>>328507 Feminist Frequency uses the internet as a significant part of its activities: From the Feminist Frequency Form 990 Part I “Summary”, item 1 “Feminist Frequency is a not-for-profit, educational organization that provides comprehensive analyses of modern media and advocates for the just treatment of all people online.” The Feminist Frequency organization currently operates a public, verified account on the Twitter service (http://www.twitter.com), under the username @femfreq. The Feminist Frequency profile is viewable at http://www.twitter.com/femfreq. There are currently approximately 700,000 accounts following @femfreq Tweets originating from or distributed by @femfreq will contain the URL: http://www.twitter.com/femfreq/status/[series of numbers identifying the tweet] Bitch Media and Feminist Frequency did publish and/or distribute a statement over the internet. On or around October 12th, 2016 the public, verified twitter account “@BitchMedia” operated by a separate not-for-profit entity “Bitch Media” (URL: http://www.twitter.com/BitchMedia) did publically publish and distribute a written and pictorial statement at the following URL: https://twitter.com/BitchMedia/status/786242329833111552. (the “statement”) The written text portion of the statement is as follows “ http://bit. ly/2dWx5tS” This URL is referred to as a “shortened link” reducing the amount of characters needed to refer to a specific URL. In this case the shortened link redirects a web browser to the following URL: https://bitchmedia.org/article/our-radar—feminist-news-roundup/anything-jay-z-can-do-i-can-do. Titled “Feminist News Roundup” The pictorial portion of the statement contains the text “Trump’s language, which he and others have tried to minimize as ‘locker room banter,’ is predatory and hostile. To excuse it as that or as youthful indiscretion or overzealous romantic interest normalizes male sexual violence. –Anita Hill

>>328508 On the “Feminist New Roundup” The first URL on the webpage displays the text “Anita Hill wrote an op-ed on Donald Trump and sexual harassment”, which links to the following Boston Globe article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/10/what-can-still-learn-from-sexual-harassment/jCF5rxYbFMgE3bOKR984pI/story.html “What we can still learn from sexual harassment” Subsequent to the @BitchMedia statement, @femfreq did publish and/or distribute the same statement as @BitchMedia, by retweeting @BitchMedia at the following URL: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/786368250619699200. The webpage http://www.archive.is/ describes itself as “Archive.is is a time capsule for web pages! It takes a 'snapshot' of a webpage that will always be online even if the original page disappears. It saves a text and a graphical copy of the page for better accuracy and provides a short and reliable link to an unalterable record of any web page” Just as http://archive.is/mIEn1 shows that the shortened link http://bit .ly/2dWx5tS redirects to https://bitchmedia.org/article/our-radar—feminist-news-roundup/anything-jay-z-can-do-i-can-do the link http://archive.is/Kz5eb will show that the statement at https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/786368250619699200 redirects to https://twitter.com/BitchMedia/status/786242329833111552. This shows that @BitchMedia and @femfreq did publish and/or distribute the same statement The statement published and distributed by Bitch Media and Feminist Frequency is in violation of the prohibition against political campaign intervention as stated in 26 U.S. Code §501(c) 26 U.S. Code §501(c)3 “Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.” states: Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes… and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Rev. Rul. 2007-41 provides the following guidance for determining whether an organization is engaging in issue advocacy vs political campaign intervention: Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention. Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following: • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office; • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions; • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election; • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election; • Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office; • Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and • Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office. A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

>>328509 Analysis of the facts and circumstances identified in Rev. Rul. 2007-41: The statement identifies Donald Trump candidate for a given public office: Trump is not specifically identified in the URL text of the statement. Donald Trump is specifically identified by full name in a prominent position at the top of the URL for “Feminist News Roundup” when accessed. Trump is specifically identified by name in the pictorial image of the statement. The statement expresses disapproval for Trumps actions: The pictorial portion of the statement directly expresses disapproval for Trump, calling Trump’s actions “predatory and hostile”, inexcusable to ignore, and normalizing “sexual violence” The icons accompanying the URL text portion of the statement are clapping, indicating applause for the disapproval presented in the pictorial portion of the statement. The “Feminist News Roundup” is neutral, stating only that Anita Hill wrote an Opinion-editorial article for the Boston Globe and linking to it. The Globe article by Hill identifies Trump’s words as (incorrectly) as “illegal” and “demeaning” behavior. Calling his behavior “brutish” and Trump’s language “predatory and hostile”. Comparing verbal statements by Trump to physical actions by others. The statement is delivered close in time to the election: Election Day is November 8, 2016 The statement was published and distributed by Bitch Media and Feminist Frequency on October 12, 2016. 27 days before the election day. Depending on the state, early and absentee voting is already underway. The statement does not make reference to voting or an election directly, however the election is referenced in the Globe article: The textual and pictorial portions of the statement, as well as the “Feminist News Roundup” do not explicitly mention voting or an election. The Globe article does reference the election, stating “Whether the context is a political campaign or not, in order to prevent illegal behavior, all perpetrators should be held fully accountable for their misconduct.” The communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office: The communication has been raised as an issue of the candidates character and fitness for office. The communication is not part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election: The statement is not part of an ongoing series of communications by the organizations on the same issue, namely sexual harassment and assault. The timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are not related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office. The identification of Trump is not related to an non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation.

>>328510 Form 13909 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

>>328508 >Feminist Frequency is a not-for-profit

>>328507 Funny how they'll LISTEN and BELIEVE with Anita Hill, but not with Gennifer Flowers or Juanita Broaddrick. Odds are they were all lying on behalf of rival political parties.

>>328507 Oh, and in case you didn't see this: http://archive.is/gVkWD Katharine Cross is trying to smear our man Mendax.

>>328585 >You have to stop telling the truth about us or angry people will call us mean names like "skank" on the internet!! At least Cross is starting to recognize that "progressive" online lynch mobs are a really bad idea, now that it's being used against her and her friends. >I would add that we live in an age where all the drawbacks of celebrity can be bestowed on anyone at a moment’s notice, with none of the benefits. Also a good point. Maybe one day they'll be intellectually honest enough to apply it to our side, too. (Our side being everyone non-SJW, since the targets of their lynch mobs are as often liberals as they are conservatives.) >The Trump tapes, meanwhile, were in the public interest not because Trump said some bad words, but because he all but admitted to committing sex crimes. >The leaks on Clinton are bloodless because they merely expose the sometimes cynical calculations and overwrought stage management that go into every political campaign. Nope, the double standard is still alive and well. His foul language and idle bragging about things that never happened condemns him and should be broadcast to the world - her admitting to being yet another corrupt politician is just standard operating procedure; none of our business. Also >Is ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ A Prophecy Of America’s Future? I swear I've been seeing people say this for decades now, while we rush headlong into a Blade Runner future instead.

>>328507 >I swear I've been seeing people say this for decades now, while we rush headlong into a Blade Runner future instead. In other parts of the world it's already the present.

>>328630 There are parts of the world where Handmaid's Tale isn't too far from reality, either. The two don't seem to go together, at least.