I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist. As it turns out, many people aren’t. But in the wake of Epstein’s absurd death, all of America has donned the tinfoil hat. The official story of Epstein’s suicide is riddled with holes; it’s a conspiracy theorists dream. The mere fact that a billionaire such as Epstein is engaged in human trafficking in the first place is already a big deal when it comes to conspiracy theories. The problem, though, is that the FBI is now going after conspiracy theories just in time for Epstein’s demise.
For two months now, headlines of Jussie Smollett have broken across the nation. From stories that a violent Trump supporter attacked him to the eventual revelation that he faked the attack, we saw a slew of obnoxious generalizations. The Empire actor went from being another supporting cast member to a national sensation, from Twitter martyrdom to disgrace.
In recent developments, police charged him with 16 counts of lying about a hate crime. He has since pleaded innocent and authorities have dropped all charges. But now, President Trump has declared that the FBI will look into the case further.
Jussie Smollett, star of the hit TV show “Empire” recently had all charges dropped against him in his hate crime scandal. Smollet had alleged that two men had attacked him in a racially-motivated hate crime. But later evidence suggested that he had faked the attack. Theories ranged on what prompted Smollett to do this; some claim that it was for publicity, while others suggest it was an attack on President Trump. Police gave him 16 counts of disorderly conduct.
On October 26th, 2001, George W. Bush signed into law The Patriot Act, which was written in the wake of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks and has been obscuring the rights of American and foreign citizens ever since. The Patriot Act is a “security law” which tremendously broadened the search and surveillance powers of the United States government, allowing law enforcement to access the emails, phone calls, browsing history, and spending habits of private citizens all in the name of counter-terrorism. According to the United States government, the future possibility of danger outweighs the ongoing and present subjugation of the rights to privacy and personal autonomy.
To restrict any citizen’s freedoms requires a very good reason, and for some, the “threat of terrorism” is enough. But with this agreed idea in mind, a few things need to be at the forefront of the conversation. Is there a clear and present danger relating to terrorism which is persistent enough to warrant the restriction of rights? Is the possibility of an attack enough to warrant the restriction of rights? Does The Patriot Act work in practice? And is The Patriot Act moral in theory?