#anti terrorism act

[ausetkmt]

A former FBI counterterrorism agent, Dave Gomez, told The Washington Post he thought that a fear of being seen as targeting President Donald Trump's base was muting the agency's response to violence by white nationalists."There's some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base," Gomez told the publication.The comments followed an attack on Saturday by a gunman at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, that the FBI is treating as a domestic terrorism incident.Investigators have said the gunman left a racist manifesto on the messaging board 8chan ahead of the attack.

FBI agents are hesitant to investigate white nationalist extremists because they don't want to be seen as pursuing investigations against President Donald Trump's base, a former FBI counterterrorism agent told The Washington Post.

The former agent, Dave Gomez, said he believes that FBI Director Christopher Wray "is an honorable man, but I think in many ways the FBI is hamstrung in trying to investigate the white supremacist movement like the old FBI would."

"There's some reluctance among agents to bring forth an investigation that targets what the president perceives as his base," Gomez said. "It's a no-win situation for the FBI agent or supervisor."

He said that Trump's repeated criticism of the FBI and its investigation into Russian election interference and collusion were likely factors as well.

The FBI declined to comment to Business Insider on Gomez's claims. An FBI representative told The Post that the comments were not accurate and that the agency distributes resources according to its assessment of the threat posed by domestic terrorism.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FBI says about 40% of the domestic terrorism cases it is investigating involve racism.

Gomez's comments followed Saturday's shooting in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, that killed 20 people. Investigators have told media outlets that shortly before the shooting, the gunman posted a racist and anti-immigrant screed on the messaging board 8chan, known as a hub for white nationalists. Authorities have identified Patrick Crusius as the suspect in the shooting.

That shooting was followed hours later by another mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, that investigators have not tied to racist ideology. Authorities have not publicly identified a motive in that shooting.

Saturday's shooting was the latest in a long series of deadly attacks by white nationalist extremists in the US and abroad. In March, a gunman killed 51 people in mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and livestreamed the attack on social media.

At a Senate hearing in July, Wray said an increasing number of domestic terrorism incidents were motivated by white supremacist and white nationalist ideologies.

Law-enforcement responses to violence by white nationalists have long been the focus of fierce bipartisan disputes. Republicans in 2009 reacted furiously to a Department of Homeland Security report that described right-wing extremist violence as a rising threat. They accused the agency of a bid to smear conservatives.

Trump's political opponents have accused him of deliberately stoking racist divisions in the US and actively courting the support of white nationalists during his 2016 presidential campaign.

In a March op-ed article for Time, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University linked a rise in white nationalism to "a coarsening of mainstream politics, where debates on national security and immigration have become rabbit holes for the exploitation of fear and bigotry."

The president last week claimed he is "the least racist person anywhere in the world" and on Sunday linked the El Paso attack to a "mental-illness problem." In the wake of the New Zealand attack, he said he didn't see white nationalism as a growing global threat.

Under US law, while it is a crime to provide support for foreign terror groups like ISIS, there is no equivalent for domestic terrorism organizations, The Post said.

The FBI is investigating the El Paso attack as a domestic terrorism incident and possible hate crime. In a statement on Sunday, it warned that Saturday's attack could inspire copycats.

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Richard Medhurst, a Syrian-British independent journalist who defends Palestinians' right to resist Israeli apartheid, occupation, and other crimes, said this week that he was recently arrested at London's Heathrow Airport.

🔥 Fuel Our Work: https://bit.ly/TFTPSubs 🎙 TFTP Podcast: https://bit.ly/TFTPPodcast

#TheFreeThoughtProject #TFTP

[moonlayl]

Source - The Jerusalem Post

You can’t make this shit up. This is actually insane and disgusting. People can lose their job for pointing this out while a fcking Israeli politician can just literally say this. What the fuck do you mean do to Gaza what was done by the Nazis?

[turnedpalefromlackofsun]

one time i drew a picture of my favorite ship beating the shit out of eachother and since violence is sex to me, i tagged it as ship

and then people got confused and then i got confused. to this day, im still confused.

