Connect with us

Published

on

The sitting vice president, shortly before moving to Washington, D.C., successfully scapegoated through heavily publicized if legally unsuccessful pimping prosecutions a career newspaperman who last week shot himself to death at age 74 rather than sit through yet another prostitution-facilitation trial that he insisted to his dying days was an attack on free speech.

Yet the chances of Kamala Harris being asked this weekor any weekabout the late James Larkin, or her starring role in the demonization of his and Michael Lacey’s online classified advertising company Backpage as “the world’s top online brothel,” are vanishingly small. That’s because people have a natural revulsion toward anything associatedhowever falselywith child prostitution or sex trafficking, true. But it also stems from something far less excusable: When it comes to conflicts between the feds and those from the professionally unpopular corners of the free speech industry, journalists have been increasingly taking the side of The Man.

You could see this dynamic in stark relief last month in the elite-media response to U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty’s Independence Day injunction against the federal government from pressuring social media companies to censor individuals for allegedly spreading “misinformation.” As catalogued at Reason by Robby Soave, J.D. Tuccille, Jacob Sullum, and Robert Corn-Revere, and as I experienced during a bizarre panel discussion on CNN, the default journalistic reaction was anxiety that the ruling (in the words of theNew York Times news department) “could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues.” Sure, there may be First Amendment implications, but, well, have you seen that dangerous whackaloon Alex Berenson?

Far too often, journalists reserve their free speech defenses for people they actually like. And man, did they not like Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey.

This antipathy for Larkin/Lacey and the New Times alt-weekly chain the duo launched in Phoenix was obvious long before politicians began moving on from Craigslist to Backpage in their morally panicked crusade against technology companies that allegedly promote “sex trafficking.” (I use quotation marks here not to intimate that sex trafficking does not exist, but rather that, as Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown has documented better than any living reporter, the term is overwhelmingly deployed by politicians and law enforcement to describe and punish conduct that has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing unwitting adults, let alone minors, into the sex business.)

The New Times honchosespecially Lacey, who was always the more public and pugilistic face of the franchisewere resented because they threw sharp elbows at both the graybeard alternative weeklies to their left and at the big-city dailies that were originally to their right but then tacked over time to the kind of bloodless lefty respectability space inhabited by NPR. The New Times papers hurled buckets of snark onto anyone perceived as Establishment, which pissed off boomer lefty journalists almost as much as elected Republican officials such as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The New Times “view of who was the establishment and who [was] the outsider,” sniffed LA Weekly windbag Harold Meyerson in 2003, “was classically neocon.” (The game of pin-the-inaccurate-political-insult on the New Times never did fall out of fashion.)

Having mocked, then beaten, then eventually subsumed a Village Voice Media chain revered for its foundational role in postwar alternative journalism, Lacey and Larkin and co. found themselves relatively friendless during various scrapes with the legal system. When the independent hippie alt-weekly San Francisco Bay Guardian won a lawsuit in 2008 against the New Timesowned SF Weekly for “predatory pricing” of advertising (yes, one free paper sued another free paper over charging lower ad rates), and when that $21 million settlement (after having been tripled by the presiding judge) was upheld in 2010, I noted that “the journalistic thumbsucker community outside of the Bay Area has been almost completely silent about this potentially momentous precedent.”

You can almost hear the journalistic eyerolls at Backpage’s frequently successful series of legal defenses that the third-party speech and commerce that the now-defunct company facilitated were protected under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act of 1996, i.e., “the Internet’s First Amendment.”

“As Trial for Backpage’s Founders Begins,” snarked a September 2021 Gizmodo headline, “Their Free Speech Defense Is Flailing.” (The case was declared a mistrial less than a weeklater due to prosecutorial misbehavior.) The Washington Post in 2022 published a laudatory review of prosecutor Maggy Krell’s book Taking Down Backpage: Fighting the World’s Largest Sex Trafficker, with Section 230 treated as a deviously exploited loophole. “Krell and her fellow crusaders,” concluded E.J. Graff, thenmanaging editor of the Post’s Monkey Cage blog,”are rightly proud of the strides they’ve made in cracking down on this scourge.”

