#civilliberties

Joan Halifax

brillant analysis and call to action.

+

They told you it was about protecting children.

They told you it was about safety.

But what the European Union is voting on right now is not safety—it’s the legal death of privacy.

Here’s what “Chat Control” means:

Every message you send. Every photo. Every video. Every file. All scanned automatically before it even reaches the recipient. Without your consent. Without suspicion. By law.

That is not child protection. That is mass surveillance imposed on 450 million citizens. It destroys encryption. It destroys privacy. It destroys the very principle of free communication.

And it won’t stop in Europe. This is a virus.

The UK has its Online Safety Act. The US has the “Kids Online Safety Act” and the shiny new SCREEN Act. Different names, same poison: backdoors into your private messages, permanent surveillance disguised as morality.

Don’t be fooled. Once the infrastructure is in place, it won’t just scan for child abuse material. It will expand to “hate speech.” Then “misinformation.” Then “extremism.” Then whatever the state deems unacceptable. A permanent surveillance internet, where anonymity is illegal, where everything is tracked, monetised, and weaponised.

WhatsApp has already said it would rather leave Europe than comply.

Think about that. One of the world’s largest messaging platforms is saying this law is incompatible with free communication. If Big Tech doesn’t fight, the people will be left defenseless.

And don’t count on VPNs to save you. Already in the UK, YouTube is blocking VPN access for millions. Governments know VPNs are the last line of defense, so they’ll ban them too. Piece by piece, the walls close in.

This is not about keeping kids safe. If it were, governments would fund real investigations, real prosecutions, real protection. Instead, they’ve chosen the easier path: treating everyone like a suspect.

This is control. Always has been. Always will be. And unless people resist, unless citizens push back, we will lose the last shreds of privacy forever.

In recent weeks, a growing network of data‐sharing initiatives has quietly knit together disparate government systems into what increasingly looks like a unified surveillance apparatus.

At the center of this push is Palantir Technologies—Peter Thiel’s data‐analysis firm—which has racked up more than $113 million in federal spending since 2017 and just won a new $795 million Department of Defense contract to expand its “Foundry” platform across the U.S. government.

From Executive Order to “Master Database”

An open letter to the U.S. Senate

The Senate must not pass the TikTok “ban” bill!

2,544 so far! Help us get to 3,000 signers!

I strongly oppose the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a bill that could ban TikTok in the US. First, it violates our free speech. Second, it targets one social media company over others that have the exact same issues. A better way to safeguard our data would be to create comprehensive consumer-privacy laws that would require apps like TikTok, as well as American companies like Facebook, to face more restrictions on how they handle user data. If the Senator supports this bill they will lose my vote. Thanks.

▶ Created on March 13 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PHUJDN to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

The Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law."

Explanation:

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. It ensures that in certain legal disputes, where the value in question exceeds twenty dollars, the parties involved have the right to have their case decided by a jury of their peers.

The amendment emphasizes the importance of preserving this right, which dates back to English common law traditions. It seeks to protect individuals from having their property or financial interests decided solely by judges without the input of a jury.

Application to Daily Life:

Amendment VII plays a significant role in protecting the rights of individuals and corporations in civil disputes in modern-day America. Here's how it applies to our daily lives:

Legal Disputes: The Seventh Amendment becomes particularly relevant in civil cases, such as personal injury claims, contract disputes, property disputes, and tort cases. If the amount of money or value involved exceeds the threshold set by the amendment, both parties have the right to request a trial by jury.

Jury Selection: In cases where a jury trial is requested, a jury of ordinary citizens is selected to hear the evidence, review the facts, and reach a verdict. This ensures that decisions are not made solely by legal professionals but by a group of impartial peers.

Balancing Power: The Seventh Amendment helps maintain a balance of power in the legal system. It prevents potential bias or unfair decisions by giving individuals the opportunity to present their case to a jury, making the process more democratic.