[porschesbabydaddy]

he's soggy kinn :(

Prism count your fucking days

[nando161mando]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The future of the federal law that protects online platforms from liability for content uploaded on their site is up in the air as the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases that could change the internet this week.

The first case, Gonzalez v. Google, which is set to be heard on Tuesday, argues that YouTube’s algorithm helped ISIS post videos and recruit members —making online platforms directly and secondarily liable for the 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130 people, including 23-year-old American college student Nohemi Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s parents and other deceased victims’ families are seeking damages related to the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Oral arguments for Twitter v. Taamneh—a case that makes similar arguments against Google, Twitter, and Facebook—centers around another ISIS terrorist attack that killed 29 people in Istanbul, Turkey, will be heard on Wednesday.

The cases will decide whether online platforms can be held liable for the targeted advertisements or algorithmic content spread on their platforms.

Tech companies argue that Section 230 protects them from these types of lawsuits because it grants them legal immunity from liability over third-party content that is posted on their platform. The case will decide whether platforms can be held liable for spreading harmful content to users through their algorithm.

Here’s what to know about Section 230.

WHAT IS SECTION 230?

Section 230, which passed in 1996, is a part of the Communications Decency Act.

The law explicitly states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” meaning online platforms are not responsible for the content a user may post.

The law allows tech companies to moderate or remove content that is considered egregious. Section 230, however, does not protect sites that violate federal criminal law, or intellectual property law. It also does not protect platforms that create illegal or harmful content.

Because popular sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube rely on user-generated content, many people have credited Section 230 for the creation of the internet we now know and love.

As the scale of online platforms has drastically increased over time, with up to 368 million monthly active users on Twitter alone, experts argue that Section 230 helps protect companies that struggle to keep up with the amount of content posted on their platforms from being sued over what users say or do.

WHAT ARE THESE CASES ABOUT?

The Gonzalez family first filed a suit in 2016, alleging that because Google, which owns YouTube, matches and suggests content to users based on their views, the platform recommended ISIS’s content to users, and enabled them to find other videos and accounts owned by ISIS.

Plaintiffs also argued that Google placed paid advertisements on ISIS videos, which meant they shared ad revenue with the terrorist organization. The lawsuit argues that this means that Google has not taken enough action to ensure ISIS remains off the platform. Because of this, the plaintiffs allege that these tech companies are directly liable for “committing acts of international terrorism” and secondarily liable for “conspiring with, and aiding and abetting, ISIS’s acts of international terrorism.”

A federal district court in California dismissed the complaint, saying that Google could not be held responsible for content that was produced by ISIS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the district court, but in October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

In an opposition brief filed to the Supreme Court, Google maintained that a review of the case was not warranted because websites like YouTube could not be held liable as the “publisher or speaker” of the content users created. They add that Google does not have the capacity to screen “all third-party content for illegal or tortious material” and that the company was concerned that “the threat of liability could prompt sweeping restrictions on online activity.”

Major tech companies like Twitter and Meta, which have expressed their support for Google in the case, say that recommendations based on their algorithms allow them to “organize, rank, and display” user content in a way that enhances a user’s experience on the platforms and called the ability to do so “indispensable.”

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF SECTION 230?

If the court decides in Gonzalez’s favor, the lawsuit will set a precedent for holding tech companies liable for targeted ads or recommendations.

The effects this could have on the internet are not entirely known, though many warn that tech companies would face a host of lawsuits. Corporate giants like Yelp, Reddit, Microsoft, Craigslist, Twitter and Facebook, say that searches for jobs and restaurants could be restricted if platforms can be sued over what users post, according to the Associated Press. And other review sites could even be held liable for defamation if a particular restaurant received bad ratings.

Even dating sites, like Tinder and Match, called Section 230 essential to user experience on the app as they hope to continue providing match recommendations “without having to fear overwhelming litigation,” according to CBS.

HOW DO LEGISLATORS FEEL ABOUT SECTION 230?

Conservatives have long criticized Section 230, alleging that it allows social media platforms to censor right-leaning content.

