partnership supports the market-oriented approach to moderating content on these platforms.
This series of imperfect practices is best encapsulated in Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal’s recent statement: “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do to work about this is to focus less on thinking about free speech but thinking about how the times have changed.” While imperfect, these market-led practices are preferrable to civil litigation and the accompanying surveillance architecture.
Conclusion
Civil liberties advocates would be keen to oppose this legal theory of secondary liability for the three reasons stated above: 1) reckless associations would cause a “chilling effect that would inhibit speech and free association,” 2) the theory would require platforms to provide a significant amount of sensitive network data to plaintiffs’ attorneys (many of whom could be politically motivated), and 3) the market has already taken steps to address the challenges of radical actors who may cause real-life damage.
This new theory will likely never become law in the United States, but it presents a useful visual of how First Amendment protections could be limited without direct encroachment. Separately, it demonstrates the authoritarian urge to use surveillance mechanisms to punish those deemed to be radical by the progressive establishment. Reckless associations is another attempt to stifle “arguments by people who believe they have a mandate of heaven, and the truth is whatever they say it is.”
