Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

There is a difference between private and public communications.  The law, in its various aspects, often looks to the reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to the legality of taping or interception of communications, whether by the government or private citizens. That distinction is eroding in an age not just of accessible technology, but the ability of people to swarm through social connections on the internet. And so it was with Donald Sterling, owner of the L.A. Clippers. Because his comments were indefensible, it's hard to defend the distinction between private and public conversations in such an instance even though there is an important distinction. Has none of us said something believing it to be private that we regret; or might have expressed regret for soon after we said it? Is pillow talk no different than a tweet? Is nothing private anymore, at least to the extent if offends societal notions of what is proper? I'm reminded of Gene Hackman in Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation, where the privacy hunter became the hunted: Charles C.W, Cooke made good points in his post on the topic, The Shrinking Private Sphere:

It is difficult to work up much sympathy for the man — a billionaire with a history of rank intolerance and questionable business ethics. And that his remarks came from a conversation with a woman who is not his wife does little to help his cause. Nevertheless, one should be a little reluctant to applaud the recording and dissemination of a private telephone conversation simply because it has skewered someone unpleasant. At yesterday’s press conference, one especially earnest member of the audience asked whether the powers-that-be at the NBA intended to conduct an investigation to find out if anyone else involved with basketball had ugly views — an instinct that, when coupled with the performance-art outrage and glancing-at-the-cameras indignation that are the hallmarks of our age, carried with it a whiff of inquisition....

As a Tea Party activist, I am accustomed to the fact that our citizen-based groups are targeted. However, given how much time federal employees spend watching adult films during work hours, I would think that protecting the porn business would be a priority. So, imagine my surprise at discovering this legal enterprise  is now the target of the Department of Justice.

Despite being in good financial standing, adult film performers and others in the porn industry have had bank accounts abruptly terminated—and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may have had something to do with it. Under "Operation Choke Point," the DOJ and its allies are going after legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures by pressuring banks to terminate their bank accounts or refuse their business. The very premise is clearly chilling—the DOJ is coercing private businesses in an attempt to centrally engineer the American marketplace based on it's own politically biased moral judgements. Targeted business categories so far have included payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites. "Operation Chokepoint is flooding payments companies that provide processing service to those industries with subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other burdensome and costly legal demands," wrote Jason Oxman, CEO of the Electronic Transactions Association, at The Hill.

At College Insurrection, we chronicle the disturbing "pornification" of our campuses. But while I despise the business model, it is still a legal business and its participants are not breaking any law. Then how is it that special rules have been put in place that deny an American in good standing the ability to do basic banking?

This past Monday, porn star Teagan Presley arrived home in Las Vegas from yet another whirlwind strip club appearance tour and found a letter from her bank. Chase was closing her account, which was listed under her legal name, as well as the account of her husband. When Presley went to the bank in person to ask why, she was told it’s because she’s considered “high risk.”

The Department of Justice is only one agency that cops an attitude of moral righteousness when stripping citizens of their assets. George Will recently recounted the use of "civil forfeiture" rules by the IRS to strip the accounts of Terry Dehko and his daughter Sandy Thomas, which were related to the running of their Michigan store:

Did MSNBC's Krystal Ball forget history, or never learn it?...

For those of you who missed it, Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski ran a post on Tuesday detailing the racist remarks Congressman Bennie Thompson made while on the radio program, New Nation of Islam. Thompson represents Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district, and has done so since 1993. Thompson began his incoherent rant by saying that essentially any opposition to the President was racist.

“I’ve been in Washington. I saw three presidents now. I never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,” Thompson said. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States — not the chief executive, but the commander-in-chief — that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”

So, despite lacking any indication that McConnell’s opposition to Obama is racially motivated, Thompson is comfortable coming to the conclusion because, if it is not, then he doesn’t know what is. When the only lens you view issues through is race, I suppose the logical result is that you see every unwanted occurrence in your life as racially motivated. The simple fact is, Thompson is outright wrong (is that racist, by the way?). President Bush was constantly disrespected. Kanye West famously said on live television during a Hurricane Katrina Relief drive, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Al Sharpton, whilst running for President in 2003, said Bush sounded less like a President and more like a “gang leader in south central LA” (boy, doesn’t that carry some racial overtones?). Actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo compared the Bush Administration to Hitler and the Nazis, calling it the “43rd Reich.” Actor Martin Sheen called him a “moron.” Actor Sean Penn called him a “traitor to human and American principles.”