This scrutiny was applied towards platforms like Twitter, which came under fire after it removed a story by the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Twitter executives later called the action a mistake in a House committee hearing, but many conservatives have claimed this as evidence of bias. Lawmakers also criticized social platforms ban of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars page from their sites in 2018.

Former President Donald Trump made calls to repeal the law, even prompting the Justice Department to release proposed amendments to Section 230 in 2020.

“I’ll just cut to the chase, Big Tech is out to get conservatives,” said Rep. Jim Jordan in a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July 2020. “That’s not a hunch, that’s not a suspicion, that’s a fact.”

Democrats have similarly argued against Section 230, saying that it prevents platforms from being held liable for hate speech and misinformation spread on their sites.

In July 2021, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Lujan introduced a bill that would remove tech companies’ immunity from lawsuits if their algorithms promoted health misinformation.

The White House later called on Congress to revoke Section 230 during a September “listening session” about tech companies’ accountability. And in January, President Joe Biden released an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, asking for bipartisan legislation that would hold tech companies accountable.

“The American tech industry is the most innovative in the world…But like many Americans, I’m concerned about how some in the industry collect, share and exploit our most personal data, deepen extremism and polarization in our country, tilt our economy’s playing field, violate the civil rights of women and minorities, and even put our children at risk,” Biden wrote.

[queercherrypie]

I turn my back for a minute to read some Sam/Cas smut and Brazil is like:

[jaythelay]

My thoughts on Kamala/Walz and Palestine involve the Absolute Pants Shitting amount of propaganda and ignorant adoration of genocide by so fucking many, and that Biden was weak as shit while Kamala/Walz feels like they're playing the game and aiming for the end while Biden just told Israel "Yeah sure I'll lie about headless israeli babies that you'll eventually make out of palestinian babies."

Straight up feels like they know they can't just come out and say "Genocide Bad No Matter Who" or risk an absolute plummet in every possible sector, that'a not including the media either who'd flip so damn hard on her for daring to say Genocide Bad No Matter Who.

Seriously I wouldn't flub this election up pointing out the moral obvious when half of all dems, and all but 10 politicians (all dem it was bipartisan that Genocide Good) are just so extatic to defend a Genocide. Imo, and it's all we'll have mind you, an opinion, they'll make progress. Biden, most dems and all but 10 dem politicians, and Dump, are on the same level on this issue.

Just saying, she's talking with groups and called for ceasefires. Biden lied every fucking time Israel shot up a hospital or school or church on christmas, without an ounce of scrutiny, simply regurgitated horrific propaganda that instantly backfired literal days to weeks after the lie.

Kamala hasn't. Not as hard at least, since running as pres. Our efforts are being heard and it's why I fucking lost all respect for anyone who chooses not to accept the reality of Genocide Bad No Matter Who just to feel safer in an election with a guy WE ALL TOLD YOU WAS SHIT and lo and behold? He was! Just not as shit as dump, his literal, only legacy and reason to vote for him.

When even Kamala is doing more than you fucks, I don't want to hear aaaanything ya got to say on any issue. Dems being radically republican about EASILY SOURCED INFORMATION will never not be such a Permanent massive fucking turn off to the entire dem party for me.

Imagine pushing away potential dem voters because you refuse to call a Genocide Bad, while Kamala is making progress to stop it, progress that ya'll sabotaged the absolute whole entire god damn way up every step of the way not missing one potential beat.

Fuck off Pro-Genociders, yur shite and almost cost us the election. Thank fuck for Kamala, and Genuinely not any one of you weak genocide enablers.

[ausetkmt]

The Jacksonville shooter (whose name I shall not write) ultimately killed three innocent Black Americans at a Dollar General Store only after he was first spotted at nearby Edward Waters University (EWU).

As the shooter donned his bulletproof vest, some EWU students eyed what they believed to be a suspicious person.

The students at the Florida historically black institution immediately alerted a nearby security guard who approached the suspect near his car. Upon seeing the officer, the suspect fled in his car toward what would be his next target.

