Evidence has leaked that the US plans to prosecute Julian Assange over more than one set of charges.

The new set of charges might be for publishing secret documents, which would be the bully's worst attack ever on the freedom to investigate government wrongdoing.

If these charges are recent, it is pretty certain that other charges were filed during Obama's presidency. If those were not about publishing secret documents, they must have been about something else.

Keep in mind that the DNC documents that Wikileaks revealed in 2016 showed that the DNC had corruptly and secretly acted to stop Sanders from winning the nomination. By favoring the center-right candidate Clinton, instead of being neutral as they should have been, they brought about (though not intentionally) the victory of the bully.

Many US human rights organizations are advocating the "Public Interest Privacy Principles", which seem intended to follow the GDPR.

It follows the example of Europe's GDPR, which means it would be somewhat of an improvement, but with gaping flaws:

• It would accept the collection of personal data by businesses, requiring no grounds other than "That's needed for our business model."
• It would do nothing to limit collection of data by government agencies in the name of "protecting us" from "terrorism" (which often includes dissent) and "espionage" (which often means heroic whistleblowers).

Why progressives must aim to increase the size of the Supreme Court in 2021.

The only standard by which Merrick Garland would have been good to have on the Supreme Court is by comparison with Gorsuch. He was a center-right choice from a center-right president.

DRM in the kitchen won't stop with Keurig coffee machines. Here's what it will look like when the same oppressive policies are extended to dishwashers.

In this article, the hypothetical company uses the term "intellectual property" which appears to refer to some specific aspect of law. It doesn't — it is a bogus concept, used to keep people unclear what law might actually be pertinent.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg champions the profit and growth of Facebook, like plenty of other executives, but because she is a woman many feminists call her success an advance for society.

I was never in danger of thinking so, because as far as I'm concerned anything good for Facebook is by default bad for society.

More generally, though, I don't particularly cheer the fact that the small number of executives of big companies includes some women. That has little to do with the well-being of non-rich people of any gender. I think equality for women is a matter of how the majority of women are treated at work; for instance, the tens or hundreds of millions that are paid less than men in low-paid jobs.

Let us not be distracted from that by the gender of this or that executive.