Civil Justice System: This amendment plays a crucial role in the civil justice system, as it empowers citizens to participate actively in the legal process. It helps ensure that verdicts are not solely based on the interpretation of laws by judges but also consider the collective wisdom of a jury.

Settlements: In many cases, the right to a trial by jury can influence parties to settle out of court to avoid the uncertainty of a jury's decision. This, in turn, can lead to more efficient resolution of disputes in the legal system.

Amy Siskind  :: @Amy_Siskind :: Hundreds of people stand on a frozen lake in Minneapolis in a formation that spells out “SOS” in protest of ICE. (Credit: David Guttenfelder/NYT)

* * * *

Oregon's Bay Area 

Good morning! If today’s news cycle feels like it’s vibrating at three different frequencies at once, that’s because it is. On one channel, the federal government is quietly loosening the legal restraints on armed agents. On another, people are pouring into the streets in every state to demand basic accountability. And floating above it all, like a man-shaped shrug emoji, is Donald Trump, promoting his wife’s vanity documentary and fleeing to Mar-a-Lago as the government lurches into yet another manufactured crisis in the span of only two months.

After weeks of relentless protests in Minneapolis, protests that did not stop when it got cold, or when federal officials smeared the dead, the Justice Department has finally been forced to move. Todd Blanche announced Friday that DOJ is opening a federal civil rights investigation into the killing of Alex Pretti, the nurse and activist shot dead by federal immigration officers during ICE operations in Minnesota. The FBI will now lead the inquiry, a notable upgrade from the administration’s earlier plan to keep the matter tucked safely inside Homeland Security.

This happened because people refused to go away. Video contradicted the administration’s lies. Witnesses spoke, communities kept marching, and the pressure became impossible to ignore.

But let’s be very clear about what this is, and what it isn’t. The Justice Department has not opened a civil rights investigation into the killing of Renee Good, shot weeks earlier under strikingly similar circumstances. Blanche, in his careful, lawyerly way, did not explain why one death now merits scrutiny while the other remains officially untouched. Accountability, it seems, is still dispensed selectively, not for lack of outrage over Renee Good’s killing, but because Alex Pretti’s death came with an undeniable volume of video that stripped officials of plausible deniability.

Even as Blanche tries to sound soothing, the machinery beneath him is accelerating. At the exact same moment DOJ was announcing an investigation, ICE was circulating an internal memo that dramatically expands agents’ power to arrest people without warrants. The old standard, whether someone was unlikely to show up for immigration hearings, has been tossed aside. The new one is breathtakingly broad: whether an agent thinks someone might leave the scene. In other words, “likely to escape” now means “might walk away.”

Former ICE officials aren’t mincing words. They’re calling the interpretation absurdly expansive, a green light for dragnet arrests where warrants are optional and justification is written after the fact. The memo explicitly allows agents to scoop up “collateral” people who just happen to be nearby. If you have a car, hesitate when barked at, or provide information an agent decides is “unverifiable,” congratulations: you qualify. The DOJ is investigating one killing while actively making the next one more likely.

This brings us to the streets, where the real counterweight is forming. More than 300 anti-ICE protests are unfolding across all 50 states and Washington, DC, under the banner “ICE Out of Everywhere.” Vigils, marches, and banner drops. Airport protests, community trainings, and economic pressure campaigns targeting hotels, airlines, and corporations that profit from deportations. It’s organized resistance, built week by week.

You can trace the results directly. The investigation into Pretti’s killing didn’t emerge from a memo. It emerged from sustained, visible refusal to accept the administration’s narrative. This is leverage: people showing up so persistently that the system has to respond, even if it does so grudgingly and incompletely.

Nowhere is that clearer than in Fridley, Minnesota, where a school district has quietly become a civil liberties firewall because the federal government abdicated the role entirely and local institutions stretch thin.

From before dawn to after dusk, Fridley school officials are escorting teachers to work, patrolling neighborhoods at dismissal time, scanning bus stops for ICE vehicles, and delivering groceries to families too afraid to leave their homes. Hundreds of students have switched to online learning not because of a pandemic, but because armed federal agents have turned ordinary life into a minefield. The superintendent herself spends afternoons circling schools in a minivan, watching for federal enforcement like a storm spotter.

This is not activism theater. It’s emergency care. Educators doing the work of protecting families because no one else will. Independent journalists embedding in these communities to document what institutions would rather blur into statistics. Ordinary people becoming infrastructure.

Then there’s the Epstein file dump, a development the administration would very much like to pretend is administrative housekeeping, rather than the pressure-induced rupture that it actually is.

On Friday, the Justice Department released millions of pages of Epstein-related material, documents, emails, images, and videos that officials now insist represent the end of the road. Todd Blanche all but admitted the obvious, conceding that no amount of paper would satisfy public demand for answers. What he didn’t say out loud is the more important truth: this release would not have happened at all without relentless public pressure. Survivors, independent journalists, lawmakers, and activists forced it, after months of stalling, missed deadlines, and a White House that openly teased transparency before trying to walk it back.

And despite the DOJ’s best efforts to frame the release as underwhelming, the material is already proving deeply damaging, not just to Donald Trump, but to a familiar constellation of powerful men who spent years insisting they were horrified by Epstein while continuing to maintain relationships with him after his conviction. The files reinforce patterns Trump has spent years denying: proximity, overlap, and a social ecosystem in which Epstein remained welcome long after the danger was known. They also drag back into the light figures like Elon Musk and Howard Lutnick, whose public moral outrage does not survive contact with their own email records.

What’s striking is not that every document contains a smoking gun, but that the denials are collapsing under sheer volume and corroboration. The files show how normalized Epstein remained among elites who now claim shock, how reputational management mattered more than severing ties, and how institutions quietly accommodated that reality for years. Even now, survivors say the release has done more to expose them than to hold perpetrators accountable, another reminder of who bears the cost when transparency is grudging and incomplete.

The Epstein release fits the pattern of this moment perfectly. The administration did not volunteer accountability; it conceded it inch by inch, under duress. And while officials would like to declare the matter closed, journalists and lawyers are only just beginning the work of reading, cross-referencing, and contextualizing what’s now public. That process will take weeks. Possibly months. And it’s already clear that the damage isn’t confined to the past, it’s unfolding in real time.

That’s the second truth of this moment: without citizens and independent reporting, none of this would be visible and nothing would move.

Back in Washington, the lights are literally flickering. A partial government shutdown began early Saturday morning after Congress once again failed to get a funding package across the finish line in time. The Senate passed a bipartisan deal late Friday, too late as of this writing, to prevent funding from lapsing for the Pentagon, DHS, and other agencies, and then promptly went home. The House won’t even return until Monday. Federal workers are furloughed or working without pay. DHS, the agency at the center of all this violence, limps along on a two-week patch while lawmakers posture.

Democrats tried to condition DHS funding on reforms to enforcement practices after the killings in Minnesota. Republicans balked, and the shutdown happened anyway. Into this mess steps Donald Trump with a social media promo for Melania’s deeply unloved documentary and plans to decamp to Mar-a-Lago later today.

And if anyone doubts that something is slipping at the top, even former insiders are now saying the quiet part out loud. Ty Cobb, a onetime Trump White House lawyer, has gone public warning that Trump’s cognitive decline is now “palpable.” Not his narcissism, that’s always been there, but a significant deterioration marked by rambling press appearances, erratic written communications, and increasingly unmoored obsessions. Cobb isn’t speculating from afar. He’s describing what he sees, and what many others have been pretending not to.

Ordinary people keep showing up. Teachers escort colleagues before sunrise. Students organize sit-ins. Communities march in freezing weather. Reporters embed instead of parachuting in. Pressure builds, and inevitably movement happens.

Power is brittle, solidarity is not, and this weekend, solidarity is everywhere.