Had the cowardly shooter not turned the weapon on himself after killing three innocent Americans at the discount store, his first encounter at Edward Waters University would have been more than strong trial evidence that his plan was to kill Black Americans.

In plain language, the Jacksonville shooter was engaged in a terrorist plot.

“Terrorist” is defined (rather circularly) by Webster’s dictionary as

“relating to, or characteristic of terrorists or terrorism: practicing or involving violent acts of terror.”

The key to the definition is that terrorism involves acts of violence.

One might imagine one of the definitional requirements of terrorism would be the use of violence to achieve political or cultural objectives, but Webster’s ignores this element.

But, we know from our recent history, terrorism can be simple violence calculated to induce fear and terror in its victims — and its victims are most often those who are identifiable and insular — those who are either vulnerable minorities or protected class members.

This is a pattern that is clear from the racist massacres dating from the era of post-Civil War Reconstruction until last week in Jacksonville.

But had these recent incidents been perpetrated by any identifiable non-American, this nation would have acted swiftly to prevent future atrocities through passage of anti-terrorism legislation and would have appropriated funds for both the FBI and DOJ to investigate and prosecute them “to the full extent of the law.”

Instead, in the wake of the repeated attacks, national and local politicians recite a litany of delay and denial mixed with indifferent thoughts and belated prayers about the deaths of their fellow countrymen and women.

Instead it is past time to act.

They must denominate these clockwork-like acts of violence as real terrorism; and, in doing so must both legislate and appropriate the resources necessary to prevent them.

But to do this they must first confront a hard truth — the truth that the most dangerous terrorists in our midst are other Americans: mainly radicalized young white Americans who seek to kill and terrorize their own neighbors — Americans who are Jewish, Black or Hispanic.

The same fervor to fight terror which once spread across all spheres of politics after 9/11 seems to have evaporated in the last half decade once the incidence of terror evolved to acts against Americans by other Americans.

But that doesn’t change the state of reality.

[lafemmemacabre]

I think part of the problem with even supposed "progressives" in the US who want to consider themselves anti-imperialist but still defend their soldiers, is that they seem to be under the impression that all their troops do in the global south is land there, kill the local combatants, maybe sometimes killing some civilians By Accident, get traumatized, then go back home.

That's not what American soldiers do in our parts of the world.

Again, Richard Ramírez, the infamous Nightstalker serial killer, was inspired by a relative of his who was a Vietnam veteran to commit his horrendous acts of violence, and honestly from what I recall, the individual murders he committed paled in comparison to the crimes against humanity his Vietnam vet role model told him about and showed him pictures of.

American soldiers come to our countries to rape, torture, maim, and commit genocide. They rape children. They rape mothers in front of their children and husbands, then kill them all after toying with those civilians like a cat playing with its prey. They do that to entire rural towns.

They take pictures with the agonizing prisoners they're torturing. Winking, thumbs up, and cackling.

They annihilate entire bloodlines.

They arm fascist factions within our countries, train them, and leave them in power, so that those factions can pick up with the work of terror they started once they're gone back to the US.

They trample children with their tanks. Intentionally. As a joke between them.

They dangle their American dollars, which are much heavier than any of our devalued currencies, on the faces of hungry orphans to solicit them for child sex work. Children who were orphaned by the comrades of these very same predators to begin with.

They intentionally destroy our lands, making sure nothing else will grow again, or at least nothing healthy and thriving will grow again.

Yes, even if when they come back home to the US these vets are "nice" and polite. Even if they would never do that to a fellow (white) American. That's because they see other (white) Americans as actual human beings, while those of us in the global south are at best NPCs, and at worst detestable vermin to be exterminated in whichever way is most entertaining to the genocider in question.

And honestly? You guys' own thought process isn't too different from theirs.

If you're happy to brush off what's done to our peoples, all in the name of maybe getting a minimum wage raise or whatever the fuck it is that Biden is falsely promising AGAIN; then you, too, see us as either NPCs or vile vermin. You're just too lazy to actually come and maim us like your troops do.

