Author: Wishy

Categories
Commentary Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. The Courts

Blast from the past. U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Roads.

Going back.

U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Roads.

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

This article first appeared on SomeNextLevelShit.com and was authored by Jeffrey Phillips.

Share
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Trump moves to declare antifa a domestic terrorist group.

An antifa protester sprays pink smoke during a demonstration near the California State Capitol in 2021. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Trump moves to declare antifa a domestic terrorist group.

This article originally appeared in the LA Times.

By Jenny Jarvie
National CorrespondentFollow

President Trump moved Monday to classify the broad left-wing, anti-fascist movement known as antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, opening up a new front in his battle with political foes and raising legal and ethical questions about how the U.S. government can prosecute a movement.

“Antifa is a militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law,” Trump wrote in an executive order. “It uses illegal means to organize and execute a campaign of violence and terrorism nationwide to accomplish these goals.”

Militant activists who identify with Antifa have espoused an uncompromising philosophy of zero tolerance for fascists. Since the Republican president took office in 2017, protesters — concealing their identities with masks, dressing head to toe in black — have sparred with police to block a right–wing provocateur speaking at UC Berkeley, confronted alt-right demonstrators with sticks, shields and chemical irritants in Charlottesville, Va., stormed a federal courthouse while protesting police brutality in Portland, Ore., and lobbed rocks at law enforcement as federal immigration agents ratcheted up raids in Los Angeles.

But critics warn Trump is utilizing right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s recent killing to launch a sweeping government crackdown on his political opponents — and crush their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly.

“I am very concerned that these actions are meant to punish disfavored dissent,” said Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino.

In his order, Trump instructed all relevant federal departments and agencies to use their authority to “investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations — especially those involving terrorist actions — conducted by Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa.”

Trump claimed his administration would also investigate and prosecute anyone who funded such an operation.

As justification, Trump cited recent protests that took place in L.A. and across the nation. Antifa, he said, used “coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of Federal laws through armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violent assaults on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement officers, and routine doxing of and other threats against political figures and activists.”

Trump is fixating on left-wing violence even as data show U.S. extremists come from across the ideological spectrum: A 2024 federal report — recently purged from the Department of Justice website — stated that far-right extremists have killed more Americans than any other group and outpace “all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremists.”

To Levin, the administration’s laser focus on antifa, a diffuse movement that does not rely on traditional hierarchies, risks threatening “the civil liberties, not of perpetrators of violence, but the far larger and more visible civil society network of peaceful supporters, messengers and funders.” Experts say some of the groups are highly organized at a local level, but don’t have national or international coordination, as far as we know, or public leaders.

There is no evidence that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect in Kirk’s murder, was affiliated with antifa or any other network. According to his mother, he had “started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.” Officials have said that in a text thread with his partner, Robinson said he killed Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.”

As Kirk’s shooting triggers furious debate on the perils of left versus right political violence, there is little consensus among Americans on what extremism is, who is perpetrating it and when it is justified.

A significant swath of Americans, some experts note, tend to excuse or ignore violence on their side and not recognize it as terrorism if they sympathize with the cause.

“The biggest problem we face is that there’s no agreement on what terrorism is and it’s become completely subjective,” said Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow for counter-terrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Luigi Mangione, for example, is he a terrorist?” Hoffman asked. “I would say yes. … But look, there’s a sold-out musical about him!”

What is antifa?

The term “antifa” — short for anti–fascist — was coined in Germany nearly a century ago, as shorthand for the Communist Party-affiliated Antifaschistische Aktion (Anti-Fascist Action) group that mobilized against Adolf Hitler and was brutally crushed when he came to power.

According to Mark Bray, a professor of history at Rutgers University, the term was picked up across Europe in the 1980s and ’90s and adopted by a broad swath of leftists, anarchists and anti-authoritarian socialists.

“Antifa is a kind of politics of pan radical left militant opposition to the far right,” said Bray, an ally of the movement and author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.”

In uniting socialists, anarchists, communists and other leftists to organize against what they perceive as a common threat, Bray said, antifa is like feminism.

“There are feminist groups,” he noted, “but feminism itself is not a group.”

The first U.S. organization to adopt the name was Rose City Antifa, founded in Portland in 2007. It’s goal, according to its website, is “to create a world without fascism” and “ensure that there are consequences for fascists who spread their hate and violence in our city.”

“We are unapologetic about the reality that fighting fascism at points requires physical militancy,” Rose City Antifa said in 2017 before facing off with far-right groups and police at a pro-Trump march.

Other groups across the U.S., such as NYC Antifa and Antifa Sacramento, are part of the same loose anti-fascist network, but many do not explicitly call themselves antifa. There is no central organization, no command, headquarters or formal membership list.

The movement has grown in response to the rise of Trump.

“Suddenly, anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along,’” the anarchist, antifascist journal, It’s Going Down, said in 2016 after clashes broke out on a Texas campus as protesters tried to cancel an alt-right speaker.

Could Trump designate antifa a terrorist group?

Many national security experts agree that Trump would be cutting a radically new path if he designated antifa as a terrorism organization: The U.S. does not have a domestic terrorism law, and Trump does not have the authority to designate antifa a foreign terrorist organization without approval from Congress.

“While the FBI has confirmed that antifa and other extremists are subjects of ongoing domestic terrorism investigations, it declines to designate any organization a “‘domestic terrorist organization,” a 2020 congressional report said. “Doing so may infringe on First Amendment-protected free speech — belonging to an ideological group in and of itself is not a crime in the United States.”

Trump could try to go after antifa as an international organization, Hoffman said, pointing out that there are antifa cells active abroad. But it would be a stretch to designate antifa an international terrorist group because there’s no known international command, control or coordination.

“It’s not like al Qaeda or ISIS, where you have a command or an emir in charge giving orders,” Hoffman said. “It’s an ideological affinity. Nothing more.”

Is antifa engaged in domestic terrorism?

According to the FBI, terrorism is “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

For the Trump administration, the case is clear.

“Left-wing organizations have fueled violent riots, organized attacks against law enforcement officers, coordinated illegal doxing campaigns, arranged drop points for weapons and riot materials, and more,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement.

“These aren’t protests, these are crimes … where they are throwing bricks at cars of ICE and border patrol,” Trump said last week of the violence committed during demonstrations in Los Angeles over his administration’s immigration crackdown.

“They should be put in jail. What they’re doing to this country is really subversive.”

Bray rejected the idea that antifa is in any way a terrorist organization. “If by terrorists we mean something akin to Al Qaeda or ISIS with murdering people and blowing up buildings, it just is not any of that.”

However, Bray has written, most if not all antifa members “wholeheartedly support militant self-defense against the police and the targeted destruction of police and capitalist property.”

Hoffman argued that any acts of violence committed in pursuit of political goals constituted terrorism.

“Terrorism doesn’t have to be lethal to be terrorism,” he said. “There’s no doubt if violence, or the threat of violence, is being used in pursuit of a political motive, it’s terrorism. You have to call it out.”

A 2022 study from the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism said U.S. data showed “left-wing radicals were less likely to use violence than right-wing and Islamist radicals.”

While the consortium says antifa poses “a relatively small threat,” it also noted “a recent increase in violent activity by antifa extremists, anarchists and related far-left extremists” — a trend it links to the “concurrent increase in violent far-right activity.”

Should the U.S. enact a law on domestic terrorism?

In the 1990s, when President Clinton tried to enact sweeping domestic terrorism laws, Hoffman said, Republicans raised concerns about 1st Amendment violations.

“The bottom line is back then it was as politicized as it is now,” Hoffman said. “If there’s a meeting, basically one side of the room wants to designate antifa and Black Lives Matter, and the other side of the room wants to designate Atomwaffen [Division] or the Base.”

Ultimately, Hoffman said, the U.S. does need a clear and precise law on domestic terrorism. But now was not the best time, he argued, as emotions are running too high after the Kirk shooting.

“If you’re going to go to these lengths, to change the laws of the United States, you have to have very firm, clear evidence,” he said. “At a time when talk show hosts are being deplatformed, when people are fired from their jobs, this is not the ideal moment to embrace profound changes in how we regard terrorism.”

Share
Categories
Censorship Commentary Corruption Hate Leftist Virtue(!) New Kid on the block Reprints from others. Uncategorized

How Reddit Radicalizes The Left And Encourages Political Violence.

Todays headlines. Nice News Photo

How Reddit Radicalizes the Left and Encourages Political Violence.

This is a reprint article Wishy sent me so I thought that we should add Wishy to our stable of contributors.

Below is an article that was originally written in the Federalist.

By: Reddit Lies

Violence from the left.

Reddit, a link-aggregating website that claims to be the “front page of the internet,” has turned into a hotbed for radicalization.

Reddit’s fundamental reliance on upvotes over an algorithm produces an unstable equilibrium in the hands of bad-faith moderators. This creates an incredible echo chamber made up of subreddits, which create groups of individuals who will gladly throw away their empathy as long as they view themselves as a “bastion of good” fighting those who are ontologically evil.

In some rare cases, these individuals reach beyond the keyboard and manifest this radicalization into action.

This article is meant to shed some light onto the unseen world of Reddit, where left-wing users are routinely goaded into increasingly concerning rhetoric and, sometimes, even violence.

How Reddit Works
To understand why Reddit is uniquely suited for this type of radicalization, you will need a basic understanding of how Reddit operates.

Unlike most social media platforms that utilize complex faceless algorithms to curate content for individuals, Reddit is far simpler. Users are given the ability to “upvote” and “downvote” content, which directly affects what other users see. Theoretically, this system produces a true marketplace of ideas, but there’s a catch.

Reddit relies heavily on more than 40,000 volunteer moderators to act as guide rails for subreddits, allowing good faith and positive discourse to flourish. However, Reddit’s moderators wield remarkable power and go largely unchecked, likely because the value these unpaid moderators bring to the platform makes them indispensable, no matter how Orwellian and drunk on power these moderators become. The free reign that moderators have over the site gives them inordinate power over the system.

Often moderators are not selected based on their ability to moderate but rather on their desire to moderate. Since these mods are volunteers, one of the biggest rewards for becoming a Reddit moderator is the power the mods wield.

The problem Reddit faces today is that many Reddit moderators are no longer interested in moderating speech. Instead, these activist moderators use their power to suppress the speech of dissenters, tumbling subreddits into radicalizing echo chambers. They achieve this by censoring and banning anyone who goes against the narrative. Want proof of the assertion Donald Trump hates black people? You’re banned. You refute the claim “genital Surgery is not performed on minors in the states”? You’re banned. Post a link to an Associated Press story about how “South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms“? You’re banned from ever posting in that subreddit again.

Who Uses Reddit?
In terms of user demographics, 74 percent of Redditors are men, and nearly 64 percent are between the ages of 18 and 29. Research has demonstrated that this demographic is uniquely vulnerable to radicalization, and the radicalization of these individuals is becoming increasingly common due, in large part, to the internet and social media. Most headline news stories about the dangers of social media spotlight right-wing radicalization, but this often belies the fact that left-wing radicalization is similarly common on sites like Reddit. Left or right, Reddit is an especially unique social media site that can foster political radicalization among its users.

Discourse on Reddit often quickly devolves into the kind of language that can encourage radicalization. Redditors can often be found using extreme language to attack and belittle their opponents. However, the most vile rhetoric often manifests itself in “safe-space” subreddits where their opponents are either unable or unwilling to retort. The pattern of comments often becomes detrimentally self-reinforcing, where Redditors are praised for doubling down and repeating increasingly radical ideas.

The lack of disagreement radicalized individuals on Reddit encounter means they often come to believe they are a bastion of virtue fighting against the predations of an ontologically evil opponent. This manifests itself in the wholesale hatred of entire groups such as the GOP, where accusations like “All Republicans are Fascists” are repeated dozens if not hundreds of times per day. These baseless accusations often receive hundreds or thousands of approving upvotes, boosting the message to the top of comment threads.

Another common result of residing in radicalizing echo chambers is that Redditors consistently perceive threats that are not actually there. For instance, claims of a “trans genocide” never hold up to academic scrutiny or official definitions of “genocide.” And Redditors are constantly concerned that Republicans, due to their religious nature, are “fundamentally theocratic” or worse, they are “Christofascists.” To say that Redditors frequently demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings of Republicans and conservatives would be a monumental understatement.

And in an environment where extremism is unchallenged, misinformation is the bread and butter of the so-called “free-thinking, high IQ” individuals on Reddit. Redditors will frequently misconstrue the truth in order to conflate individuals and ideologies that are not actually linked. It then becomes a game of tenuously tying those two ideologies together via mental gymnastics and repeated lies.

A very common example of this is accusing Republicans of being Nazis, and the idea that “when someone from the left calls someone a fascist, they are more than often not” seems to be one that many at Reddit take seriously. Indeed, in addition to Republicans, here is a list of things Redditors have accused of being fascist: Andrew Yang, Joe Biden, voting, people who don’t like pit bulls, J.R.R. Tolkien, people who don’t like Antifa, anyone who thinks Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent, the Supreme Court, Second Amendment supporters, Christians, Chik-fil-A, the American flag, pro-lifers, neo-liberals, Twitter parody accounts, people born in 1988, and Florida. This could all be written off as absurd if Redditors didn’t frequently advocate violence against and express hatred toward so-called fascists without repercussions.

Along these lines, another common tactic is amplifying the actions of a small portion of a group to demonize the entire group. For example, when one individual does something heinous, such as one lawmaker in Florida making a ridiculous bill “outlawing Democrats” — technically, the bill outlawed any party that had formerly supported slavery — many Redditors condemned Ron DeSantis for it, despite DeSantis publicly disavowing it.

A License to Hate
Redditors are, just like most social media users, highly motivated to oppose things they see as evil. This motivation, coupled with moderators permitting ontological hatred of an entire group of people, is what gives Redditors an excuse to go on the offensive without pesky restrictions such as “empathy” and “respect.” Once this “license to hate” takes hold of a subreddit, it will begin to spiral into ever-increasing hateful discourse.

This process is initiated when moderators, rather than moderating the speech of a subreddit, decide that hateful rhetoric against certain “out groups” is acceptable and even praiseworthy. This suggestion of ontological evil is often the core foundation of radicalization on Reddit. The manifestation of this can be seen in subreddits such as r/WhitePeopleTwitter, r/196, r/MurderedByWords, and many other “non-political” subreddits that have become highly politicized as their moderators have decided that speech against “fascism” (which is merely speech against any conservative) is wholly justified.

Users of these subreddits will often get showered with upvotes for making absurd claims like “The GOP are all fascist traitors” that quickly devolve into people advocating for violence against any and all individuals on the political right. In that situation, moderators are often the only thing capable of preventing a politicized subreddit from spiraling into insanity.

Unfortunately, moderators willing to hold the line on civil discourse are few and far between on Reddit. When moderators release restrictions on speech based on the aforementioned ontological evils projected onto enemies (e.g., “kill all fascists”), the community begins its descent into chaotic vitriol:

This often comes along with crackdowns against dissenting opinions. Often mods will put their foot down and make broad sweeping statements about “not tolerating nazis” and then ban individuals who, for instance, have any activity in r/Conservative because “All Conservatives are Nazis.”

This intolerance of opposing views, driven by the agenda of moderators, is resulting in the death of subreddits and a cooling of speech on the platform. One such example of this is the subreddit r/JusticeServed. Activist mods of the subreddit used an automated tool to systematically ban users who had any participation in subreddits like r/Conservative. The result of these ban waves was the rapid stagnation of a multimillion-subscriber subreddit.

What’s more, the administrators of Reddit apparently support this insane automatic banning process. Recently, when a few confused members of r/Conservative posted the messages they received showing they had been banned from participating in r/JusticeServed, the moderators of r/Conservative got a stern warning from Reddit administrators warning them against “ban showboating.” Needless to say, left-wing subreddits have not been given the same warnings.

Mods that use mass-banning systems are creating giant rifts in user overlap that both hurt communities on Reddit and damage the site’s retention of users and reputation as a whole.

Herman Cain Award
Redditors are champing at the proverbial bit to have a justification to become engulfed in hatred. One of the most prominent examples of how enticing this “license to hate” is for Redditors can most clearly be seen in the meteoric rise of the hate subreddit r/HermanCainAward.

Herman Cain was a 2012 presidential candidate. During the beginning of the pandemic, he publicly denied the severity of Covid-19, which would ultimately take his life in July. In August 2020, a month after his death, his Twitter account posted this: “It looks like the virus is not as deadly as the mainstream media first made it out to be.”

This quickly entrenched Herman Cain as the poster child for individuals who denied the severity of Covid or refused the vaccine and eventually succumbed to the disease.

The subreddit r/HermanCainAward was launched just three weeks later, but it would rise in popularity in the fall and winter of 2021. What resulted was one of the most grotesque displays of widespread hatred for humanity ever orchestrated on Reddit.

The format of the subreddit was simple. Find an individual (usually from Facebook) who had succumbed to the virus and then find posts from that same person downplaying the danger of the pandemic or refusing a vaccine. You then post a timeline of their death to Reddit and, like roaches to a sewer, the worst of Reddit crawled into the comments to jeer and laugh at the demise of these individuals.

While reveling in the death of people is egregious in itself, some users would regularly take this one step further. In the early days of the subreddit, before it was a requirement to censor names and faces, Redditors would often track down the Facebook account itself and harass the grieving family members.

More than 500,000 Redditors would eventually subscribe to the subreddit that gave them a license to hate. The subreddit was so bad that even liberal corporate media outlets felt they had to condemn it.

Fomenting Violence and Terror Recruitment
When these Reddit echo chambers encourage extremism and allow misinformation to flourish, the threats perceived by the individual members of these Reddit communities are portrayed as imminent and dire. This means these threats demand quick, decisive action. After steeping themselves in rhetoric like this, there is only one conclusion that can logically be drawn by many of the Reddit radicals — violence is justified. Indeed, If you truly believed there was an active genocide going on against trans people perpetrated by “Literal Nazis,” wouldn’t you do anything you could to stop it?

In the spring of 2022, when the draft opinion about Roe v. Wade leaked, r/196 — a left-leaning chaotic meme subreddit — became a hotbed for radicalizing threats, with users posting the addresses and making blatant threats against the Supreme Court on a very regular basis. This included posting the home addresses of justices alongside information on how to make Molotov cocktails, repeatedly issuing bomb threats, and other general terroristic threats. Only in the most egregious cases did the r/196 moderators step in to curtail the unruly crowd.

In one notable case, a Redditor was contacted by the Department of Homeland Security for threats he or she had made on Reddit toward SCOTUS. And Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s would-be assassin, a man by the name of Nicholas Roske, was actively looking for affirmation as he suggested assassinating the justice on a subreddit known as r/TwoXChromosomes. He laid out his initial intention on Reddit before he was arrested near Kavanaugh’s house with a Glock, zip ties, a tactical knife, pepper spray, a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail punch, a crowbar, and duct tape.

Naturally, Antifa has found Reddit instrumental in rallying radicalized individuals to its cause. Reddit has thoroughly spread Antifa’s violent ideology, which, again, effectively states that there is no middle ground: Everyone that disagrees with Antifa is a fascist who doesn’t deserve rights or basic protections such as free speech, and any violence committed against these literal Nazis is self-defense, even if you’re the aggressor.

After a user has been successfully steeped in such rhetoric, Reddit provides a gateway for Redditors to turn their anger into violent activism. Subreddits like r/AntifascistsOfReddit give users explicit guides for how users can cover their tracks and hide from scrutiny. (This is often referred to as OPSEC, or “operational security.”)

Antifa’s OPSEC and non-hierarchical organizing structure often make it hard to directly connect violence to the influence of the organization. It should come as no surprise then that Redditors are being arrested for violence connected to Antifa causes. Samuel Fowlkes, one of the Antifa members arrested in April for attacking protesters at a drag show in Texas, had an extensive history on Reddit. His posts and comments demonstrate just how instrumental Reddit was in his radicalization. Kyle Tornow, a man who threatened to blow up a Portland police station during the civil unrest in 2020, also had a history on Reddit.

And while perhaps he wasn’t as far-left as Antifa, it’s worth noting the account of the man behind the recent mass shooting in Louisville, Kentucky, was also found on Reddit. His account regularly espoused left-wing views.

Breaking the Cycle
For the most part, Redditors don’t expand their hate beyond the reach of their keyboards. However, it should also come as no surprise that some Redditors decide to take the logical conclusions of the narratives they’re spoon-fed into real life. By now, Reddit has a well-established history of being used by these violent activists to attempt to get advice, suggestions, or praise for carrying out violent acts against other individuals.

That history is as extensive or more extensive than many other social media sites that have been relentlessly called out for violence and disinformation. And yet, the media and the rapidly increasing number of “disinformation” groups have given Reddit radicalization hardly any attention. It appears they only regard violent rhetoric as a problem when it can be connected to right-leaning politics. If concern about violent rhetoric were applied fairly, there would be a deafening chorus from the media and Big Disinformation demanding accountability at Reddit.

Reddit has taken action in the past. Just a few weeks after the Jan. 6 riot, Reddit banned the “The_Donald” subreddit for harassment and targeting at the same time it also banned the raucous left-wing “ChapoTrapHouse” subreddit for similar reasons. However, Jan. 6 produced a censorious hysteria among media companies and Big Tech, and given the rhetoric and out-of-control subreddits that have flourished on the site since then, there’s little evidence Reddit management still cares about these issues.

Fixing Reddit would mean some pretty fundamental changes to how the site operates, particularly holding moderators accountable. Moderators are the only individuals who really have the power to break this cycle of escalating rhetoric and violence. Redditors as a group have demonstrated they’re incapable of self-moderation. Activist moderators need to be scrutinized and potentially have their privileges revoked. There should be increased moderator transparency.

Moderators, not the site’s owners and administrators, are who ultimately control the platform, and Reddit is going to pay for it dearly. Reddit is subject to the whims of unpaid moderators who have extreme control over the speech on the platform. Until that’s fixed, Reddit will remain a hotbed of radicalization and is likely to be associated with more violence in the future.

Share