Below is my column on the vote scheduled for this week by France to impose a new regulation on Internet speech — essentially forcing companies to scrub their sites of any hate speech as defined under sweeping French laws. What is astonishing is how many Americans are prepared to follow the European model in limiting free speech on the basis for loosely defined terms of threatening or intimidating or harassing anyone on the basis for race or religion or sexual orientation or other protected groups. The implications for free speech is sweeping and chilling. The West has fallen out of love with free speech. What is most concerning however is that countries like France and Germany are likely to strip away free speech protections for the rest of the World, even in countries like the United States where free speech is still given broad protection.
Here is the column:
Just over one year ago, French President Emmanuel Macron came to the United States to import two potentially invasive species to Washington. One was a tree and the other was a crackdown on free speech. Ironically, soon after the tree was planted, officials dug it up to send it to quarantine. However, the more dangerous species was his acorn of speech controls, a proposal that resulted in rapturous applause from our clueless politicians.
While our politicians in the United States may applaud Macron like village idiots, most Americans are hardcore believers in free speech. It is part of our DNA. Undeterred, however, Macron and others in Europe are moving to unilaterally impose speech controls on the internet with new legislation in France and Germany. If you believe this is a European issue, think again.
Macron and his government are attempting to unilaterally scrub out the internet of hateful thoughts. The French Parliament has moved toward a new law that would give internet companies like Facebook and Google just 24 hours to remove hateful speech from their sites or face fines of $1.4 million per violation. A final vote is expected next week. Germany passed a similar measure last year and imposed fines of $56 million.
The French and Germans have given up in trying to convince the United States to surrender its free speech protections. They realized that they do not have to because by imposing crippling penalties, major companies will be forced into censoring speech under poorly defined standards. The result could be the curtailment of the greatest invention fostering free speech in the history of the world. It is all happening without a whimper of opposition from Congress or from most civil liberties organizations.
The move by the Europeans hits in the blind spot of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment does an excellent job of preventing government action against free speech, and most of the laws curtailing free speech in Europe would be unconstitutional in the United States. However, although protected against Big Brother, we are left completely vulnerable to Little Brother, made up of the private companies that have wide discretion on curtailing and controlling speech around the world.
Europeans know these companies are quite unlikely to surgically remove content for individual countries. The effect will be similar to the “California Exception.” All states are subject to uniform vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, but California was given an exception to establish more stringent standards. Rather than create special cars for California, the more stringent standards tend to drive car designs. When it comes to speech controls, Europeans know they can limit speech not only in their countries but practically limit speech in the United States and elsewhere.
Indeed, Europeans are building on past success. Back in 2013, a group of Jewish students used French laws to sue Twitter to force it to hand over the identities of anonymous posters of comments deemed anti-Semitic. To its credit, Twitter fought to protect anonymity but the European courts ruled against the company and, ultimately, it caved. Anonymity is being rolled back as rapidly as free speech is being crushed in these countries.
Macron knows the European speech controls are likely to metastasize throughout the internet. They have already laid waste to free speech in Europe. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion. For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris bar. At his sentencing, Judge Anne Marie Sauteraud read out a list of the bad words used by Galliano to Geraldine Bloch and Philippe Virgitti. “He said ‘dirty whore’ at least a thousand times,” she explained out loud.
In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French mother was prosecuted because her son went to school with a shirt reading “I am a bomb.” A German man was arrested for having a ringtone with the voice of Adolf Hitler. A German conservative politician was placed under criminal investigation for a tweet in which she accused police of appeasing “barbaric gang raping Muslim hordes of men.” Even German Justice Minister Heiko Maas was censored under his own laws for calling an author an “idiot” on Twitter.
The result of such poorly defined laws is predictable. A recent poll found only 18 percent of Germans feel they can speak freely in public. More than 31 percent did not even feel free to express themselves in private among their friends. Just 17 percent of Germans felt free to express themselves on the internet, and 35 percent said free speech is confined to small private circles. That is called a chilling effect, and it should be feared.
There are also renewed calls in the United Nations to make hate speech a type of international crime. Muslim nations want blasphemy included, and Israel wants anti-Semitism to be criminalized. Even in our own country, politicians like Howard Dean and various academics have declared that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Representative Frederica Wilson has called for people to be “prosecuted” for making fun of members of Congress. A recent poll found half of college students in the United States do not believe that hate speech should be protected.
The sad irony of France leading efforts to curb free speech is powerful. Once the bastion of liberty, France has now become one of the greatest international threats to free speech. It even led a crackdown on the free press with criminal investigations. For years, we have simply watched from our side of the Atlantic and dismissed these trends as a European issue. With these new laws, however, it is a global issue. This invasive species is about to be unleashed on the worldwide web.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
You have freedom of speech here, but that doesn’t mean he has to let you defile his website with filth. If you started posting nudie pictures they’d probably be deleted from anywhere. If you started posting hitler propaganda, likely the same. Porn links, spam, virus links, he’s within he rights to moderate all of that. Notice he hasn’t banned you. That would be the equivalent of Trump locking you up for flag burning.
CKo7,
Where are the nudie pictures Benson posted?😄😃
good interview with alex jones victim of a lot of efforts to censor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVlyTzOvb74
touches on a lot of the subjects in this thread
interviewed by the lovely Lauren Chen
Is there anyone on the left for the protection of Free Speech? On the entire planet? When I was young, the left stood for Free Speech, now it’s the opposite. Now they stand foursquare against everything in the Constitution. That’s why so many people have left the left…just like me. The modern left is a threat to the world.
Ivan, you are right. I too moved in what would be called a right wing direction. I never was quite sure if I moved or if the left moved so fast that in reality I am standing still.