[aiolegalservices]

Streamlining Business Compliance: AIO Legal Services for AML, GDPR, and Intellectual Property Rights

  In today’s fast-paced and ever-changing business landscape, regulatory compliance has become an indispensable aspect for companies operating in the UK. Failure to adhere to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws can lead to severe consequences, including financial penalties, reputational…

[im-totally-not-an-alien-2]

Danny, at 17, did not have the best love life. This is partially because two of his must haves in a partner are " Will protect me with their life" and "Will commit unspeakable acts of violence for me" or at least beat someone up for his honor.

Naturally, this doesn't always result in the most stable of partners.

His first girlfriend, Valerie, became an anti-hero and broke up with him for his safety.

He finally got with Sam in sophomore year only for the feds to come into class one day to arrest her. To his surprise, her crimes had nothing to do with ghosts but rather an incident where she went too far and committed a few acts of economic terrorism. Danny and Tucker never really learned the specifics of the crimes, and her parents hushed up as many news outlets as they could, so there wasn't much info to go around. All they knew was that she saved thousands of lives by doing it.

In the end, she was sentenced to eight years, and she broke up with him so that he wouldn't wait around for her to get out.

His third partner was a guy named David who was really sweet. Unfortunately, Danny got kidnapped one day by David's arch nemesis, who was some villain with a corny edge lord name. Yeah. David had become a a super hero after they started dating.

And if you guessed that he freaked out and dumped Danny for his own protection, you'd deserve a cookie.

Danny was noticing a pattern here. One that continued with everyone he dated. They always became some kind of hero before dumping him for his own protection, and it was infuriating. Sure, danny could defend himself, but he was never deep enough into the relationship to reveal his phantom half, and frankly, his hero career was something he left behind when he left Amity and destroyed the portals.

He met Tim at a skatepark after Tim fell off his board cause of some jerk speeding out in front of him on his own board, forcing Tim to stop or else hit the guy. The guy was unrepentant and Tim calmed him down (this did not stop him from melting the guys wheels with an ectoblast when no one was looking).

Tim then asked him to coffee. Danny, noticing how cute Tim was, agreed.

Danny was up front with his parents being mad scientists in Illinois. He always was with all the people he dated. It was better not to hide these kinds of things or worse, wait until you're already attached and afraid of losing them. So he always told potential partners as early as possible. Tim seemed a bit put off by this but was calmer about it than most, and they continued chatting.

Tim didn't seem like the type to turn to heroism or anti heroism so he felt safe on their later dates. It was only after he had known Tim for a while that he put the pieces together.

Tim was always covered in bruises that he hid with his clothes and make up, he had complained about batman over the phone when he thought danny couldn't hear, he was rich, he knew how to fight as revealed by his stances and footwork dispite trying to pretend he didn't, and lastly he held a lot of political power and influence being Bruce Wayne's son. Power he had no reservations using when it suited him or he was just feeling petty (that pettiness was part of why danny was falling for him harder than he thought he could)

No wonder Tim was so okay with his parents being rouges.

Tim was a villain!

At least Tim wouldn't leave him like all his exes. Danny doesn't think he could handle it if he did. Another good thing about this is now he can talk more freely about the more villainous and morally gray ideas and inventions when he was alone with Tim.

Tim didn't see anything wrong with Danny's idea to use something similar to cloning pods to make synthetic meats like rump roasts and steaks as a way to end world hunger and was eager to add to the conversation.

[psychotrenny]

I think one of Imperialism's most evil strategies is the national scale torture you'll see inflicted on countries that dare to dream of freedom. Like it's not just about overthrowing the anti-imperialist regime itself, but utterly breaking the very social, economic and in turn psychological foundations it's built upon. Prolonged periods of destruction that are as systematic as they are sadistic with the aim of making life unlivable until the government either collapses or gives in, accepting whatever concessions are forced upon them as the nation is remoulded into an dependent and obedient little neocolony.

