🚨🧵 If approved by Congress, a recently introduced Senate bill by Sen. Michael Bennet would establish a federal commission responsible for monitoring Americans' speech for instances of “misinformation” and “hate speech”.
S.4201 Digital Platform Commission Act
The newly proposed commission, the Federal Digital Platform Commission, would consist of five commissioners who would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Under the proposed bill, the Commission would form a ‘Code Council’ comprising 18 members, which would establish ‘enforceable behavioral codes’ on social media platforms and AI, including ‘disinformation’ experts.
If this bill is passed, the new Federal Digital Platform Commission would have ‘Plenary Jurisdiction’ over any digital platform that operates in the United States or has an impact on interstate or foreign commerce.
The proposed bill is aiming to establish regulatory measures to ‘anticipate’ and manage risks associated with the economic, societal, and political impacts of an individual or group's actions.
The bill outlines the purposes & objectives of the Commission in regulating digital platforms in the United States.
It aims to serve the public interest, provide access & opportunities, encourage competition & innovation, maintain a diverse market, while ensuring transparency.
After reading this bill, it lacks measures to safeguard freedom of speech & prevent the commission's regulations from violating individuals' constitutional rights.
It relies on government-appointed “experts” who may end up monitoring state-sanctioned narratives and policies.
The American public should rightfully question political biases when experts are given special privileges.
Especially now, given the current negligence, incompetence, & corruption displayed by the government in their recent efforts to police the internet for ‘misinformation’.
Free speech is fundamental to a healthy republic and an open society.
When there are insufficient protections for free speech online or in general, it can have a number of negative consequences that impact public knowledge, online discourse, and creativity.
‼️⁉️ CHILD ABUSE AT COVENANT? We know of the evil event that took place on 03/27/23, when Audrey Hale slaughtered 6 individuals at The Covenant School.
Speculation regarding the shooting spans the political divide, encompassing theories of a hate crime and a panic-driven response to perceived "trans-genocide."
But a once-unvoiced theory now emerges into the discourse: the possibility of underlying child sexual abuse.
DISCLAIMER: This thread aims to illuminate the apparent concealed scandal of abuse at Covenant, providing clarity on lawsuits, records, and details involving the church, the school, and its leaders by presenting just the facts.
Following the shooting by Hale, whose actions stand out in the rarity of female-perpetrated school shootings (4 out of 147), I delved into Covenant's past.
My quick search unearthed lawsuits, documents, records, audio files and other details that, intriguingly, had not been explored in news coverage post-shooting, raising any questions about a possible link.
Covenant Presbyterian Church and School seems to have been embroiled in a convoluted child sexual abuse scandal that unfolded between 2002 and 2012, as well as a massive cover up since then.
This 2012 legal claim accuses individuals linked to Covenant - Jim Bachmann, Joe Eades, John Avery, and Worrick Robinson - of participating in the concealment of illicit child sexual abuse committed by John Perry, w/o the plaintiffs (The Davis Family) knowledge until that year.
Who is John Perry?
He was a founder, officer and Deacon at Covenant Presbyterian in Nashville.
He allegedly sexually abused a girl (Not Hale), for 3 years, from age 11-14, and it's alleged that the church has continued to cover it up.
🧵LONG FORM THREAD: The Legal Flaws in Roe and Casey's "Abortion Right" & Why SCOTUS Overturned its Federalization. 1/ Roe & Casey supporters speak of an "abortion right" that is claimed to be protected by our "liberty" of the 14th amendment.
But this "abortion right" they speak of is critally different than any other right held by the 14th amendment.
Supporters of Roe claim the abortion right is as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters to include intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different.
2/ Both Roe and Casey acknowledged this fundamental difference during their case, because it destroys the decisions that they called "fetal life" and what the law now describes as an "unborn human being".
Reading the cases of both Roe and that of Casey, their reasoning was extraordinarily weak.
Roe's treatment of the constitutional text was remarkably loose. Its argument was that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a "right to privacy", which is also not mentioned in the Constitution.
3/ Roe also observed that this "privacy right" had been found to be derived from no fewer than 5 different constitutional provisions - 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment.
They only gave 3 ways in which some combination of these provisions could protect this "abortion right".
1/The RESTRICT Act will have a significant impact on our freedom and rights.
First, look at the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The IEEPA is a US federal law that authorizes the president to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual or extraordinary foreign threat to national security, foreign policy, or economy.
2/The RESTRICT Act operates on a similar concept as IEEPA, where OFAC is authorized to prevent US citizens from conducting business with foreign individuals subject to sanctions.
However, the RESTRICT Act establishes a separate set of sanctions managed by the Secretary of Commerce in addition to those overseen by the Treasury Secretary through OFAC.
3/Like IEEPA, the RESTRICT Act instructs the Secretary of Commerce to prohibit transactions involving foreign adversaries.
Yet, the issue lies in the ambiguous definition of "interest," as the Secretary may contend that all cryptocurrency transactions, such as Bitcoin, fall under the category of transactions in which US foreign adversaries have a stake.