Connect with us

Published

on

For good reason, much attention was devoted to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Monday, over government pressure on social media companies to suppress speech that officialdom doesn’t like. The same day, though, justices heard arguments in another important case involving free speech principles violated when New York officials leaned on financial institutions to deny services to the National Rifle Association. Importantly, both cases involved “jawboning,” the use by government of threats to improperly coerce compliance.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you. Email(Required) PhoneThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Submit

Δ When Communication Becomes Coercion

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum ably summarizes, arguments in Murthy v. Missouri involve “dueling interpretations of the Biden administration’s interactions with social media platforms regarding content it viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy, or national security,” with plaintiffs arguing that “those private contacts, combined with public statements condemning the platforms’ failure to suppress ‘misinformation,’ amounted to government-directed censorship.”

At stake is the point at which efforts to persuade private companies they ought not offer platforms to certain speakers morph into “nice business you got there; it’d be a shame if something happened to it.” Did officials cross the line when they badgered tech firms to muzzle voices skeptical of lockdowns, COVID vaccinations, and election integrity? If you’ve followed the Twitter and Facebook Files, you know there’s significant evidence they did, though it remains to be seen if Supreme Court justices agree.

Remarkably, the evidence of improper strong-arming appears even clearer in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo. In that case, the NRA, joined by the ACLU, alleges that Maria Vullo, former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, abused the power of her position to punish the gun rights organization for its political positions.

“Vullo met with executives at Lloyd’s of London to discuss her views on gun control and to tell them she believed the company’s underwriting of NRA-endorsed insurance policies raised regulatory issues,” according to Abby Smith of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). “She told them Lloyd’s could ‘avoid liability’but only if the company told its syndicates to stop underwriting their insurance policies, and joined her agency’s ‘campaign against gun groups.'”

There was nothing subtle about the arm-twisting. In 2018 I wrote about guidance letters New York regulators sent to banks and insurance companies, at the behest of then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, cautioning “regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.” Given that insurance companies and banks are tightly regulated and operate largely at the pleasure of state officials, this would logically be interpreted as a threat. Subsequently, banks and insurance companies alike cut ties with the NRA.

“New York, if these facts are true, tried to circumvent the First Amendment’s ban on censorship by relying on this informal pressure campaign,” noted FIRE’s Smith. “But informal censorship violates the First Amendment, too.” Extra-Legal Threats Violate Individual Rights Protections, Say the Courts

Such informal censorship is known as “jawboning” since, as the Cato Institute’s Will Duffield wrote in 2022, it involves “bullying, threatening, and cajoling” in the place of formal legal action.

“Jawboning occurs when a government official threatens to use his or her powerbe it the power to prosecute, regulate, or legislateto compel someone to take actions that the state official cannot,” observed Duffield. “Jawboning is dangerous because it allows government officials to assume powers not granted to them by law.”

Despite formal protections for individual liberties, such as the First Amendment, the vast regulatory power wielded by government agencies in the United States is easily weaponized against people who don’t do the government’s bidding. Such abuses aren’t hypothetical but are a matter of public record already addressed by the courts.

“People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around,” the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963). That case involved Rhode Island officials hassling booksellers to refrain from stocking allegedly obscene publications. The implied threats and constant nagging of booksellers by state officials “was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions,” ruled the court.

Does “a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions” better describe the situation in the Murthy case or in the NRA case? Well, Monday was a twofer day, so why not both? A Strong Case Against New York’s Jawboning

In truth, New York regulators’ threats to insurance companies and banks that do business with the NRA and other gun groups were so overt that even commenters hostile to the NRA and self-defense rights concede that state officials went way over the line.

“Every now and then, the Supreme Court takes up a case involving a public official who acted so foolishly…that you wish the justices could each take turns smacking them upside the head,” Vox’s Ian Millhiser, no fan of the NRA, conceded last November. “National Rifle Association v. Vullo, which the Court announced that it would hear last Friday, is such a case.”

And so far, while it’s uncertain which way the justices will jump in Murthy, the court seems inclined to agree that it’s impermissible for government officials to use regulatory threats to coerce financial firms into cutting ties with disfavored political organizations.

“The Supreme Court on Monday appeared sympathetic to the National Rifle Association’s claim that a New York official violated the group’s right to freedom of speech when she urged banks and insurance companies that worked with the NRA to cut ties with the group,” SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe concluded. ACLU Legal Director David Cole “closed by telling the justices that ‘the notion that this is business as usual, for a government official to speak with a private party and say we’ll go easy on you if you aid my campaign to weaken the NRA. That is not business as usual. That is not ordinary plea negotiation.’ Although it was not entirely clear, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with him.”

With government reaching ever further into American life, it’s time the court reminds officials, once again, that their intrusive powers aren’t supposed to be used to bypass protections for individual rights.

Continue Reading

World

Moving in the shadows: Why tanker seized by US off Venezuela was ‘spoofing’ its location

Published

on

By

Moving in the shadows: Why tanker seized by US off Venezuela was 'spoofing' its location

An oil tanker seized by the US off the Venezuelan coast on Wednesday spent years trying to sail the seas unnoticed.

Changing names, switching flags, and vanishing from tracking systems.

That all came to an end this week, when American coast guard teams descending from helicopters with guns drawn stormed the ship, named Skipper.

A US official said the helicopters that took the teams to the tanker came from the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford.

The USS Gerald R Ford (in grey) off the US Virgin Islands on 4 December. Source: Copernicus
Image:
The USS Gerald R Ford (in grey) off the US Virgin Islands on 4 December. Source: Copernicus

The sanctioned tanker

Over the past two years, Skipper has been tracked to countries under US sanctions including Iran.

TankerTrackers.com, which monitors crude oil shipments, estimates Skipper has transported nearly 13 million barrels of Iranian and Venezuelan oil since 2021.

More on Nicolas Maduro

And in 2022, the US Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) placed Skipper, then known as Adisa, on its sanctions list.

But that did not stop the ship’s activities.

Skipper pictured from the Venezuelan shore. Source: TankerTrackers.com
Image:
Skipper pictured from the Venezuelan shore. Source: TankerTrackers.com

In mid-November 2025, it was pictured at the Jose Oil Export Terminal in Venezuela, where it was loaded with more than one million barrels of crude oil.

Skipper (R) loads up with crude oil at the Jose Oil Export Terminal in Venezuela. Source: Planet
Image:
Skipper (R) loads up with crude oil at the Jose Oil Export Terminal in Venezuela. Source: Planet

It left Jose Oil Export Terminal between 4 and 5 December, according to TankerTrackers.com.

And on 6 or 7 December, Skipper did a ship-to-ship transfer with another tanker in the Caribbean, the Neptune 6.

Ship-to-ship transfers allow sanctioned vessels to obscure where oil shipments have come from.

The transfer with Neptune 6 took place while Skipper’s tracking system, known as AIS, was turned off.

Read more:
Everything we know about dramatic ship seizure
Is this what the beginning of a war looks like?

Skipper (R) and Neptune 6 in the Caribbean Sea during an AIS gap. Source: European Union Copernicus Sentinel and Kpler
Image:
Skipper (R) and Neptune 6 in the Caribbean Sea during an AIS gap. Source: European Union Copernicus Sentinel and Kpler

Dimitris Ampatzidis, senior risk and compliance manager at Kpler, told Sky News: “Vessels, when they are trying to hide the origin of the cargo or a port call or any operation that they are taking, they can just switch off the AIS.”

Matt Smith, head analyst US at Kpler, said they believe the ship’s destination was Cuba.

Around five days after leaving the Venezuelan port, it was seized around 70 miles off the coast.

Moving in the shadows

Skipper has tried to go unnoticed by using a method called ‘spoofing’.

This is where a ship transmits a false location to hide its real movements.

“When we’re talking about spoofing, we’re talking about when the vessel manipulates the AIS data in order to present that she’s in a specific region,” Mr Ampatzidis explained.

“So you declare false AIS data and everyone else in the region, they are not aware about your real location, they are only aware of the false location that you are transmitted.”

When it was intercepted by the US, it was sharing a different location more than 400 miles away from its actual position.

The distance between Skipper's spoofed position on AIS (towards the bottom right hand corner) and its real position when seized by the US. Source: MarineTraffic
Image:
The distance between Skipper’s spoofed position on AIS (towards the bottom right hand corner) and its real position when seized by the US. Source: MarineTraffic

Skipper was manipulating its tracking signals to falsely place itself in Guyanese waters and fraudulently flying the flag of Guyana.

“We have really real concerns about the spoofing events,” Mr Ampatzidis told Sky News.

“It’s about the safety on the seas. As a shipping industry, we have inserted the AIS data, the AIS technology, this GPS tracking technology, more than a decade back, in order to ensure that vessels and crew on board on these vessels are safe when they’re travelling.”

Dozens of sanctioned tankers ‘operating off Venezuela’

Skipper is not the only sanctioned ship off the coast of Venezuela.

According to analysis by Windward, 30 sanctioned tankers were operating in Venezuelan ports and waters as of 11 December.

About 30 sanctioned tankers are currently operating in Venezuelan waters. Source: Windward Maritime AI Platform
Image:
About 30 sanctioned tankers are currently operating in Venezuelan waters. Source: Windward Maritime AI Platform

The tanker seizure is a highly unusual move from the US government and is part of the Trump administration’s increasing pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

In recent months, the largest US military presence in the region in decades has built up, and a series of deadly strikes has been launched on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

In the past, Mr Ampatzidis explained, actions like sanctions have had a limited effect on illegally operating tankers.

But the seizure of Skipper will send a signal to other dark fleet ships.

“From today, they will know that if they are doing spoofing, if they are doing dark activities in closer regions of the US, they will be in the spotlight and they will be the key targets from the US Navy.”

The Data X Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.

Continue Reading

UK

Man found guilty of murdering wife in rare retrial

Published

on

By

Man found guilty of murdering wife in rare retrial

A 52-year-old carpenter from Surrey has been found guilty of murdering his wife in a rare retrial, eight years after being acquitted.

Robert Rhodes killed his estranged wife, Dawn Rhodes, by slitting her throat with a knife at their family home in Redhill, Surrey, in June 2016.

He was previously found not guilty after a trial at the Old Bailey in 2017, where he convinced jurors that he had acted in self-defence during an argument.

It has since emerged that this was a “cover-up”, after the couple’s child came forward with new evidence that Rhodes killed Ms Rhodes, and they were involved in the murder too.

In 2021, the child, who was under the age of 10 at the time of the murder, told police they had been manipulated into lying about the true version of events by their father.

Both Rhodes and the child were found with knife wounds at the scene, which were initially claimed to have been inflicted in an attack by Ms Rhodes.

The child’s new account stated that after Rhodes killed his wife, he inflicted two wounds to his scalp before instructing the child to inflict two more on their father’s back. He then cut his own child’s arm so deeply that it required stitches under general anaesthetic.

Under the double jeopardy rule a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime, unless new and compelling evidence comes out after an acquittal or conviction for serious offences.

On Friday, jurors at Inner London Crown Court convicted Rhodes of murder and child cruelty.

He was also found guilty of perverting the course of justice and two counts of perjury.

Rhodes will be sentenced on 16 January.

What is the law on double jeopardy?

The double jeopardy rule is a legal principle that prevents a person from being tried twice for the same crime after they have been acquitted or convicted.

It’s a protection for that person from harassment. However, the law permits a retrial where someone was acquitted of a serious offence, but new and compelling evidence has since come to light which indicates the person might actually be guilty.

In this case, the new evidence from the child was compelling enough for the Court of Appeal to quash the acquittal and a retrial to take place.

Crucially, the child’s evidence was so compelling that the Court of Appeal agreed Rhodes needed to be tried again.

Surrey Police told Sky News that the child, who was of primary school age at the time and is below the age of criminal responsibility, was “groomed” by Rhodes into lying.

The Crown Prosecution Service said “the child’s part in the plan was that they would distract the mother by saying to the mother ‘hold out your hands, I’ve got a surprise for you’, and the child would then put a drawing into the hands of the mother”.

Rhodes then cut his wife’s throat. She was found lying face down in a pool of blood in the dining room.

How the case unfolded

2 June 2016 – Dawn Rhodes killed

5 June 2016 – Robert Rhodes charged with murder

2 May 2017 – first trial begins

30 May 2017 – not guilty verdict

18 November 2021 – child gives therapist new account

Late November 2021 – police reopen case

4 June 2024 – Robert Rhodes rearrested and charged the next day

7 November 2024 – Rhodes’s acquittal quashed

2 October 2025 – second trial begins

Libby Clark, specialist prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service’s South East Area Complex Casework Unit, said the child showed “great bravery and strength” in coming forward with the truth.

She said: “The child has grown up with the dawning realisation, I would say, that they were part of a plan. They were complicit in the murder of the mother, Dawn Rhodes.”

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said there are “very few cases” where a retrial like this happens.

He said: “It’s very unusual. I don’t think there’s been a case that I can think of where a witness who was present at the scene of the crime has come forward and given evidence, which has led to a conviction.”

Continue Reading

Politics

US financial markets ‘poised to move on-chain’ amid DTCC tokenization greenlight

Published

on

By

US financial markets ‘poised to move on-chain’ amid DTCC tokenization greenlight

Traditional financial markets are moving rapidly onchain as the US Securities and Exchange Commission chair doubled down on the idea of an “innovation exemption” to accelerate tokenization.

“U.S. financial markets are poised to move on-chain,” wrote Paul Atkins, chair of the SEC, in a Friday X post, adding that the agency is “embracing new technologies to enable this onchain future.”

His comments come shortly after the SEC issued a “no action” letter to a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), enabling it to offer a new securities market tokenization service.

The DTCC plans to tokenize assets, including the Russell 1000 index, exchange-traded funds tracking major indexes and US Treasury bills and bonds, which Atkins called an “important step towards onchain capital markets.”

“On-chain markets will bring greater predictability, transparency, and efficiency for investors,” he said.

However, the green light for the DTCC’s pilot is only the beginning, as the SEC will consider an innovation exemption to enable builders to start “transitioning our markets onchain,” without being burdened by “cumbersome regulatory requirements,” added Atkins.

Source: Paul Atkins

Atkins pledged to encourage innovation as the industry moves toward onchain settlement, which would mean settling transactions on a blockchain ledger, removing intermediaries, enabling 24/7 trading and faster transaction finality.

Related: Crypto nears its ‘Netscape moment’ as industry approaches inflection point

Cointelegraph has contacted the SEC for comment on the details and timeline of an innovation exemption for tokenization.

Atkins first proposed an innovation exemption for tokenization during his remarks at the Crypto Task Force Roundtable on DeFi on June 9.

The SEC’s no-action letter means that the agency won’t take enforcement action if the DTCC’s product operates as described. The DTCC provides clearing, settlements and trading services as one of the most important infrastructure providers for US securities.

Asset tokenization involves minting tangible assets on the blockchain ledger, offering more investor access through fractionalized shares and 24/7 trading opportunities.

Related: Bitcoin treasuries stall in Q4, but largest holders keep stacking sats

DTCC pilot and RWA builders push more TradFi onchain

Crypto analysts have praised the SEC’s move to allow the DTCC’s new market tokenization service, which will award tokenized assets the same entitlements and investor protection mechanisms as traditional assets.

“Not sure people fully appreciate how quickly financial markets are heading towards full tokenization… Moving even faster than I expected,” wrote ETF analyst Nate Geraci, in a Friday X post.

Over the past few months, the SEC issued two no-action letters: one for a Solana-based decentralized physical infrastructure network (DePIN) project, and a second no-action letter in September that allowed investment advisers to use state trust companies as crypto custodians.

Meanwhile, crypto projects continue to raise funds to build the infrastructure necessary for tokenized onchain markets.

On Tuesday, asset tokenization network Real Finance closed a $29 million private funding round to build an infrastructure layer for real-world assets (RWAs) that can boost institutional participation.