Sometimes an imperialist power will act directly to achieve this (just take the gratuitous and deliberate destruction of civil infrastructure during the bombings of Yugoslavia and Iraq), but the preferred strategy is to employ local proxies. Groups like RENAMO in Mozambique or the Contras of Nicaragua. Bands of reactionaries, traitors and general desperadoes are gathered up, trained, armed and transported over the border at the expense of the Imperialists and their local collaborators. These armed groups have no interest in build mass support, of representing an alternative way of life. Their only purpose is destruction; killing, torturing, looting, burning whatever they can in order to bring their country to its knees. Frequently targeting important nodes in the networks that sustain the nation and the people's faith in it (bridges, rail depots, factories, hospitals and schools) but ultimately happy to attack whatever they can; every house burned or person tortured contributes to the climate of terror and corrosion of government credibility. Because when they kill these groups don't like to do it cleanly; their attacks generate countless reports immolation, disembowelment, victims hacked to pieces and left to bleed. But when possible they prefer to leave their victims alive and capable of further spreading their terror, inflicting the most vicious sorts of rape and mutilation on a mass scale

It's not just just evil for the sake of evil mind you. The cruelty has a point; human destruction to accompany the physical. Every person killed is someone who can no longer contribute to the development of the nation, while even living yet physically and psychologically broken victim places further strain on their country's increasingly fragile support systems. Meanwhile the terror of these actions spreads the impact beyond their immediate victims. The murder and torture of peasants makes the survivors too scared to go back into their fields, slowly starving the nation as the rural economy grind to a halt. The gruesome deaths of traders and travelers leaves the survivors too terrified to continue their business, shutting down the distributive networks that make national development and often life itself possible. The terror unleashed on foreign professionals can prompt the survivors to flee and discourage newcomers from arriving, depriving the underdeveloped economic and education systems of the skilled workers they need to improve or even function. And every broken body, ever broken mind, is proof of the government's weakness and ineptitude; a humiliating failure to protect their own people that demoralises supporters and empowers dissenters. The motivated sadism of these terrorist attacks is a microcosm of the motivated sadism displayed by their Imperialist backers

But why go to all this trouble? Why not just send in the paratroopers or organise a coup to end those troublesome regimes quickly? Sometimes it's a matter of possibility. As great as they are, the powers of Imperialist nations are not unlimited. All manner of constraints (domestic unrest, international condemnation which advantages dangerous rivals, the simple financial and human costs of such operations) limit what actions are viable or desirable. This is especially significant when the targets are motivated and disciplined anti-imperialists with a base of deep-rooted popular support, the sort of regime that won't go down to a simple commando raid or bribe to the right general. But sometimes, it's not enough to merely cut down a dissenting government; you have to salt the earth and make sure nothing similar ever grows back. I'll finish with the words of an anonymous Jesuit priest, talking about Nicaragua yet in terms widely relevant enough to be published in John Saul's conclusion to A Difficult Road: The Transition to Socialism in Mozambique (1985):

In Chile the Americans made a mistake. They cut off the revolution too abruptly. They killed the revolution but, as we can see from recent developments there, they didn't kill the dream. In Nicaragua, they're trying to kill the dream

[tfsfb]

Thirdly, the report misinterprets Chinese law. The report simply cites anti-terrorism laws and regulations, without considering the background and reasons for the promulgation of laws, and makes speculative interpretations, which has a great Western bias. For example, The” As such, there are concerns that the scope of the definitions leaves the potential that acts of legitimate protest, dissent and other human rights activities, or of genuine religious activity, can fall within the ambit of “terrorism” or “terrorist activities”, and consequently for the imposition of coercive legal restrictions on legitimate activity protected under international human rights law.”mentioned in the report has the use of speculative words. In fact, in the report, such words were used several times to attack Chinese laws and the policies implemented by the Chinese government in Xinjiang.

[irhabiya]

i'm getting so fucking tired of staff's bullshit honestly. several of my mutuals have had pro-palestine posts taken down, my account and many others got termed for their anti-zionism with the claim that we're "supporting terrorism" and "glorifying acts of violence and their perpetrators" this is a concentrated, deliberate effort