OF THE
TIMES
...SOTT is one of the accused organizations in a PropOrNot report referenced by the Post, which, contrary to Fake News' claim that the report had not been published, was available on the Internet well before Fake News ran. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, SOTT's tax returns are publicly available and transparent, such that allegations of Russian government support due would have been known as false given even casual inquiry by your publication. ...As our readers know, and as emphasized by our attorney above, SOTT.NET is TOTALLY reader supported and anyone can view our non-profit tax returns to verify this claim. We don't carry ANY paid advertising and we are beholden to no one except YOU, the reader, and our consciences (something that seems to be seriously in want at MSM news sites.) Obviously, we may have a legal battle ahead of us and that means we need your support more than ever as we sail into these turbulent waters of attempts to totally stifle free speech. With your help, we won't go down without a fight!
Your identification of SOTT as a "fake news site" and as an agent for Russian propaganda designed to undermine American democracy is defamatory per se. You accuse SOTT of spreading "Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news organizations for audience." These serious allegations have caused and will continue to cause great harm to SOTT, including but not limited to damage to policy impact and reputation, diversion of scarce reporting and managerial resources to respond to concerned inquires and debunk this smear, loss of readers, and damage to the site's financial sustainability. Moreover, writers and editors associated with SOTT face ridicule, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and risk to future career advancement, including for example, difficulty passing background and security checks. ...
Your article did not provide even a single example of "fake news" allegedly distributed or promoted by SOTT or indeed any of the other 200-plus sites on the PropOrNot blacklist....
The bill was introduced this month by Richard Pan, the pediatrician and state senator who sponsored the 2015 law that eliminated "personal belief" exemptions from state immunization requirements for children enrolled in school or day care. Critics of the new bill, who seem to consist largely of alternative medicine advocates, portray it as a threat to parental authority, gun rights, homeschooling, and health freedom. Snopes rejects those claims, noting that the critics have a grudge against Pan and that the bill does not give state officials any new authority to interfere with child rearing. Although Snopes is right on both points, Pan's seemingly anodyne bill does reflect some creepy and insidious moral premises.
As far I can tell, Pan's seven-point list of rights—which among other things declares that "all children and youth" have a right to "appropriate, quality health care," to "social and emotional well-being," to "appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood," and to "opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development"—would have no immediate practical effect. It builds on a 2009 concurrent resolution that likewise did not create any new programs, authorize any new spending, or give state or local officials any new powers.
Comment: See also: