Friday, December 23, 2022. Another US service member dies in Iraq, those so eager to smear LGBTQ+ members with lies of being 'groomers' are the same people who won't vote to actually protect childen, The Twitter Dumps, and more.
Last week, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired
by US House Rep Carolyn Maloney, held a hearing entitled "The Rise of
Anti-LGBTQI+ Extremism and Violence in the United States." The hearing
was held due to the rise in violence aimed at the LGBTQ+ community which
includes last month's Club Q shooting.
The shooting left five people dead:
- Daniel Davis Aston, 28
- Kelly Loving, 40
- Ashley Paugh, 35
- Derrick Rump, 38
- Raymond Green Vance, 22
The shooting also left twenty-five people injured.
For hearing coverage, see yesterday's "
Iraq snapshot," Wednesday's "
Iraq snapshot," Monday's "
Iraq snapshot," THIRD's "
Editorial: Words and silences have consequences," "
Those fake ass 'religious' litigants (Ava and C.I.)" and "
BROS (Ava and C.I.)," Thursday's "
Iraq snapshot" and Friday's "
Iraq snapshot," Ruth's "
Allies are needed (House Oversight Committee)," Kat's "
Respect for Marriage Act is only step one, more needed," "
Cori Bush speaks some truth in Committee hearing," Trina's "
LGBTQ youth need a safe nation (Dr. Jessie Pocock)," Mike's "
Texas, come claim your idiot (House Oversight Committee)," Stan's "
Shontel Brown, Chris Wallace, Wonder Woman" and Rebecca's "
glenn greenwald wants to be the biggest bitch there is ."
"Grooming." As we've had to point out (such as
here)
and "pedophile" are being applied to members of the LGBTQ! community.
It's a lie and it's always been a lie. Anita Bryant used the lie to
scare the nation in the seventies -- may she rot in hell (and take Glenn
Greenwald with her).
These are intentional lies that are told by homophobic people with the intent to stoke hatred towards the LGBTQ+ community.
For
those who don't know, pedophiles are people who pursue children (those
under the age of consent) for sex. That would be people like Scott
Ritter, the former United Nations employee who is now and forever a
registered sex offender who served time in prison for attempting to have
sex with girls. Pedophiles do exist. It is inaccurate to portray them
as gay people or as transgendered people Most are, like Scott Ritter,
straight people who are married. That's the reality when you look at
the figures.
"Grooming."
This is supposed to refer to those adults who are interested in having
sex with underage people (children) and so they 'groom' them -- they
ease into it slowly, they make them think they're friends, they then
attempt to abuse that trust by leading the person into a sexual affair.
You could look at US House Rep Lauren Boebert's convicted husband as a
groomer -- you could say that's why he was exposing himself in that bowling alley to those women.
,
since it was taken over by self-described “free-speech absolutist” Elon
Musk, has seen a dramatic rise in the use of the anti-gay slur
“groomer” among a cluster of high-profile anti-LGBTQ accounts, according
to a new report.
According to a study by Media Matters and GLAAD released Tuesday,
nine prominent anti-LGBTQ accounts had an over 1,200% increase in
Twitter users’ retweets of the accounts’ tweets with the “groomer” slur
in the one-month period after Musk’s Oct. 27 takeover compared with the month prior.
The accounts also showed an increase of more than 1,100% in mentions of
the right-wing media accounts in tweets with the slur. The accounts
analyzed in the study are: Tim Pool, Jack Posobiec, Jake Shield, Gays
Against Groomers, Blaire White, Allie Beth Stuckey, Andy Ngo, Seth
Dillon and Mike Cernovich. In addition, the Libs of TikTok account saw
more than a 600% increase in its mentions with “groomer” language, going
from nearly 2,000 to nearly 14,000 over the same timeframe.
From last week's hearing:
US House Rep Katie
Porter: I wanted to start with Ms. Robinson, if I could. Your
organization recently released a report analyzing the five hundred most
viewed, most influential Tweets that identified LGBTQ people as so
called "groomers." The groomer narrative is an age old lie to position
LGBTQ+ people as a threat to kids and what it does is to deny them
access to public spaces and it stokes fear and it even stokes violence.
Ms. Robinson, according to its own hateful content policy does Twitter
allow posts calling LGBTQ people "groomers"?
Kelley
Robinson: No, I mean Twitter along with FACEBOOK and many others have
community guidelines. It's about holding users accountable and
acknowledging that when we use phrases and words like "groomers" and
"pedophiles" to describe people, individuals in our community that are
mothers, that are fathers, that are teachers, that are doctors, it is
dangerous. And it's got one purpose -- it's to dehumanize us and make
us feel like we're not a part of this American society and it has real
life consequences. So we are calling on social media companies to
uphold their community standards. And we're also calling on any
American that's seeing this play out to hold ourselves and our community
members accountable. We wouldn't accept this in our families, we
wouldn't accept this in our schools. There's no reason to accept it
online.
US
House Rep Katie Porter: So I think you're absolutely right and it's not
just this allegation of groomer and pedophile, it's alleging that a
person is criminal somehow and engaged in criminal acts merely because
of their identity, their sexual orientation, their gender identity. So
this is clearly prohibited under Twitter's content yet you found
hundreds of these posts on the platform. Your team filed complaints
about these posts, correct?
Kelley Robinson: Yes.
US House Rep Katie Porter: And how often did Twitter act to take down these posts which violated its own content policy?
Kelley Robinson: Very rarely.
US
House Rep Katie Porter: So from our calculation, it looks like about
99% of your complaints. They basically acted on one or two of the 100+
complaints you filed. Instead of taking them down, Twitter elevated
them. Allowing them to reach an approximate 72 million users. This is
not just about what happens online. What happens online translates into
real harm in people's lives. Ms. Popcock, you provide services to a
community that experienced the devastating LGBTQ attack. Can you
provide some examples of the link between speech online and the attacks
against providers like you.
Jesse
Pocock: We know really, I mean, online threats, in addition to creating
an atmosphere of bullying for young people, it also creates an
atmosphere of delegitimizing our real professional trained work at
INSIDE OUT YOUTH services. And it is just so critically important that
we can continue doing the work that we do. But I want to tell just one
quick story because it's beautiful. We have an online community center
and it is moderated by peer advisors and when asked how many issues of
like fighting or contention do you deal with on the disport server our
young people tell us "Well, it doesn't happen very often." So I'm here
to tell you that our young people have figured out how to moderate
platforms in positive, productive ways? Twitter, FACEBOOK, everybody
else can figure it out too.
US
House Rep Katie Porter: Absolutely. Ms. Robinson, your report notes
that these radicalizing posts, these 'groomer' posts, these other posts
that attack LGBTQ communities are related to acts in the real world --
what happens online is often reflective of what happens in the real
world. After Governor DeSantis of Florida passed his so-called "Don't
Say Gay" bill, what trends did you observe online with regard to
'grooming' related discourse.
Kelley
Robinson: Unfortunately, we saw a 400% increase on Twitter of this sort
of hateful language. Particularly calling our community members
groomers and pedophiles. And we know that rather or not the bills move
into effect, the lasting impact of that online bullying of defining our
communities in that way, it sticks -- especially with our kids.
US
House Rep Katie Porter: My time has expired but I just want to say I'm
proud today, I'm proud to stand with the gay community and I'm proud
that you're all here as part of our country and giving us testimony. I
yield back, Madam Chair.
For
the past year, we’ve been subjected to an endless, escalating
right-wing fearmongering campaign presenting LGBTQ adults as innate
child sexual predators, or “groomers,” and any children in their
vicinity as victims. People are literally throwing molotov cocktails into establishments that host drag events, under the guise of protecting children. The now-feuding Reps.
Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) have been
the most front-facing proponents of this rhetoric (even though Boebert’s
husband was jailed for exposing himself to teens in a bowling alley a few years ago).
Yet, on Wednesday, Greene and Boebart joined 26 other House Republicans to
vote against the bipartisan Respect for Child Survivors Act, which
overwhelmingly passed out of the House anyway and will address how the
FBI has historically mishandled child sexual abuse cases.
The bill will create specific teams within the FBI to support child
victims and investigate child sexual abuse, trafficking, and child abuse
content. Neither Greene nor Boebert have publicly offered explanations
for their votes, and frankly, they don’t have to—the gross hypocrisy of
constantly lying that LGBTQ people pose a threat to children, all while
declining to protect children from actual sexual predation, speaks for itself.
Exactly.
US Senator Chris Coons' office issued a statement from his office, and the offices of Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham explaining the bill -- the bill the hypocrites voted against -- and the bill's history:
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Chris
Coons (D-Del.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Amy
Klobuchar (D-Minn.) released the following statements after the Respect
for Child Survivors Act, a bill developed in response to the FBI’s
mishandling of the Larry Nassar investigation, passed the House. The
bill, now headed to the President’s desk, would improve the treatment of
FBI child victim witnesses by requiring trauma-informed experts to be a
part of any interview of a victim who reports child abuse or
trafficking to the FBI.
“We have a duty to ensure that survivors and witnesses to sexual
assault are heard and respected, especially when they come forward to
law enforcement to report abuse,” said Senator Coons. “Unfortunately,
mishandled or repeated interviews can too often retraumatize survivors.
The bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Child Survivors Act will reduce
poorly conducted interviews during investigations of child abuse and
sexual exploitation by requiring the FBI to use multidisciplinary teams
of trained professionals. I’m proud to see this head to the President’s
desk for signature, and I hope it will protect survivors and encourage
more to come forward.”
“The FBI has a sworn obligation to protect victims who report child
abuse, and that extends to agents’ interviews with vulnerable child
witnesses,” said Senator Cornyn. “This
legislation requires the FBI to include trauma-informed experts in
interviews with victims to ensure they are not retraumatized during the
interview process, and I urge President Biden to swiftly sign it into
law.”
“I applaud Senator Cornyn’s leadership on this issue to correct an
egregious wrong committed by certain FBI agents regarding their
treatment of victims of sexual abuse,” said Senator Graham. “Requiring
the FBI to use appropriate, tried-and-true methods to interview child
victims will help ensure the FBI’s failure in the Nassar case doesn’t
happen again. Our legislation makes it clear that we expect better.”
“As we work to support survivors of child sexual abuse and
trafficking, we need to provide law enforcement with the training and
skills they need to investigate these crimes and help victims,” said Senator Klobuchar. “Our
bipartisan legislation will ensure law enforcement officers can partner
with child advocacy centers to use the most effective techniques when
conducting these critical investigations.”
Background:
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examining the Inspector
General’s Report on the FBI’s Handling of the Larry Nassar investigation
last year, retired gymnast and survivor McKayla Maroney shared striking
testimony of how she was treated by the FBI personnel who interviewed
her. This legislation was formulated with input from child welfare
groups to address the mistreatment of child witnesses like those
described during that hearing.
Under this legislation, victims would be interviewed by those with
the expertise to appropriately address and treat their trauma. This bill
would require the FBI to use multidisciplinary teams when investigating
child sexual abuse cases, child sexual abuse material cases, and child
trafficking cases, including in situations where the interviewed victim
is no longer a child. These multidisciplinary teams would be composed of
appropriate investigative personnel, mental health professionals,
medical personnel, family advocacy case workers, child advocacy center
personnel, and prosecutors. Members of these teams have expertise in
their field, can provide trauma-informed care, and are required to stay
current on industry training.
The use of multidisciplinary teams would prevent the retraumatizing
of victims, and the information-sharing and case review provisions would
ensure accountability so cases are not dropped or forgotten in the
future. Investigations would be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team at
regularly scheduled times to share information about case progress,
address any investigative or prosecutorial barriers, and ensure victims
receive support and needed treatment. This bill would also provide a
dedicated source of funding for Children’s Advocacy Centers, which
coordinate the investigation, treatment, and prosecution of child abuse
cases.
This legislation is supported by the Rape, Abuse, & Incest
National Network, the National District Attorneys Association, Army of
Survivors, and the National Children’s Alliance.
###
However, 28 Republicans voted against the bill.
Those Republicans include Reps. Lauren Boebert (CO), Marjorie Taylor
Greene (GA), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), and Rick Crawford
(AR). All of these Republicans have opposed the expansion of LGBTQ+
civil rights and many have accused the LGBTQ+ community of sexualizing
or “grooming” kids.
“Grooming” is a term for attempting to sexually abuse children;
conservatives have used it to describe any mention of LGBTQ+ identities
in front of children as a way of associating pedophilia with LGBTQ+
people, harkening back to the old negative stereotype.
In June, Boebert accused queer-inclusive teachers of “grooming” kids with educational flashcards showing a pregnant man on one of the cards.
In November, Greene called a gay Californian state Democratic Senator Scott Wiener a “communist groomer” for calling “groomer” an “anti-LGBTQ hate word.”
Responding to Wiener’s tweet, Greene wrote, “Pass my Protect
Children’s Innocence Act to stop communist groomers like this from using
state government power to take children away from their parents to
allow a for-profit medical industry to chop off these confused
children’s genitals before they are even old enough to vote,” she said.
Her bill would ban gender-affirming health care for transgender
minors at the federal level, which she has compared to pedophilia.
In October, Gohmert co-sponsored a bill called the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act”
which would ban any entity that receives federal money from talking
about sexual orientation or gender identity to children under the age of
10.
The bill would go far beyond Florida’s Don’t Say Gay law defining
“sexually-oriented material [as] … any topic involving gender identity,
gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related
topics.”
In 2016, Gosar suggested an amendment to bar transgender people from
using public restrooms that align with their gender identity in U.S.
governmental buildings. Transphobic politicians often say that such
bills are necessary to prevent trans people from attacking women and
children in public toilets, something that rarely ever occurs.
Crawford has consistently voted against LGBTQ+ civil rights.
It’s notable that these politicians, who have spent the year making
so much noise about LGBTQ+ people supposedly “grooming” children, never
speak as loudly against widespread child sex abuse in the Christian
church, nor do they partner with organizations that actually oppose such
abuse or child sex trafficking.
And they weren’t willing to even vote for a bill to address child sex abuse that got broad bipartisan support.
Turning to Iraq where a US Marine has died this week. Late yesterday morning, the Defense Dept issued the following statement:
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
Staff Sgt. Samuel D. Lecce, 32, of Jefferson, Tenn., died Dec. 19,
2022, as the result of a non-combat related incident in Iraq. This
incident is under investigation.
Lecce was assigned to the 3rd Marine Raider Battalion, Marine Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
For more information regarding Staff Sgt. Samuel D. Lecce, media may
contact Maj. Matthew Finnerty, MARSOC Communication Strategy and
Operations Officer, at matthew.w.finnerty.mil@socom.mil.
Back to the US for The Twitter Dumps. In an embarrassing piece labeled an "analysis," THE WASHINGTON POST insists that the Tweets offered in various dumps thus far about the FBI suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story offers insinuations, not evidence.
This from the paper that spent how many months -- yes, we're going back decades -- to nail down Watergate?
There's not a lot for me to cover on this topic. I've done it already. Most recently when I filled in for Kat at her site with "
The Twitter Dumps" and here in the December 8th "
Iraq snapshot."
They can't say the same -- the outlets pooh-pahhing the Tweets.
For the past few weeks, journalists have been reporting on what they've found in the "Twitter Files"—thousands and thousands of documents they were given access to by Twitter's new owner and CEO, the billionaire Elon Musk. The revelations have been astonishing and deeply troubling, exposing solid evidence of collusion between top executives at the FBI and their cozy counterparts at Twitter.
FBI leadership and Twitter censors conferred constantly
about how to shut down political speech based on its content,
confirming the suspicions of, well, anyone who was paying attention. And
it proves without a doubt that over the past few years, countless
Americans have undergone a real violation of their First Amendment
rights.
The First Amendment mandates that government can't
abridge—meaning limit or censor—speech based on its content. Even if
attempting to advance the noblest of causes, government actors must not
collide with this constitutional guardrail. The Constitution simply
isn't optional. Government officials must treasure it like gold and
defend it like hearth and home.
This is the part in the play when some rowdy voice shouts from the cheap
seats that "Twitter is a private corporation, it's not government."
True enough, but the government can't enlist a private citizen or
corporation to undertake what the Constitution precludes it from doing.
The U.S. Supreme Court settled that decades ago with what's known as the law of agency,
which allows a "principal" to assign an agent to do something on the
principal's behalf. It's a limited transfer of power. And what the
government is forbidden from doing it is also forbidden from
subcontracting to an agent.
It's a strong column. And, unless you're THE NEW YORK POST, you have no excuse to bury the story. You already distorted the record in real time and it's now up to you to correct the record. Please remember, it's not just that THE NEW YORK TIMES refused to investigate the computer, it's that
they wrote a lengthy 'report' claiming that THE POST newsroom was in an uproar over the publication.
Many
Post staff members questioned whether the paper had done enough to
verify the authenticity of the hard drive’s contents, said five people
with knowledge of the tabloid’s inner workings. Staff members also had
concerns about the reliability of its sources and its timing, the people
said.
Who
were these unnamed people Katie Robertson referred to? Unnamed
anonymice who, please note, weren't even identified -- read closely --
as NY POST employees. They're just "five people with knowledge." And
NYT expected you to believe them. The paper that utilized Scoots Libby
as a source, the home of Judith Miller, expected you to believe it
because they said so. Two supposed POST employees are cited elsewhere
(not named) for the claim that a reporter for NY POST refused to have
his byline on the story. So if the "five people with knowledge" were
five POST employees, I think Katie would have written it that way.
In
addition to Katie, VANITY FAIR's Charlotte Klein and Eric Lutz also
trashed THE POST report. No, they have not corrected the record. No,
they have not apologized. No, they have not admitted that they were
wrong. And this is true across the US media landscape so there is no reason and no excuse for them not to be exploring and investigating this story.
There are many aspects to the story and many ways to come at it.
Dozens of former national security officials have gone to work for Facebook
and Twitter after leaving government service, raising concerns about
the influence of their onetime agencies over the social media giants.
At Twitter alone,
at least eight former FBI agents work at the company’s so-called
“trust” and “security” divisions — including its product policy manager
Greg Anderson, who previously worked on “psychological operations” at
the National Security Council, The Post has learned. Another is Matthew
Williams, the company’s co-lead of its Trust and Safety department who
spent more that 15 years in intelligence with the agency.
The discovery of the DC-to-Silicon Valley pipeline comes amid an outcry over revelations that the FBI influenced Twitter to suppress The Post’s account over its reporting on Hunter Biden’s overseas business interests in October 2020 and has regularly demanded specific accounts and tweets be banned.
Multiple releases of internal company documents since Dec. 2 show
Twitter developed a close working relationship with the intelligence
community, which frequently leaned on them to censor political speech.
I have a feeling I may have to come back to this snapshot before the day's over to add to it.
ADDED:
Next time my gut tells me something, I'll try to listen.
Martha and Shirley report a lot of e-mails to the public account over
The Twitter Dump section above. Why, they all moan in lament, sounding
like a chorus of Annie Lennoxes, do I get off for not covering it?
Because
we have covered it. We started covering the story -- Hunter Biden's
laptop and the suppression of the story -- the day THE NEW YORK POST
published their first article. Check the archives. We covered it ahead
of the 2020 election. I'm sure someone else had to -- had to -- have
called out THE NEW YORK TIMES for taking the time to do an anonymice hit
piece on THE POST and its newsroom while begging off investigating the
actual laptop. I'm sure they had to. I didn't see anyone else but I'm
sure that someone else had to have called it out. We didn't drop the
coverage after the 2020 election. We have repeatedly covered it.
In
the original section above, I linked to two previous things I had
written this month -- one here, one at Kat's site. In both, we note the
FBI broke the law. In the one I wrote here?
I'm
so far ahead of the crowd. You're supposed to run with the pack.
That's what corporate journalists do. Never get too far out ahead.
Better to be wrong than right if being right means you're out on the
limb alone. Sadly, that mentality is also evident in our so-called left
(or even just Democratic Party) media.
I'm not going to turn this site over to a daily call for Joe Biden's impeachment.
But that is what this is calling for and the point I made in the Iraq snapshot earlier this month.
We have one of two options: Joe Biden asked the FBI to stop coverage of the laptop or Joe Biden didn't.
First
option? He did so as a private citizen (former government official) in
the midst of an election. So, some would insist, it doesn't matter, he
wasn't in the White House. Actually, it does matter. He was in the US
Senate in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. He knows the law, he
knows the Constitution. At the start of each Senate term, he took a
sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. And if he was involved there's
also the fact that his actions allowed him to become president. Those
are high crimes. So if he was part of this, yes, it impeachable -- it
is a crime that led directly to his presidency.
Second
option? He was not involved and, if any of his campaign staff were
involved, he had no knowledge of what was taking place.
So he's in the clear, right?
Wrong.
And I've had this discussion with White House friends -- including when
I took a break in dictating that day's snapshot (which is why it went
up so late and is noted in the snapshot itself) to get some argument,
any argument, that what was taking place was not an impeachable
offense. No one offered me a legally grounded argument. That's the
point of "Those fake ass 'religious' litigants (Ava and C.I.)," by the way -- the piece Ava and I did for THIRD. You can't
just claim a religious exemption. Your religion has to offer one. And
you can't just say, "Oh, this isn't an impeachable offense," you have
to make the argument as to why it's not.
Joe
is actually in trouble either way -- whether he knew or he didn't
know. If he didn't know, he now, in the last weeks, has seen enough to
know there's something troubling and that the FBI has a shadow over it
in the eyes of a number of Americans. As the President of the United
States, he is obligated to address such matters and to address the
American people about how he is handling such matters. He has made no
comment at all. (The White House spokesperson wrongly spoke out. I
knew that was wrong and noted it here. I also noted it with friends in
the administration -- and that if this goes poorly for Joe, the more she
speaks on this topic, the worse it will be for him. She is refusing to
address the topic currently and that's the position she needs to stick
with. If Joe himself speaks on it, she can say "I refer you to what the
President previously said . . ." She needs to stay out of it for his
sake and for her own sake. And this was explained to her.)
That falls under dereliction of duty.
The
FBI is a federal agency. It is under the Dept of Justice. That Dept
is under the President. He's not meeting his obligations, he's not
fulfilling his assigned duties.
The
minute the first Twitter Dump occurred, he was obligated to speak to
it. You could cut him a few days because the first dump was on a Friday
and you could cut him some slack -- you don't have to -- and argue that
the weekend wasn't the time to address it. But Monday came and he said
nothing. And now you had the White House spokesperson sign her name to
it, making it obvious that the White House was aware and was not
addressing the issue.
It's dereliction of duty and it's an impeachable offense.
I take no joy in saying that.
And I don't like all the so-called left cowards that are hiding behind me.
We
have too much to cover without making this site a daily call for Joe
Biden's impeachment. I've made the call. I have not retracted it and
have no plan to retract it. If something emerges from a Twitter Dump
that changes that call, I would be required to cover it. But having
made the call for what is now needed -- action from the House of
Representatives -- I'm not going to repeat myself.
The
others on the Democratic Party side and left have pussy-footed and
hedged. They need to continue their coverage until it reaches the
logical conclusion (call for impeachment). The corporate media? If
you're an outlet other than THE NEW YORK POST or FOX NEWS, you've
ignored this story since 2020 and, for the record to be corrected, you
need to be covering it.
Again,
I've taken our coverage out as far as it can go at this point. If Joe
Biden addresses it -- or a spokesperson -- then we have another reason
to cover it. If the House moves forward with an investigation or
impeachment hearing, we have another reason. Otherwise, we've said all
that can be said here. And we have other issues to cover including this
one reported on by Mac Bullock (DAILY VOICE DELAWARE COUNTY) today:
Philly
cops were called to a home on the 1800 block of Brunner Street in the
Tioga-Nicetown section of the city's north side at 4:15 p.m. on
Wednesday, Dec. 14. for reports of an unresponsive person with an injury
to the face.
The
individual, later identified as Jackson, was declared dead at the scene
due to blunt force trauma, police said. The matter is being
investigated as a homicide.
On a GoFundMe page
There's
a daily war against LGBTQ+ members. We've always covered that,
especially with regards to Iraq. However, it took the release of BROS
to show me just how much homophobia there was in this country. The hate
spewed at the film on YAHOO message boards and elsewhere was
appalling. And people keep talking about Twitter, for example. What
about YAHOO's obligations to follow its own community guidelines? Or,
for that matter, DEADLINE.
The following sites updated:
