censorship

The expropriation of creativity Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship liberty socialism on June 8, 2026 by Gary McGath

Socialist Bernie Sanders has proposed that the federal government seize 50% of the stock of businesses that are heavily involved in AI. It’s the classic socialist line that all creation comes out of “the people” and not specific people. It aims to expropriate not just wealth but credit for achievements.

Artificial intelligence was not created out of thin air. The data and language used by generative A.I. tools didn’t just pop into Sam Altman’s head or Elon Musk’s imagination. A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations. That is not just the opinion of Bernie Sanders.

For the most part, tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their A.I. models without permission, without acknowledgment, without compensation. In other words, the creative work of millions of people — writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists and ordinary citizens — has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It’s time for us to reclaim it.

Since A.I. is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity.

The first sentence is definitely true. AI software wasn’t “created out of thin air.” Nor was it created by some Borg-like “collective intelligence.” AI code, like any other, is created by people putting in long hours to turn abstract algorithms and data flows into code.

The term “artificial intelligence” is a vague one. Any software that does things that we previously thought only a human mind can do counts as AI. But eventually we get used to things like speech recognition, grandmaster-level chess, and self-driving cars and forget to call them AI. The current fad is large language models (LLMs), a brute-force technique that ingests vast amounts of information and spews it back out in new combinations. It’s encountered hostility because it’s shoved in our faces so much and isn’t especially reliable. Companies brag that they put “AI first,” which means that users are second at best.

There are legitimate concerns about LLMs grabbing up people’s research and creative work without credit or compensation. Many lawsuits have been filed over the matter. But the work they’re grabbing up isn’t the product of the collective hive mind either. It’s specific creations by specific people. When Sanders says “us,” he means the federal government, the monster which Trump currently exercises broad control over. Having the US government splitting the take with the companies doesn’t compensate creators or grant them credit. It especially ignores creators outside the US border. Advocates of the collective-mind hypothesis often regard the government as its embodiment, but a quick look shows how absurd that claim is.

Maybe Sanders thinks AI wasn’t invented till last year, consists only of LLMs, and works by stirring large amounts of information in a cauldron. Even assuming all those things, the pieces which go into software like ChatGPT are the products of individual efforts, not of the mythical mass mind.

Oh, and does the Borg mind exist only within the United States? How does the US grabbing companies help authors and artists in Europe, Asia, or Africa? Sanders’ proposal is really about giving the government control of information in the US. A government with 50% control of a business won’t have trouble censoring anything it doesn’t like.

The collective-mind claim expropriates not only creative work but the credit for doing it. It lets people who haven’t done anything special feel special.

Quebec’s prayer ban

This entry was posted in Censorship and tagged Canada censorship liberty religion on May 6, 2026 by Gary McGath

With Worldcon coming up in Montreal next year, fans who go there will have to be aware of Quebec’s anti-prayer law. It imposes serious restrictions on religious freedom. Group prayer in public requires government permission. People have had to choose between wearing religious symbols and quitting their jobs. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has condemned the law as an “attack on freedom of religion, freedom of expression, protest rights, and equality.”

The law is touted as promoting religious neutrality, but it’s no more neutral than a ban on all protests is.

The law has been challenged in Canada’s Supreme Court, so it might not be an issue when the convention comes around.

Some of its provisions will affect just people living and working in the province. I’ll focus here on the impact on visitors.

A lot depends on the word “public.” What is a “public place”? The streets of Montreal are certainly public, but what about the Palais de Congrès, where the convention will take place? What about hotels where fans will stay? Will the convention be able to schedule religious gatherings? This is a question for lawyers, and I hope the con will have some answers for the public. I wrote to the convention’s address for asking questions, and so far I’ve gotten an acknowledgement but no other response. Probably they’re still working on it.

In practice, there’s a good chance only Muslims will be targeted for enforcement. As an atheist, I’m not directly affected by a prayer ban, but laws denying freedom of expression undermine the principle and have a chilling effect on all discourse. In 2025, Montreal slapped a church with a $2,500 fine for hosting a concert by a singer the government didn’t like. I think Sean Feucht is all wet (bonus pun for German speakers!), but that’s not the point. If the city can fine private organizations for hosting singers or speakers based on the ideas they support, it can silence anyone, and events such as fan conventions aren’t safe.

The crackdown on dissent

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged censorship law liberty on May 4, 2026 by Gary McGath

Suppression of criticism and dissent is a hallmark of tyranny. Two egregious instances have been in the news lately. One is the FCC’s call on eight TV stations, all owned by ABC, to seek early broadcast license renewal. The official reason is possible illegal discrimination, but everyone has noticed that it followed on Jimmy Kimmel making a joke about Melania Trump which Donald didn’t like.

The other is still worse. It’s the second indictment of James Comey on fabricated charges of threatening Donald Trump’s life.

These aren’t the only cases; Trump has shown a consistent pattern of going after critics with legal threats, frivolous lawsuits, and behind-the-scenes pressure. For this piece, I’ll focus on the Comey indictment.

Comey took a picture of some seashells arranged to spell “86 47” and added the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” To “86” someone has long been slang for expelling or banishing someone. Many people use “86 47” as a short way to call for Trump’s removal from office. It’s used in restaurants to mean denying someone, such as a drunk, service. It’s the source of “Agent 86” in the TV spy comedy Get Smart. Maybe some people use it as a code for murder, but it’s not a common use.

In any case, Comey didn’t arrange the shells himself; he just found them and posted a picture of them. There’s no way to interpret it as a threat. Amazon has lots of “8646” merchandise, calling for Biden’s removal as the 46th president. Several of the offerings clarify they’re calling for impeachment. There can’t be much of a current market for those items, but the people offering them haven’t gotten around to taking them down. None of them, as far as I know, have been prosecuted for offering the stuff.

A New York Post article reports that in 2025, FBI director Kash Patel took resources off child sex crimes and terrorism to “investigate” legal uses of “8647” protesting against Trump. Not only is he using the FBI to harass legitimate protesters, he’s ignoring dangerous people to do it. Congress should be 86-ing Patel, the worst FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover.

I’m sure Trump and Patel know there’s no hope of getting a conviction, and the case will probably be dismissed on the first day. The goal isn’t to lock Comey up but to scare everyone who criticizes Trump. And so I must declare: 8647. Or better yet: 86*.

Gagging social media in Methuen 4

This entry was posted in Censorship and tagged censorship Internet liberty libraries on March 9, 2026 by Gary McGath

The city of Methuen, Massachusetts, has adopted a resolution to restrict access to social media on city-owned devices. The announcement states that “City-owned devices and networks in City buildings and City-run youth programs will limit access to social media for minors under 16 whenever feasible.” This would clearly apply to Methuen’s Nevins Library, which provides computers for public use.

The statement has the tone of fanaticism that’s gone so far over the edge that it doesn’t even require yelling; of course every reasonable person will agree with it, won’t you? It’s FOR THE CHILDREN! The council favorably cites Australia’s total ban on use of social media by anyone under 16. The statement expresses hope for nationwide restrictions: “The Council also formally endorsed Mayor Beauregard’s commitment to advocate for state and federal policies that restrict social media access for children under 16 and strengthen youth digital safety protections nationwide.”

It’s the familiar idea that libraries should reject or restrict access to anything deemed “harmful to minors,” where “harmful” has a very broad definition. It’s the same mindset that demands they keep all books on certain topics away from kids’ eyes.

On Saturday I went to tne Nevins Library to find out how it’s going to be affected. The people working there said they hadn’t received any direct communication, even though the impact will fall most heavily on them. They don’t know what’s going to be expected of them.

The term “social media” can encompass any Internet service that enables public conversation. Restrictions on using social media are restrictions on discussion. Sometimes these discussions are vitally important to young people, especially if they’re dealing with domestic abuse or have issues they’re afraid to raise with their parents. They can help to get information for personal or educational reasons, and often people make friends from distant places and different cultures.

A lot of basic information is found on social media. YouTube is generally considered a social media site; anyone can upload videos, and most of them are open for comments. Many businesses use their Facebook page as their main Internet presence. Telling kids they can’t use these sites or subjecting them to heavy restrictions will cut them off from a lot of information.

The present situation is reminiscent of panics in which kids had to be “protected” from novels, comic books, rock’n’roll, TV, and video games. Who will protect us from the protectors?

The cowardice of Portsmouth’s Music Hall

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship liberty New Hampshire on October 29, 2025 by Gary McGath

Last weekend I attended a concert by the Portsmouth Symphony Orchestra in the Music Hall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The audience seemed smaller than usual. There could be several reasons, but one possible explanation is a recent act of cowardice by the Music Hall’s management.

Update, November 6, 2025: The Music Hall’s board has removed president Tina Sawtelle in an effort to repair the damage. This is very encouraging.

Earlier in October, the Music Hall unilaterally cancelled a scheduled event by the Lovering Center of Greenland, NH. The stated reason was security concerns. What terrified Music Hall president Tina Sawtelle was news that a peaceful protest was planned outside the venue. There was no suggestion that violence or disruptive activity would happen, but the Music Hall management thought that a simple protest placed the theater in too much danger. I wonder if they barricaded their doors and windows during the October 18 “No Kings” protest in Portsmouth, which was vastly bigger. The description of the planned Music Hall protest said it was “to hold signs, pray, fill the sidewalks with chalk messages of hope and truth, and enjoy each other’s fellowship.” You don’t have to agree with their cause to recognize that it’s legitimate activity under the First Amendment.
(more…)