Jonathan Turley

These are great questions, and here's my attempt at answering or elaborating on them.

> how do you define hate speech

Ira Glasser explains it precisely: "When people say they want to ban hate speech, what they mean is they want to ban speech that they hate ... But if you allowed something called ‘hate speech’ to be banned, then the only important question would be ‘who decides? ... If the government is going to be the one to decide what hate speech to ban, it’s not going to be the same speech as the speech you hate, it’s going to be the speech they hate, ... It all ends up coming down to who decides and most often, it ain’t you' https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ban-hate-speech/

> and what counts as inciting violence?

This is better explained by the legal scholar Jonathan Turley,

"The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than…

It is a slam dunk case. If you read all the articles for the wealth tax, they argue it isn't a direct tax simply because nobody knows what a direct tax is. Or that the tax actually taxes income. Both of those are wrong. Wealth tax is a direct tax, since it is paid by an individual on their possessions, rather than any transaction. The constitution only allows a direct tax on INCOME, not possessions. If I have 100 million dollars in cash, do not make any money, I would still owe 1 million dollars under the wealth tax. Is that an income tax? No.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/20/reductio-ad-absurdum-a-response-to-professor-bruce-ackerman/

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-wealth-tax-constitutional.html

This article, for the wealth tax, basically makes the argument that the justices should stay true to their 'originalist' principles and uphold it, rather than actually examining the law.

I think this is the best precedent for something like this: When the court ruled that a federal tax on property was unconstitutional, which is similar to what Warren is trying to do. The court has ruled on this in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#The_Pollock_case

> ...Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property...

So, to start with, I absolutely agree that the news can distort out notions of what is representative or not and it's something I've done my best to notice and account for by looking at broader statistics and trends in the data. In this case, though, it's part of a new phenomenon and there's no lack of examples.

Here's Alvin Bragg, talking about no longer charging certain crimes at all:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html

Here's George Gascon doing the same in LA:

https://abc7.com/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney-lada-misdemeanor-crimes/8674095/

If you prefer specific cases, here are some lawyers who were facing domestic terrorism charges for firebombing a police car. They had already plead guilty. They were given a new, lesser plea deal:

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/05/new-york-attorneys-accused-of-firebombing-police-car-given-generous-plea-deal/

I can find a lot more individual cases. For example, the Zimminskis who may only have been prosecuted because Binger was called to account for that during trial. They managed to get arrested for multiple other crimes, including a kidnapping, while on bail.

Most people don't care about anti-white racism so much that they'd stop watching a TV they liked because of the choices of actors. That isn't evidence that it's not actually racism, the definition doesn't depend on viewer counts.

Is there someone that has said this before?

Oh boy, yes. Just search for 'racist maths' to find endless discussion of it. For instance here's Ontario editing maths textbooks to put woke nonsense at the start:

https://www.tvo.org/article/what-does-an-anti-racist-math-class-look-like

And California:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/focusing-on-the-correct-answer-in-maths-is-racist-96gcztfs2

Here's a British university jumping on the bandwagon:

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/11/decolonising-math-durham-university-asks-professors-to-consider-the-race-of-mathematicians-before-relying-on-their-work/

These are just random examples. There are many more.

Reminder that even accusations of abuse imagery will get you in cuffs and your children taken away (see article at the end)

Linux truly is the last bastion of sanity. I am so glad that linux desktops took off and work as well as they do. Last thing I should be worrying about is if an employee at Microsoft or Apple decides their "automated system with no errors" decides that a hash collision or a picture of a baby is close enough to actual abuse imagery. There are plenty of people that believe even a picture of a naked baby in a bathtub is abuse imagery. Anyone remember the case of Walmart? They took their kids away "pending investigation".

https://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/18/arizona-couple-sues-wal-mart-after-store-calls-the-police-on-them-for-developing-pictures-of-this-children-in-a-bathtub-and-the-children-are-taken-by-the-state/

For those who say we shouldn't pay too much attention to urban legends about neural network failures, here's a real-life example of neural networks translating "inorganic cat litter" as "in organic cat litter" and thereby creating a real-life half-billion-dollar dirty bomb that genuinely exploded.

https://jonathanturley.org/2014/11/21/kitty-litter-dirty-bomb-new-mexico-nuclear-disposal-plant-causes-500-million-of-damage-by-using-wrong-kind-of-kitty-litter/

This is a hasty link, IIRC the error happened when someone read out instructions aloud to someone else took who was taking notes.

Yes, that badly behaving neural network(s) was human, and therefore far more sophisticated than any we can build yet. Which makes the problem worse and more real, not better or less real.