Doug Morris

A New York Times opinion piece by a columnist named Ross Douthat says that Scotland has passed a new anti-hate-speech law that threatens free speech. "The new Scottish law criminalizes public speech deemed “insulting” to a protected group (as opposed to the higher bar of “abusive”), and prosecutors need only prove that the speech was “likely” to encourage hatred rather than being explicitly intended to do so. One can offer a defense based on the speech in question being “reasonable,” and there is a nod to “the importance of the right to freedom of expression.” But a plain reading of the law seems like it could license prosecutions for a comedian’s monologue or for reading biblical passages on sexual morality in public."

What is the definition of free will?

Could it also be that they are interpreting "sacrifice" in a watered-down way that makes it less blatantly anti-life?

Is the idea that sometimes a lepton can be in particle mode, sometimes in wave mode, and it can switch back and forth? Or are the modes different ways of considering the same particle at the same time?

Thanks to everyone who commented. I found the cartel explanation particularly helpful. For a little further clarification, the NYT compared the USA to other countries. From the article: "The typical commission in the U.S. has been almost 6 percent, compared with 4.5 percent in Germany, 2.5 percent in Australia and 1.3 percent in Britain. As a recent headline in The Wall Street Journal put it, “Almost no one pays a 6 percent real-estate commission — except Americans.”" One question this raises is, are there countries where government interference forces commission rates wrongfully low?

The current online New York Times has an article claiming that real estate commissions in the USA were at the high rate of 6% because the National Association of Realtors had the power to enforce it and that this constituted a failure of the free market that required antitrust action to correct it. Can anyone provide a good source explaining the real reason commissions were so high?

I see that the document you linked mentions the East German Stasi. Maybe the secret police of a dictatorship could bring something like this off. But how workable would it be in a relatively free society?

" "What we are seeing now is a globally co-ordinated and organised effort of control and conformity. Many countries around the world are currently using a model of policing called Community Oriented Policing [ie.gangstalking]." (ibid.pg.3) " Here is a definition of Community Oriented Policing from Wikipedia: Community policing or community-oriented policing (COP) is a strategy of policing that focuses on developing relationships with community members. It is a philosophy of full-service policing that is highly personal, where an officer patrols the same area for an extended time and develops a partnership with citizens to collaboratively identify and solve problems.[1] The goal is for police to build relationships with the community, at times through mediums such as local agencies, to reduce antisocial behavior and low-level crime.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Some scholarship, such as the broken windows theory, proposes that community policing can reduce serious crimes as well.[8][9] Community policing is related to problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing, and contrasted with reactive policing strategies which were predominant in the late 20th century.[10] Many police forces have teams that focus specifically on community policing.

" Those who oppose the cabal are targeted and those of pure blood, those of a healthy mind incorruptible by its influence are foremost in the crosshairs. This group, especially those who are the most intelligent and intuitive amongst them, are prime target's for the cabal's use of the following means of global enslavement. " If this is true, why are you the only victim who posts here?

Yes, but the devil might be in the details.

Protecting children from alcohol and tobacco is a much simpler issue than protecting them from social media. Should we have laws protecting children from foods containing unhealthy amounts of sugar or salt? How do we define "unhealthy"? Should we have laws limiting children's access to over the counter drugs? To pornography? To violent fiction? Should we get into arguments about what ideas could be harmful to children?

They don't raise the sort of issues that Gus talked about. The law in question is "one size fits all". We probably need a more complicated, nuanced approach. The better parents have a lot of responsibility here. We need to avoid closing paths to help for those children who need protection from bad parents.

There is a difference in kind with respect to which rights are being violated. The "J6ers" were insurrectionists trying to interfere with legitimate election certification and orderly transfer of power. They were guilty of very serious crimes. Trump and his people made arbitrary assertions, without evidence, of a stolen election. They knew they were lying. People who fell for this deserve harsh criticism. What evidence do you have to back this up?

The statism shown in the digital economy quote I posted and in fiat money, including central bank digital currency, is bad, but it is not in the same category as the suppression going on in Belarus. A government can be guilty of any or all of the former and still be more rights-respecting than one guilty of the latter.

That document refers to central bank digital currency as something being studied, not something planned.