The American Founders stated that rights and freedoms are “natural” and “God-given,” meaning they existed before government was established and they exist everywhere God holds dominion which is everywhere infinitely. The freedom of speech is extant, ubiquitous and universal. Legitimate and valid governments throughout the universe must provide the same rights and freedoms as those provided by the American Founders in their Constitution. It matters not that a particular nation’s “government” APPROVES OR ALLOWS its people to engage in it. All conceivable rights and freedoms are every individual’s rights and freedoms and they are everywhere. Rights and freedoms cannot be wrong. Government’s can be wrong…and often are.
The journalist Tommy Robinson currently of the UK needs your help to get the word out to people, politicians, etc., that he & his family need to granted asylum into the USA & evacuate the UK.
The UK & Western Europe has completely been overran by the Islamic Paedophile Ideology & thus law & order is now gone.
W. Europe should now be a sh*thole No Go Zone.
Heres Tommy’s plea for help:
https://www.brighteon.com/6056678420001
The UK government has been trying to kill Tommy. If they get him into jail again, then they’ll probably succeed. He’ll be on Tucker this week. Trump better grant him asylum.
Wikipedia Identifies Robinson As A Fascist And Criminal
Robinson has been active in far-right politics for many years. He was a member of the neo-fascist and white nationalist British National Party (BNP) from 2004 to 2005.[1] For a short time in 2012, he was joint vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party (BFP). Robinson led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013. He continued as an activist, and in 2015 became involved with the development of Pegida UK, a British chapter of the German-based Pegida organisation (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West).[26] From 2017 to 2018, Robinson wrote for and appeared in online videos for The Rebel Media, a Canadian far-right political website.
Robinson has accumulated several criminal convictions and has served three prison sentences. His criminal record includes convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court.[27][28][29] He has served at least three separate custodial sentences: in 2005 for assault, in 2012 for using false travel documents, and in 2014 for mortgage fraud.[14][17][5] In May 2018, Robinson was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court after publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering a law court, contravening a court order that disallows reporting on such trials while proceedings are ongoing. On 1 August 2018, due to procedural errors, he was released on bail pending a new hearing of the case.[30] On 5 July 2019, Robinson was again found guilty of contempt of court at the retrial and is to be sentenced at a later date․
Edited from: Wikipedia Bio – Tommy Robinson
Only fools think wikipedia is neutral in our political war. Rather than take your word for it(or wikipedia), just go and watch Tommy speak at length and be questioned at length at Oxford…unless Youtube has already removed it.
Tommy is a working class hero.
To be clear, I don’t think P Hill is a fool. He knows exactly what he’s doing when he constantly misleads/misinforms. It’s deliberate and calculated. Dishonesty is a nasty character trait.
Ivan,
By his writings there’s no group of raping, robbing, murdering paedophiles he doesn’t support. Hollyweird, Islamic or others.
And if anyone like Tommy Robinson & others stand up against the pedos Hill attacks them.
The great thing is that all these American hating freaks have fully decloaked & the public can easily see them for who they are now, a sorted mix of Satanic Freaks that hate almost born/kids & normal families.
Ivan, ‘our political war’..??
We were all Americans until Fox News came along. Now we’re in a ‘political war’.
Peter, in every generation there is social tension and conflict. you talk like fox invented it. preposterous.
update from Hong Kong: youtube (owned by google aka “alphabete”) censors and demonetizes “China Uncensored” a china news production which criticizes communists too much!
https://youtu.be/6cQGB0_xRTI
Was Chet Huntley talking about Fox News in the video clip from 1963? I didn’t even know that Fox News was around 55 years ago. One woman took exception to Huntley’s comments, called in and told Huntley to “drop dead”.
I think that actually got on the air when NBC was taking calls.
Irrespective of the obsession that some may have with Fox, nasty political climates didn’t start with Fox News.
Kurtz earlier claimed the NYTs was censoring Hong Kong news because China owned them. When he was shown contemporary front page coverage and editorials denouncing the Chinese from the NYTs he doubled down and insisted against factual and irrefutable evidence that he was right.
Kurtz is full of s.. and a liar not to be trusted, especially on this issue.
Ha you lied right there. again. I never said the Chinese owned the NYT. I said they were developing influence and ownership positions in American mass media in general. Which they most certainly are doing.
But you just cant resist distorting things can you? that’s ok, keep it up, I need a sparring partner here to take some licks day after day and you’re just as good as any tomato-can is.
Why do you have this bizarre newspaperboy like crush on the NYT ? Sad! they don’t even know you exist and here you are schlepping copy for them
Right, it’s all Fox New’s fault.😱
We’re not “all Americans” anymore because of the dreaded Fox News.🤪
We were all Americans until Fox News came along. Now we’re in a ‘political war’.
As ever, Peter, no one can quite figure out if you say these things out of mendacity or stupidity.
Tabby, one can measure the radicalization of the Republican party from the time Fox News began.
Ronald Reagan, mind you, was considered the staunchest of conservatives in 1980. Yet Republicans known as conservatives in the 80’s are now thought of as ‘moderates’ or “RHINO’s”. Alan Simpson, John McCain and Bob Dole are three good examples.
As governor of California, Reagan signed legislation legalizing abortion. As governor Reagan was also a proponent of gun regulations after Black Panthers made a menacing appearance at the state capitol.
As president Reagan allowed various tax increases. But Reagan’s positions in California and Washington would make him persona non grata in today’s GOP.
Fox New began in the Fall of ’96. And the Republican party has been moving steadily rightward since. That’s no coincidence. That’s the influence of Fox News on Republican voters.
So as usual Tabby, I think you’re a smarmy bore denying the obvious.
Tabby, one can measure the radicalization of the Republican party from the time Fox News began.
Again, Peter, you think in nonsense memes. Republican politicians don’t accomplish much and hardly advocate anything radical at all. The trio of Bush, Hastert, and Frist couldn’t even manage to eliminate small agencies whose principal functions are to feed Democratic Party clients (the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), or baubles like the Corporation for National and Community Service.
As governor of California, Reagan signed legislation legalizing abortion.
Bill Clinton raped women as Governor of Arkansas and teenage girls as President, and yet look how the Left lie, lie and more lies to defend him today.
Peter Shill provides us a classic example of how the Left casually use their Dictatorship of Relativism as their religion. Peter vilifies Christians but proselytizes his shoot from the hip dogmas ad nauseam ad infinitum which is why he selectively references Reagan
Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor in 1967 because he knew the CA
Legislature would override his veto. He signed it to lessen the harm it could have done if the Calif Legislature had had their way.
As medical scientific data emerged in the field of embryology post Roe v Wade, honest people came to conclude what Reagan also embraced: abortion involves the killing of a life. To wit….here is Reagan in his famous article on the subject followed by a video.
The Left disregards life and truth when either undermine their appetite for raw abusive power. Thankfully they have lost support in America
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law—the same right we have.
https://humanlifereview.com/abortion-and-the-conscience-of-the-nation-ronald-reagan-the-10th-anniversary-of-the-supreme-court-decision-in-roe-v-wade-is-a-good-time-for-us-to-pause-and-reflect-our-nationwide-policy-of-abortion-o/
Absurd speaks truth again
repeat
“Republican politicians don’t accomplish much and hardly advocate anything radical at all.”
I have been hoping for more from Trump. Accomplishments have been tried but generally blocked by Congress and the article III tyrants.
At the very least he has scared the bejeezus out of a lot of loathsome people who needed a good fright. that’s an accomplishment in my book.
We have the “moderates” in the Democratic Party like Socialist Sanders, Sen.Warren Sen. Harris, Hyphen-Cor, Rapida Tlaib, Keith Ellison, etc. all engaged in a struggle for control of the Democratic Party.
Peter has his own proprietary definition of what is an acceptable moderate and what is an acceptable extremist.
Everyone else is free to do the same, even if their own definitions go against Peter’s orthodoxy.
Peter, you under value right wing talk radio which preceded Fox and set the table for It, and the GOPs take over by dumb ideologues and hyper partisans. Not surprisingly much of Fox’s main draws are from right wing radio. There is no left wing equivalent and most places in the US have stations broadcasting these a..holes 24/7 to middle age and up drivers too old for music on their commutes.
There’s probably no “left-wing equivalent” of Fox News in terms of ratings, but commentators on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and other media outlets match some of the Fox commentators in terms of advocacy.
When c.85% of the working press is made up of liberal Democrats, it’s not that surprising that a network like Fox rose to prominence in reaction to that.
I don’t understand what the problem our leftist friends have with Fox News. The news portion is centrist and relatively accurate. Opinion is clearly separated from news. The opinion of some is on the right but they also have Shep Smith’s show on the left. Hannity is hated by the left, not because he lies but because he has revealed the truth sometimes months before the rest of the news media catches up. One can take note that no one on the left wants to show where Fox News lies by taping shows concurrently with others so that the so called lies can be discussed. This demonstrates they already know that Fox News is fairly accurate.
Peter publishes Washington Post articles all the time and one can easily see that the news is intermixed with opinion so that the less intelligent among us are unable to pick out fact from fiction. The Washington Post has been continuously wrong on the Russia Hoax but no leftist nor the Washington Post wishes to admit that. The Washington Post frequently uses anonymous sources that seem to fit their ideology not the truth. I believe all of the left wing news media are more or less just like the Washington Post.
The one thing Hannity does consistently that incites the left is he does a montage of shows on a specific topic demonstrating how the left wing media all seem to say almost exactly the same things as factual but it is only what they want to think. He then destroys what the left said as a group showing what has actually happened. The leftist news doesn’t seem to care how bad they look because they are depending on the ignorance and unjustified anger of their viewers.
They’re bothered because they don’t conceive of themselves as being in an argument with other parties who have defensible interests and value-scales. Peter’s idea of the Republican Party turning ‘weird’ is that it contains people who actually want to scrap ‘milestones’ and ‘achievements’ of the sort you see depicted in Ken Burns documentaries (even if the corporate body of the Republican Party does nothing). After more than 50 years, a bureaucratic latrine like the Department of Housing and Urban Development is still standing. Peter doesn’t get it, because he’s focused on the idiot daily news cycle, polls, &c.
Neither of the characters you’re talking to are given to recognizing advocacy as advocacy because they carry with them the fanciful assumption that liberal advocacy is simply Truth. Peter’s obtuse about this and JanF / Anon is arrogant, but the misconception’s the same.
The left wing equivalent is NPR obviously.
Today they had a couple harpies (one les and one feminist) on telling endless tales of sexual assault by the evil men of America.
N nonstop
P propaganda
R radio
it’s crowdsourced. most of it is pretty solid. some things get changed back and forth and there is a sort of ongoing conflict over things. the cool thing is, there is an audit trail of changes which can show the details. really wikipedia is under rated. if you think it’s wrong then log in and correct it
No, Mr Kutrz.
I forgot all the cases, I believe one of the many were Mark Levin.
I’ll just use him either way.
He keep seeing the Bio wikipedia was, so he kept going in & changing it, & then it’d be edited back, he’d correct it, it change back….
After a while people would just say the hell with it , move on & mark up wikipedia as a very unreliable source.
While on this subject, I was listen to another lawyer recently he was pointing out how even dictionaries are gradual changing the meaning of words so younger people coming up will be less likely to understand the original intent of what was written.
IE: the USC w/Bill of Rights.
Don’t lose your hard copies.
Hill,
George Washington & the founders were all considered criminals by the UK’s govt also.
So what’s your point other then you & the 3 pre op trans gender that run Wikipedia then it’s your behaviour/action are those of commie/fascist.
Oky, what the hell are you babbling about??? ‘Transgenders run Wikipedia’..??? Where in God’s name did you get that?????
ha ha Geo was guilty of sedition against the Crown, but he won, which made him a hero.
if he’d have lost then we might consider him something like benedict arnold
just remember, revolution is never legal
so what? if he was just another chav they would let him run wild like a drunken soccer hooligan. no, he got into politics so they want to shut him down
More reasons why Wikipedia is about as useless as dog crap!
CORRUPT WIKIPEDIA Deletes Jeffrey Epstein’s Links to Frequent Flyer Bill Clinton — Adds Link to Donald Trump
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/corrupt-wikipedia-deletes-jeffrey-epsteins-links-to-frequent-flyer-bill-clinton-adds-link-to-donald-trump/
https://www.washingtonpost.com
Trump isn’t the biggest threat to the Constitution. Democrats are.
Marc A. Thiessen
Who is the biggest threat to our constitutional order? It is not President Trump.
Ever since Trump took office, Democrats have been telling us he is an authoritarian who threatens our system of government. Well, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution. Leading Democrats are promising that, if elected in 2020, they will abolish the electoral college and might also pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices — allowing them to marginalize Americans who do not support their increasingly radical agenda and impose it on an unwilling nation.
The purpose of the electoral college is to protect us from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” Each state gets to cast electoral votes equal to the combined number of its U.S. representatives (determined by population) and its senators (two regardless of population). The goal was to make sure even the smallest states have a say in electing the president and prevent those with large, big-city populations from dictating to the less populous rural ones.
No wonder Democrats don’t like it. Today, they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland switched their allegiance to Trump.
Thanks to the electoral college, Democrats have no choice but to try to win at least some of those voters back if they want to win the presidency. But if we got rid of the electoral college, Democrats could write off voters in “fly-over” country and focus on turning out large numbers of their supporters in big cities and populous liberal states such as New York and California. Unburdened by the need to moderate their platform to appeal to centrist voters, they would be free to pursue full socialism without constraint. If voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania oppose spending tens of trillions on a Green New Deal and a government take-over of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, tough luck.
The electoral college protects us from this kind of unconstrained radicalism, by forcing the political parties to broaden their appeal — which is precisely why more and more Democrats want to get rid of it. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution required supermajorities for amendments — another wise protection against the tyranny of the majority.
But Democrats would have no such obstacles in dealing with another impediment to their radical agenda: the Supreme Court. Thanks to Trump’s electoral college victory, Republicans have been able confirm two Supreme Court justices and secure a conservative majority. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their judicial predicament. They were the ones who announced that they would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during George W. Bush’s final year in office, setting the precedent for Republicans to block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. And they were the ones who eliminated the filibuster for federal circuit courts judges — setting the precedent for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court justices.
Democrats have miscalculated at every turn, and now their solution is to break precedent yet again — by packing the Supreme Court. There have been nine justices on the Supreme Court for the past 150 years. No matter, Democratic candidates including Beto O’Rourke; South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) have all said that, as president, they would consider adding justices to the Supreme Court to secure a left-wing majority. The last president who tried this, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was stopped only because members of his own party rebelled. The Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by the Democrats, correctly declared his plan “an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.”
It seems unlikely a Democratic president would face such a rebellion today. But unless Democrats win not only the presidency but also a 60-vote Senate majority, they would have to eliminate another minority protection — the legislative filibuster — to pass a court-packing bill. I suspect they would not hesitate to do so.
Taken together, the Democrats are proposing what amounts to a systemic assault on the foundations of our federal system. Democrats are freely pursuing a tyranny of the majority. We’ll see how it plays in Middle America. But if they do, then spare us the overwrought complaints about Trump. You can’t defend the Constitution while trying to tear it up at the same time.
” they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland”
HEY THAT GUY’S RIPPING MY STUFF OFF! WHERE’S THE ATTRIBUTION?
France “emerges:. What has emerged is the view of others in the world that France is a nasty Nazi place. Heil Hitler.
Humanitarian interventionism.
In WWII during the German occupation of part of France anther portion was under French control. Both portions participated in the Holocaust. Many French people helped round up Gypsies and Jews and send them to death camps. After the war the U.S. did not want to criticize the Frogs and perhaps have them lean toward going communist. So we kept quiet. And ever since.
PROJECT VERITAS ATTEMPTS TO ‘EXPOSE’ GOOGLE
BUT LACKS PROFESSIONALISM TO COVER IMPORTANT ISSUES
This morning I took the time to watch the Project Veritas video attempting to ‘expose’ Google as a politically ‘biased’ player in the field of information searches. Said video touches on a number of important issues: most notably the domination of one company, the expanding use of artificial intelligence and efforts to make information searches politically neutral.
Not surprisingly, Project Veritas lacks the staff and journalistic capability to explore these issues with any degree of depth. What they produce instead is a crude student film of an expose. Said film is totally reliant on an unknown informant seen in heavy shadow with an altered voice. We as viewers have no idea ‘who’ this source might be. Yet host James O’Keefe’s interview with this shadowy source comprises most of the film.
The film also feature clips from hidden cameras that appear to show Google executives in a corporate cafeteria. Said executives are commenting on the task of making information searches politically neutral through use of artificial intelligence. Yet we as viewers have no idea ‘who’ these executives are speaking to. What’s more, we have no idea ‘what’ they’re responding to in any given clip. This issue has been a frequent criticism of Project Veritas videos. Random clips of people responding to unknown questions are not the least bit satisfying to critical viewers of journalism.
Host O’Keefe seizes on the comments of one executive who allows that Google wants to “prevent a Trump situation in 2020”. O’Keefe would have us believe this statement reveals an anti-Trump bias on the part of Google. Yet a Special Counsel was appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The Mueller Report detailed an extensive plot by Russian intelligence agencies to manipulate American social media in favor of Trump. Therefore the executive’s reference to “preventing a Trump situation in 2020” quite likely relates to Russian meddling.
I agree that anti-trust action might be appropriate with regards to the biggest players in Silicon Valley. And interestingly O’Keefe notes at one point that even prominent liberals believe such anti-trust action might be needed. But anti-trust action might also be appropriate in many sectors of American industry.
The use of artificial intelligence is a major issue in itself. Good journalists could easily spend two hours exploring A I and how it effect average people on a daily basis. Information searches is another issue that could be explored as a stand-alone subject. Is it possible to create information search systems that are totally satisfying to every political faction? I rather doubt that is feasible.
During the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders supporters were deeply distrustful of mainstream media. Yet the Bernie Bros were convinced mainstream sources were slanted against political progressives; the opposite grievance expressed by Trump supporters and Project Veritas. Which strongly suggests that the fairness of information searches could be debated endlessly.
Personally I would like to see fine journalists produce a film covering all the subjects Project Veritas touches on here. These issue are certainly worthy of exploration. But James O’Keefe lacks the stature and organization to produce anything more than a crude student film.
https://www.projectveritas.com/video/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
I love when Peter attempts character assassination because his writing is so full of flaws and his interpretation always represents Peter’s ideology rather than the truth.
Peter, O’Keefe has released other data and is releasing more on this series of films. The issue is of great importance and I don’t know of any journalist who is presently doing a better job of exposing Google than O’Keefe. If you know of those people let us hear their names and perhaps where we can find them. I am interested in the subject matter more than the personalities involved and O’Keefe provides information not ideology.
As an example of Peter’s lack of perspicacity I will provide arguemnts against the Acorn tapes of Project Veritas by those that hate the truth so much that they try to make all sorts of excuses why the Video showed nothing when the video was of vital importance.
The following arguments against the Acorn videos all were defeated by Project Veritas, but some people like Peter refuse to accept the truth.
It never happened.
The video lied.
The camera’s were specially placed.
The video was cut and pasted
All of those lies were put to rest and the entire video made available.
New excuses:
This case was unusual and the only one.
It turned out not to be the only video because O’Keefe does many videos and shows them slowly over time to demonstrate what liars people like Peter are.
Then another and another video from all over the country was provided showing essentialy the same thing about Acorn.
The tapes were real. The actions of Acorn were proven to be occurring all over the nation, splicing and cameras had nothing to do with the content etc. The videos stood as totally valid and proven. They were proven sufficiently that a reluctant Congress removed funding for Acorn.
Does that stop a slob like Peter? No He still can’t accept the tapes and wrongfully attacks the man behind the tapes though there were many people involved. For personality reasons alone Peter says one cannot believe their eyes. It shows the depths people like Peter go to, lying and assassination of character, all for one thing, to promote their heinous ideology.
maybe you should re-assess your fixation on production values.
While one should evaluate PV’s work with an understanding of their political views.
What is true is true regardless of the source.
It is also true regardless of the production values or professionalism.
Unnamed informants USED to be a common feature of journalism.
Who can forget “deep Throat”
We should always weigh anonymous sources as having less credibility.
But the case against Google does not rest on a single anonymous source.
The PV story is based on internal communications also – and Google while denying their significance has NOT denied their authenticity.
The Google story keeps snowballing. More and more comes out over time.
Ultimately the story is pretty damning.
I do NOT want Google regulated.
I do not want government to do a thing.
I do want the story to get out.
I want the rest of us to pressure Google to “change their ways”
I have already started the process of leaving Google and Facebook and Twitter, and ….
While I value greatly many things they provide me with, I do not value them sufficiently to tolerate their censorship.
Even in the context of nonsense such as this crap with France.
I EXPECT they will stand up for free speech.
Regardless, I expect that if they choose to try to comply with French or German law, that they do not do so at the expense of the free speech of americans.
I am probably leaving no matter what.
But there is no chance I will return so long as they are engaged in censorship.
I’ve seen the video. It’s excellent work. People should watch the video and judge for themselves. Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Paypal et al are all putting their political views into their products. The corruption goes deep and there are multiple motivating factors. The video does a very good job of showing some of this behavior.
If Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, I see no reason why hate speech should be. Like Obscenity, we know it when we see hate speech….
“On the contrary, it just proves what P.T. Barnum said that there is a sucker born every minute”
PT Barnum may have said that but it has also been said ‘all talk no action’
You made a comment about Fox and I asked without getting a response: “Jeffrey, the proof is in the pudding. You have the ability to record and so do I. You pick the show some dates in the future and we will both record it. Then you can show us how that show isn’t factual and I can rebut. … Are you up for seeking the truth or do you just wish to make statements without proof?” Are you all talk and no action?
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/07/03/one-third-of-americans-say-media-is-the-enemy-of-the-people/comment-page-3/#comment-1862007
Allan, I’m not like you. You are better than me, ok? And as much as you never want to think like me, I don’t want to think like you. You and I will NEVER have a meeting of the minds. Let’s face it.
Jeffrey, we definitely are not alike. I have an open mind and it seems yours is closed shut to such an extent that you do not wish to test your beliefs. Perhaps that is because you already know that what you believe isn’t true but want to continue believing it. Perhaps not. I like to make sure that what I say is correct. According to you, it might seem that you don’t care whether what you say is true or not. (I’ll have to follow more of your postings to draw a firmer conclusion.) Interesting philosophy but one that leads to mistrust of anything you say.
Next time you watch Fox you can think about this discussion.
Allan, don’t flatter yourself. It’s very unbecoming. I have conceded that you are better than me. Isn’t that enough for you? You win, ok?
Jeffrey, this is not an I win you lose situation. This is about truth and the desire of reasonable people to pay attention to the truth. The lack of truth is not considered a desirable characteristic.
No one wins when truth and free speech are unable to prevail.
If Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, I see no reason why hate speech should be.
You’re not seeing much of anything at all.
Because people like you make use of the term ‘hate speech’ for ordinary public discourse which offers a critique or a failing evaluation of one of your mascot groups. And you apply that judgement without regard to whether the statement is true or not.
Nude dancing at the Kitty Kat Lounge hasn’t anything to do with public discussion proper to a society where deliberative institutions prevail. It’s just something gross.
In truth, liberals are of the view that they’re the school administration and everyone else is engaged in classroom disruption. Ergo, no one has the right to say anything without permission from liberals.
TIA:
You seem angry…
Are you endowed with some special powers of mind reading ?
Rather that speculating at the emotional state of others, or their motives, why not stick to the facts, Make an actual argument. One that hinges on facts, logic, reason. Not emotion, not speculation about the emotions of others or your guesses as to their motives.
An act is right or wrong – regardless of the emotional state or motives of the actor.
You are not free to steal or rape for a good cause, or because of your emotional state.
Absurd refers to the famous free speech case of Barnes V Glen Theatre, tee tee bar venue by name “kitty kat”
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/90-26
a decent case but the nude dancers really weren’t obscene then nor now in my humble opinion of course I’m a “liberal” on such matters lol
this comes from decades ago from POTUS candidate mayor pete’s hometown. maybe things have changed and they should restart the tee tee bars up again? would the gay mayor oppose that? an interesting thought experiment perhaps
i’ll tell you why. As Bork explained political speech is at the core of first amendment concerns, not sexual expression. And, “hate” is often just an adversary’s epithet for his opponent’s criticisms.
So criminalizing hate speech will just be a tool in the hands of one faction or another. We can see in Europe, it’s a tool in the hands of those who want it over-run by Muslim migrants. And that sentence itself is probably persecutable hate speech in Europe. Too bad I’m in flyover land America, tant pis, frogs!
The “you know it when you see it” standard is precisely what should NEVER be the law.
I oppose banning obscenity, and generally Powels I know it when I see it standard has failed. There is miminal effort to bar obsenity – even privately today.
I would further note that pretty much nothing the left calls “hate speech” is speech that I find “hateful”.
I do not like alot of what Trump says, or even more extreme Gavin McInnes. I do not agree with it,
It is wrong. It is also indistinguishable from the speech of AOC or Ibran, or myriads of democrats.
If you want “hate speech” today – most anything said by democrats or millenials qualifies.
We do not live in perfection – and never will. But we live in the least racist, sexist, mysogyinist moment in all of history, in the least racist sexist mysoginist country in the world – and yet listen to a democratic politiician or leader and you would think things are worse than Jim Crow.
When you are jumping up and down today ranting that most of the country is hateful, hating haters – the problem is NOT with most of the country – it is with you.
When the left is pummelling its own – the problem is not with the rest of us.
The font of hatred in the US today – at this moment in time is from the left.
That has not always been true. But it is very true RIGHT NOW.
If “I know hate speech when I see it” is the standard – most of the left posters here engage in hate speech.
Is there a Klansman posting here ? By the frothing and foaming on the left you would think 50% of the posts are from the KKK’s grand cyclops. Yet in the entire country today you can not get 6 people under KKK bedsheets at one time.
@jeffrey silberman
Let me guess, unpopular speech is violence and therefore needs to be controlled.
Opposing free speech by any means necessary is a form of free speech.
Violent actions by leftist radicals such as antifa should be held to a different standard because they are fighting for justice and good.
antonio
Did I say all that? I thought I just questioned whether Hate speech should be held to a different standard than Obscene speech- both terms are vague. But the fact that what constitutes obscenity is in the eye of the beholder did not prevent the Supreme Court from holding that society can draw a tailored Constitutional line even if we don’t always agree on precisely where it should be drawn.
The divisory line between obscenity and ordinary display does not prevent discussion of public issues. It prevents nude dancing at the Kitty Kat Lounge.
Again, the category ‘hate speech’ isn’t ‘vague’. It’s utter humbug. That’s because liberals define conservative speech as ‘hate’ and define liberal hate as ‘speech’ . You’re lousy people and cannot be allow do legally sanction normal people.
Can we ALL not agree that “Death to America” is hate speech? I do not contend that the speaker ought to be imprisoned or fined. Rather, such hate ought to be shunned by removing it from public forums. One is free to call for death to America with those who wish to hear it on a forum of their own.
No, we cannot agree on that. That sentiment is implicit in a great deal of political discourse. In any case, the people who utter such sentiments are not the people absent from university faculties, not the people who get fired from their jobs for having the wrong viewpoint, not the people being deplatformed on social media, not the people being harassed by lawfare artists.
Why not gin up a more elevated hobby than serial poseur.
hate speech is just your label for stuff you don’t like. i don’t like that but I don’t use that stupid label. you use it if you like jeff– however–
“Death to America” is well within protected speech boundaries
you might be surprised at some of the case law, when it’s social or political conflict, there is a very wide berth. One of our greatest freedoms!
Well, we know it’s protected speech in Iran.
Even encouraged😉.
it only prevented fully nude. pasties and gstrings were ok
i looked online and kitty kat’s closed now. i guess the zoning law had its intended effect
Maybe gay mayor pete can bring it back. but would they have to hire gay dudes to dance too, or else discrimination? trying to figure that out
What is astonishing is how many Americans are prepared to follow the European model in limiting free speech on the basis for loosely defined terms of threatening or intimidating or harassing anyone on the basis for race or religion or sexual orientation or other protected groups.
It’s not astonishing at all. You work in higher education. You’ve no excuse not knowing what your peers think and how they act. And ordinary Americans have little influence on public policy. The only sort who do are people in the social circle of elected officials. Such people are usually of the professional-managerial stratum, i.e. those most hostile to free speech.
La Bardot charged with hate speech against muslim immigrants
https://www.amren.com/news/2019/03/french-cinema-legend-brigitte-bardot-to-be-charged-with-hate-speech/
Does the Constitution protect anonymous free speech? Where does it say that? Our cherished freedoms are not a blanket permission for hedonism, anarchy, and deceitful infowarfare. There are responsibilities thrust on individuals and organizations in a free society — anonymity and identity fraud must be viewed with suspicion as attempts to eschew personal accountability.
Yes, I know how unpopular and/or misunderstood opinions can lead to unfair retaliations, such as job terminations and hiring discrimination. But, wouldn’t you rather work toward a solution where there is more tolerance and authenticity?….the other choice is more anonymity, intolerance and practical deceitfulness.
Take the issue of “doxing”, the unmasking of personal identity of someone whose viewpoint you might oppose, in order to unleash retaliations. Does the Constitution protect anonymous doxing as free expression?
When you begin to contemplate all the vicious, hateful forms of modern communication that may be put to the purpose of destroying a person’s integrity, security, character and reputation, from a protected perch when accountability can never be exacted on the attacker, you might consider the Constitution was conceived to provide for an orderly society peopled by citizens of good will and sound character.
Clearly, speech freedoms are being tested for limits necessitated by civility and tolerance. We already have traditional laws against libel and slander, and with new forms of electronic communication, should expect to erect minimal guardrails to place the same kind of accountability on those who use new media to libel and slander. One can immediately see that online anonymity undermines that goal. We don’t allow people to operate motor vehicles anonymously, because that would undo personal responsibility behind the wheel.
So, again, where does the Constitution favor anonymity over personal accountability in the realm of public discourse? It doesn’t.
That said, the French are going way beyond what is reasonably necessary in their loosey-goosey definition of hate speech (which they err in aligning solely with victim groups).
this was a good and interesting comment pbinca and you should look more into “section 230 safe harbors” if you want to learn more about interent liability for all kinds of problematic speech, from defamation to sex work advertising to terror related speech, you name it.
oh wait here let me get you started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
section 230 is worth protecting even against well meaning laws such as sesta and fosta
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/23/17237640/fosta-sesta-section-230-internet-freedom
Yes, the constitution protects anonymous speech.
ACLU vs. Miller
Do you know anything about our history/Constitution? Obviously not! Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and on and on and on ALL published anonymously. The willful ignorance of the left is only matched by it’s arrogance. This is why I left the left.
Ivan, very true but those people published under a pseudonym so that one could follow their train of thought and distinguish one person’s ideas from another.
Not Paine. He just didn’t want to be killed for his thoughts.
I appreciate and applaud the Professor’s fidelity to ‘free speech’, but to date I note that he limits his vision of free speech to certain areas while one of the biggest dangers to such free speech our own country is Google et al.
The Professor ought to go to: https://www.projectveritas.com/video/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
This video that reveals how Google is violating the trust given to it by Congress by violating the freedom of speech of those that disagree with the left or Google. This video which is pure news was removed from the Google platform and elsewhere so that the American people may not be aware of the evidence against Google.
Be forwarned that the video might start slowly but the topic and information should scare the pants out of every intelligent being on this blog. Elizabeth Warren to her credit is looking into this situation for she sees the dangers of such violations to freedom of speech. Bernie Sanders supporters should be looking closely because he is rightfully concerned about our largest companies having too much control over government policy. Biden supporters should take note because regarding suppression of free speech he said “Liberals have very short memories. I mean that sincerely.”
We are either for free speech or against it. Take your pick but remember the environment we live in is cyclical so that in the future everyone’s right to free speech is in jeopardy.
i agree. google is a private company but when it’s acting as a gatekeeper on so much public infrastructure (the internet) it essentially becomes a utility that must not be allowed to pick and chose who can use its services.
if you allow that then you may soon find the utilities cutting your water and gas and heat off because the clique that runs them doesnt like you!
I have been advocating suit of Google for years to bring this problem front and center. It is one of the most dangerous problems we face.
In deposition let Google prove they are only a platform and not editing the news sources.
of course they can’t prove any such thing because it’s inherent to the design of their algorithms that they curate results. …. it’s even inherent in something as objective as the “dewey decimal system”
there is a theoretical computer engineering problem in this: how to eliminate bias, when the algorithm’s whole reason for existence is to reveal the collective “biases” of users?
but we don’t need to disentangle that at the engineering level. it’s enough to hope that better scales can be designed even if people are involved in producing, selling, and zeroing them
The solution is simple – File a lawsuit against Google for defamation,.
When they try to use Section 230 safe harbor provisions to dismiss the suit,
you will be entitled to discovery to demonstrate that they are NOT a neutral public platform.
Then they are subject to the same defamation claims for what they publish as WaPo or NYT or more recently Oberlin College.
I do not think Congress needs to act.
I do not think anything needs to be changed.
I just think that Google and the rest of social media needs to learn:
As a private company they are free to censor as they please, but when they do so they take legal responsibility for what they do NOT censor.
I also think those of us offended by private censorship should vote with our feet.
Ultimately the “kneeling before football games” issue was resolved – by and in favor of fans. Kapernick is free to do as he pleases. Owners are free to do as they please, and fans are free to do as they please.
In the end Football came to grasp that they are dependent on and must respect the views of their fans. Had fans broadly supported Kapernick, the matter would have been resolved the other way.
That is how things should work.
Watch Football, Don’t. Eat at Chick-a-filet, Don’t, use Google products, Don’t.
We are in control, so long as we choose to be.
And it only takes a small number of us motivate Googles Shareholders to tell Google to get out of the political censorship business.
Bullpucky! Google, Facebook et al. are PRIVATE PROPERTY and Congress has NO constitutional power to POSSESS of DISPOSE OF or CLAIM or EXERCISE DOMINION OVER any aspect of private property. Under American freedom, free market competition is the method of resolution. Congress may, however, TAKE Google, Facebook et al. for the public good through Eminent Domain after compensating the owners at market value. Somehow American FREEDOM is difficult for some people to grasp. Other than the enumerated regulation of trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…,” private property cannot be regulated, manipulated or possessed by Congress – that’s the nature of the word private. Citizens may petition government for redress to no avail, in most cases, because regulation is unconstitutional. Resolution must be obtained by litigation in the courts provided by the Constitution. Litigation not Regulation. The concept means that individual Americans are free from Congressional, legislative or government control in any way. It matters not how moral or good citizens or Congress think a particular effort or result is. Goodness and morality are not mandated by the Constitution. America persists on the concept of Separation of Church and State which could be presented as Separation of Morality/Etiquette/Manners and State. People themselves decide whom they accept or reject, what they buy or not, whom they live with, hire, fire, matriculate, socialize with, assemble with, allow into their neighborhood or business, etc., because private property means private property. The people were provided maximal freedom and Congress was severely limited and restricted by the Constitution. Private means absolutely private and absolutely not public.
Communists don’t get that. Communists don’t get the concept of American freedom.
“Bullpucky! Google, Facebook et al. are PRIVATE PROPERTY and Congress has NO constitutional power to POSSESS of DISPOSE OF or CLAIM or EXERCISE DOMINION OVER any aspect of private property.”
George, I will copy the same answer I gave to Jim22 to you:
George, yes, they are a private company but have been provided by Congress with special privileges. Those special priviledges should immediately be revoked or suspended until Google proves it is not abusing the reason they were granted. If they don’t wish to moderate their practices then other companies should be permitted to enter the field with those special priviledges as long as they do not abuse them in the fashion Google has done. That would provide a competitive source of competition.
In the meantime Google may be compromising American security with their efforts to expand across the globe. Compromising American security is something that has to be carefully looked into. We forbid or restrict the sale of certain weapons, biologic agents etc. to certain nations for American security. I don’t see the difference when it comes to some of Google’s IP since we already restrict certain IP from being released.
All that you said is fraudulently contrived and unconstitutional.
You have not recognized or acknowledge private property or the nature of private property.
Private property is private property.
Private property is NOT public property.
Congress has no authority to legislate against any aspect or any characteristic of private property.
The model you follow is that of the Communist Manifesto.
Please cite the Constitution where Congress has any authority to modify the freedom and free enterprise of Americans.
The SOLE enumerated power to regulate is that of “…commerce among the several States.”
Congress has no constitutional power to regulate industries which are private property and comprised of private property.
Industries must decide to self-regulate or not.
The recourse for citizens is litigation.
Congress has no enumerated power to regulate private property and private enterprise.
Congress has no enumerated power to possess or dispose of private property.
Have you read the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
“Congress has no authority to legislate against any aspect or any characteristic of private property.”
George if you would spend less time blustering and more time reading and thinking you would recognize that Congress legislated certain favors to Google. That gets us to the first point you missed. Did Congress have the right to grant Google the priviledge they did? If you say no then read what I said “Those special priviledges should immediately be revoked”. Then consider if you agreed with those priviledges and Google used them wrongfully meaning the Congress was aiding the illegal use of powers granted.
Now George, start the reading and thinking process.
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
There are SEVERAL requirements for a government taking.
The first which you note – is just compensation.
But you MISS “for public use” and all that means.
“public use” is NOT anything that might benefit the public.
Though a public benefit is absolutely required.
You can not take a persons property and just give it to another person – even if you compensate them for it.
A public use would be something that government is otherwise empowered to do.
Nowhere in the constitution can I see the government being granted the power to run or own a social media company.
If you are going to take the constitution as it is written, you can not play the same games with reading it that the left does.
dhlii,
What part of “public” do you not understand?
Surely you grasp “use.”
____________________________________
Merriam Webster
public
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state public law
2c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3a : of or relating to people in general
______________________________
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
or
private property shall be taken for public use with just compensation.
______________________________________________________
I care not what justices, courts, politicians or professionals say.
I quote what the Constitution says which is ALL that matters and bears.
THE LAW
Congress may demonstrate the mass use by the public and the absence of possible or viable competition, take the private property, provide the service through a state-regulated monopoly and justly compensate the owner(s).
Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. have no substantive competition and are required for daily use by the public much as roads, electricity, water, trash pick-up, sewer, the mails, etc. are.
The situation is not dissimilar to Lipitor by Pfizer. The patent for Lipitor expired by law and became public for public use and/or the “…general Welfare.”
___________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
France has lead the pack not emerged. It has lead the pack for decades.
The French state was locking up dissident professors and allowing ANTIFA or one of its froggish predecessors to beat them up with impunity long ago. See Robert Faurisson
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/obituaries/robert-faurisson-dead.html
yes yes professor Faurisson was a holocaust denier. but normally in Western “Free speech” regimes one has the right to be wrong. well. Not France I guess. and we see where the Groupthink has gotten them.
Free speech comes from the barrel of a gun. The second amendment is the guarantor of all our rights. That’s the lesson.
Mao understood this and so did you Ivan
And that is the great danger here.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
There are not many things that people will kill or sacrifice their own lives for.
Freedom is one of those.
The greater threat to freedom that the left becomes, either through advancing the threat to liberty from government (aka FORCE), or through direct force – such as Antifa, the more justified violence in response becomes.
Today the threat of force and violence comes almost exclusively from the left.
But when things breakdown – as they are increasingly likely to, violence by any of us will become justified.
That is precisely what the declaration of independence was for,
describing the circumstances in which the violent overthrow of our oppressors is justified.
yes the declaration was to justify the cause once it was decided, and deemed feasible, and to act as an employment solicitation for would be soldiers of the Continental army
however if people think that those stated reasons were the motivations, they are naive. our war of independence was no more engineered by angels than any other. they wanted to be the new bosses and they acted to make it happen, successfully.
The founding fathers understood this. I disagree with Mao who said that “political power” flows from the gun. “Political power” should flow from the mouth, but in order for this to be so we need to go back to our founding when we only had 25,000 citizens per representative.
Leftism opposes free speech.
If we don’t vote against Leftism, we will lost our Constitutional freedoms. We’ve all seen how this has played out. History is repeating itself.
I’m afraid to comment. Might get arrested. Maybe I’ve said too much already.
🙂
Our Pinko politicians aren’t far behind. And our liberal universities and colleges are trying to impose their own versions.
Like throwing a boomerang, you have to be careful; I suspect our censorship proponents will learn this lesson.
Unfortunately we will have to endure a degradation of American values while this lesson is relearned.
No great civilization is immune to internal rot and decay. Every one of them throughout antiquity has fallen. The United States is not immune. If voters work for her ruin, they will get it.