This is not to say that there haven’t been good (and appropriately skeptical) examinations of the Backpage side of the story, though it’s interesting to note that they often come from people who used to work for the New Times chain. And there has been a smattering of free-speecher support and outrage over the years, including last week from TechDirt’s Mike Masnick.

But the overarching journalism-industry response to the past seven years of Backpage founders being hounded by ambitious politicians and prosecutors and thrown into courtroom cages; their family members being pulled out of the shower; their bank accounts seized; their ankle bracelets affixed; and now one of the defendants offing himself has been studious indifference and silence. You will see 100 times more ink spilled this year on chimerical right-wing book bans than you will on the vice president’s scapegoat blowing his brains out.

Journalists tend to be pretty good about looking backward through the decades and recognizing that, Oh shit, we kind of went overboard during that whole Satanic Panic thing. While better late than never, such correctives should lend urgency to the quest of finding injustices that are depriving people’s liberty right the hell now.

Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht is still serving two life sentences in federal prison. President Joe Biden is sitting on a backlog of approximately 19,000 clemency petitions, most for nonviolent crimes and/or violations of laws that no longer exist. And Mike Lacey still faces trial, scheduled for later this month. It’s too late for Jim Larkin’s kids to get their dad back, but it’s never too late for people in the free speech business to recognize that one of their own is getting railroaded. I just wouldn’t bet on it.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Bush determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein’, new records reveal

Published

on

By

President Bush determined to 'rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein', new records reveal

It would have been “politically impossible” to stop President Bush from invading Iraq, as he believed he was on a “crusade against evil”, new records show.

Newly declassified UK government files show Sir Tony Blair was warned by his US ambassador that George W Bush was determined to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein, in the months before the invasion of Iraq.

Sir Tony, who was prime minister at the time, was trying to encourage the US president to use diplomatic means to change the situation in the Middle Eastern country, and flew to Camp David in January 2003 to make the case, just two months before the joint US-UK invasion.

The UK government was also hoping the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq.

But the files, made public for the first time, show that Sir Tony’s ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned him it would be “politically impossible” to sway Mr Bush away from an invasion unless Hussein surrendered.

 File photo dated 21/11/2003 of US President George Bush stood alongside Prime Minister Tony Blair
Image:
Prime Minister Tony Blair with US President George W Bush in 2003

The documents, released by the National Archives at Kew in west London, show Sir Christopher also wrote that Mr Bush believed himself to be on “a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God’s chosen people”.

Sir Tony’s foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, told the PM that when he met Mr Bush, he should make the point that a new diplomatic resolution was “politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well”.

More on George W Bush

But the White House was becoming increasingly impatient at the unwillingness of France and Russia – both of whom held a veto – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war.

Sir Christopher warned Sir Tony shortly before his visit to see Mr Bush in January 2003 that options for a peaceful solution in Iraq had effectively run out.

(from L-R) Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, George Bush and Portuguese Prime Minister Manuel Durao Barroso - 16/03/03
Image:
Tony Blair speaking at a press conference following talks over Iraq in March 2003, watched on by George Bush and the leaders of Spain and Portugal

He wrote: “It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam’s surrender or disappearance from the scene.

“If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech.

“In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God’s chosen people.”

File photo of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, December 31, 2001. REUTERS/Faleh Kheiber SJS/CMC
Image:
Saddam Hussein in 2001 – he was captured by US soldiers in December 2013

In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the “self-serving” reservations of the Europeans.

“His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,” Sir Christopher stated.

“He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.”

In the end, Sir Tony and Mr Bush abandoned efforts to get a new Security Council resolution, blaming French President Jacques Chirac for refusing, and launched the invasion of Iraq anyway.

