• CNN whines it's time to ban the term 'fake news' after Trump blasts CNN international for reporting fake news!
• 'CNN created this monster': Network whips leftists into a frenzy — then leftists attack CNN headquarters in Atlanta
• CNN bullies and threatens to put US citizen's life in danger for revenge over "Trump body-slams CNN" meme
• MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC all ignore story of ousted CNN producer accused of child sex crimes
• Project Veritas busts CNN again: 'We were creating a story -- our focus was to get Trump out', admits deliberately targeting Matt Gaetz
• Fake news site CNN caught using actors to stage "Muslim outrage" after London Bridge attacks

• Johnny Depp rails against cancel culture: 'No one is safe'
• Woke Hollywood is trying to boycott Johnny Depp, but he'll never be canceled in the court of public opinion
• Amber Heard smashed door in Johnny Depp's Head, 'clocked' ex-hubby in jaw, leaked tapes reveal
• Amber Heard admits to 'hitting' ex-husband Johnny Depp and pelting him with pots, pans and vases in explosive audio confession

Despite the clearly alarming trend of creating official lists of enemies for your political opponents and using ethically questionable means to expose private information, these kinds of retribution fantasies are enthusiastically embraced by the Democrats and their media allies.

Taylor Lorenz's doxxing of "Libs of Tik Tok" is just the latest incarnation of this trend. It showcases the absurd lows that corporate media will stoop to in order to silence independent voices that capture inconvenient popular sentiments.

One need not agree with the political stances of Trump supporters or the "Libs of Tik Tok" account to feel apprehensive about these attacks on anonymity and privacy being normalized and celebrated as brave activism.

The Washington Post exposé not only failed to explore the cultural and political reasons why the "Libs of Tik Tok" Twitter account gained such cultural prominence; it also failed to contextualize why the choice to doxx the anonymous user served any real political or journalistic purpose beyond a show of malice and intimidation. This kind of petty behavior is a common theme among the self appointed digital "authorities" of the corporate media class, who mask their desire to silence independent actors that pose a threat to their discursive dominance beneath a facade of activism and the work of exposing pernicious actors.

The order is from the same Texas judge who is overseeing two upcoming trials to determine damages from defamation lawsuits Jones lost to Sandy Hook parents, and comes one day after three Jones-controlled businesses filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
...

Meanwhile Guerra Gamble has scheduled a conference on Wednesday to discuss whether the first trial to award defamation damages will begin as scheduled on April 25. The question is complicated even though a bankruptcy filing automatically delays a civil proceeding, because neither Jones himself nor his Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy protection. Both Jones and Free Speech Systems are defendants in the lost defamation suits.

In Connecticut, where Jones lost a third defamation lawsuit to an FBI agent and eight families whose loved ones were slain in the Sandy Hook massacre, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis called off a conference planned for Wednesday after learning Jones had filed a separate motion in bankruptcy court "which appears to remove the entire case, including the plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants."

"Therefore, this court will take no further action unless and until all or part of this matter is remanded back by the bankruptcy court," Bellis wrote.