Lobbying from Mandelson and anger at the French

Among the new files, there are also a number of other revelations. These include:

  • Current UK ambassador to the US, Sir Peter Mandelson, was so desperate to get back into government following his second resignation from Sir Tony’s government that he asked Lord Birt, a policy adviser to Downing Street, to write to the prime minister in 2003, asking for him to receive a role – four months before Sir Peter was appointed as the UK’s next European commissioner
  • Sir Tony was furious at French president Jacques Chirac’s efforts to undermine pressure being put on Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe by the UK in 2003, over growing violence caused by a policy of driving the remaining white farmers from their lands in the African nation
  • The prime minister also insisted on changing the rules around which parties can lay wreaths at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday in a bid to protect the Northern Irish peace process in 2004, despite warning this could create an “adverse reaction” from the SNP and Plaid Cymru

Continue Reading

Politics

People smugglers to have assets frozen and be banned from UK

Published

on

By

People smugglers to have assets frozen and be banned from UK

People smugglers face having their assets frozen and being banned from entering the UK, the foreign secretary has announced.

David Lammy said new powers under the Sanctions Act will allow the UK to freeze the assets of anyone complicit in smuggling illegal migrants into the country.

They can also be banned from travelling to the UK.

The first wave of sanctions on smuggling gangs and their enablers will be imposed on Wednesday.

Mr Lammy said it is the “world’s first sanctions regime” targeted at smuggling gangs.

Gang leaders, small boat suppliers, people making and selling fake passports and middlemen facilitating payments by migrants through hawala networks (informal systems for transferring money) will all be targeted this week.

More on David Lammy

They will be publicly named on a sanctions list, making it illegal for the UK financial system to engage with them.

By using the Sanctions Act, the government said it can target the smuggling gangs wherever they are in the world, including where law enforcement and criminal justice approaches cannot reach.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How people smugglers dodge French police

Labour’s manifesto promised to “smash the gangs”, but the first half of 2025 has seen a record number of small boat crossings, with about 20,000 from January to June – the highest ever in that period, and 48% more than the first half of 2024.

Earlier this month, the UK and France announced a pilot scheme under which migrants arriving in the UK illegally from France will be returned and a legitimate asylum seeker will be able to come to the UK. They did not say how many would be returned each week, but the suggestion was 50.

People thought to be migrants wade through the sea to board a small boat leaving the beach at Gravelines, France, in an attempt to reach the
Image:
Migrants wading through the sea in France to board a small boat destined for the UK. Pic: PA

On the latest sanctions, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: “For too long, criminal gangs have been lining their corrupt pockets and preying on the hopes of vulnerable people with impunity as they drive irregular migration to the UK. We will not accept this status quo.

“It is our moral duty and a key part of our Plan for Change to do all we can to smash these gangs and secure Britain’s borders.

“That’s why the UK has created the world’s first sanctions regime targeted at gangs involved in people smuggling and driving irregular migration, as well as their enablers.

“From tomorrow, those involved will face having their assets frozen, being shut off from the UK financial system and banned from travelling to the UK.”

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the sanctions send a “clear message that there is no hiding place for those who exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk for profit”.

Continue Reading

Environment

California set to BAN Tesla sales, Vietnam leads the way, and VW value tanks

Published

on

By

California set to BAN Tesla sales, Vietnam leads the way, and VW value tanks

The State of California is moving to ban the sale of Tesla cars amid claims that the company and its CEO, Elon Musk, have misled buyers about the self-driving capabilities of their cars. We’ve also got market-leading news out of Vietnam and a pricey, pricey lesson for one VW ID.Buzz buyer on today’s lesson-learning episode of Quick Charge!

We also ask what this might mean for the recent Uber/Lucid autonomous taxi tie-up and go through a full rundown of the fastest depreciating EVs on the market (and yes, there are four Tesla models in the top 10 … because the Cybertruck was too new to qualify).

Prefer listening to your podcasts? Audio-only versions of Quick Charge are now available on Apple PodcastsSpotifyTuneIn, and our RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players.

New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (most weeks, anyway). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Got news? Let us know!
Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending