The Death Of Free Speech: Zuckerberg Asks Governments For Instructions On “What Discourse Should Be Allowed”

I have written for years on the effort of European countries to expand their crackdown on free speech globally through restrictions on social media and Internet speech. It appears that Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has relented in what may prove the death knell for free speech in the West. Zuckerberg seems to relent in asking governments for regulations stipulating what speech will be permitted on Facebook and other platforms. It is the ultimate victory of France, Germany, and England in their continuing attack on free expression though hate speech laws and speech regulation.

Zuckerberg told an assembly of Western leaders Saturday at the Munich Security Conference that “There should be more guidance and regulation from the states on basically — take political advertising as an example — what discourse should be allowed?” He did add: “Or, on the balance of free expression and some things that people call harmful expression, where do you draw the line?” The problem is that his comments were received as accepting that government will now dictate the range of free speech. What is missing is the bright line rule long maintained by the free speech community.

As tragically demonstrated in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, speech regulations inevitably expand with time. The desire to silence one’s critics becomes insatiable for both governments and individuals.

Zuckerberg is facing great pressure, including from Democratic leaders in the United States, to regulate political speech and he seems to be moving away from the bright-line position against such regulation as a principle. Instead, he is accepting the fluid concept of “balanced” regulations that has always preceded expanding speech codes and criminalization:

“There are a lot of decisions in these areas that are really just balances between different social values. It’s about coming up with an answer that society feels is legitimate and that they can get behind and understand that you drew the line here on the balance of free expression and safety. It’s not just that there’s one right answer. People need to feel like, ‘OK, enough people weighed in, and that’s why the answer should be this, and we can get behind that.’”

126 thoughts on “The Death Of Free Speech: Zuckerberg Asks Governments For Instructions On “What Discourse Should Be Allowed””

  1. I WANT people to feel free to say what’s in their hearts and minds – just so I know what I’m dealing with.

    Banning “hate” speech doesn’t eliminate hate. It just encourages people to express themselves in worse ways.

    1. “Banning “hate” speech doesn’t eliminate hate. It just encourages people to express themselves in worse ways.”

      Banning speech gives government more power than government deserves to have and it creates winners and losers.

  2. if the question is one of what threatening speech is actually illegal, the law is a way wider breadth of speech than most people realize

    let’s take a look at an example, because threatening speech is actually the most intensely censored form of speech, followed by “Racism,” ….. of course in the old days obscenity was censored too, but now that’s free for everyone to fetch up off the internet including any underage child with a cell phone

    WATTS V. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
    Argued: N/ADecided: April 21, 1969Decided by: Warren Court, 1968
    Legal Principle at Issue: Did petitioner’s statement warrant prosecution under a statute criminalizing threats against the President of the United States, or were his statement protected under the First Amendment?Action: Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

    Facts/Syllabus:
    Watts was convicted of violating a 1917 statute prohibiting any person from “knowingly and willfully … [making] any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States”. During a public rally near the Washington Monument, Watts, 18, joined a small group of fellow teens and adolescents to discuss police brutality. He told the others he had been drafted and had to report the following Monday. He reportedly said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” He added, “They are not going to make me kill my black brothers.” A jury found Watts had committed a felony by knowingly and willfully threatening the President. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed by a two-to-one vote.
    Importance of Case:
    The petitioner’s speech was at most a crude statement of political opposition to the President and did not amount to a threat. A statute criminalizing speech must be weighed against the First Amendment and speech that is truly a threat must be distinguished from protected speech.

    https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/watts-v-united-states/

    1. in this first sentence seems pretty valid

      “There are a lot of decisions in these areas that are really just balances between different social values. ”

      in terms of setting AI protocols on what to censor, which is precisely the difficulty in the forum model of FB, this probably describes the programming difficulty pretty well.

      the second sentence:

      “It’s about coming up with an answer that society feels is legitimate”

      that’s where the sucking up is. Because of course “SOCIETY’ always means what the “Experts” in academia and the mass media say and we petty nobodies don’t know what’s good for us such as they presume to know

  3. Great. So does Facebook now cooperate with authoritarian regimes to identify its users who criticize their government for imprisonment, torture, or execution?

    Perhaps FB should not operate in countries that have laws against free speech. If a country wants FB to be offered to its citizens, then FB should be free.

    We are a shining example to the rest of the world of the most robust free speech freedoms in existence. And yet, there is a spoiled new generation without any concept of what they have been given. They want to throw it all away, thinking it will “protect” them from the “violence” of hearing ideas they disagree with. Fools. They will doom us all to tyranny.

    1. “Great. So does Facebook now cooperate with authoritarian regimes ”

      Apparently many of our large tech companies have cooperated with China which is not only an authoritarian regime but also an ‘enemy’ of the US. Some provide the authoritarian Chinese government with things they refuse to provide to the American government. Even Bloomberg has signicant Chinese ties and statements that likely won’t be liked in his election campaign.

        1. Guess they needed a platform that was integrated with their social scoring system. Only good little Communists get to fly on airplanes or get jobs.

          1. they have AI censorship protocols for us here in the USA over a year now since some horrible crime was live-cast, if i recall correctly

            the accommodations they were negotiating with the PRC have been ongoing over many years, I am not up on them, there’s lots of info on the net about that however if you’re interested

            at least the Chicoms are honest about their censorship and do it in the open instead of being a bunch of weasels about it pretending they’re all for free speech when they aren’t.

            1. “at least the Chicoms are honest about their censorship”

              Such honesty need not be given any reward of any kind.

  4. This is the most un-American stance by Zuckerberg. That any lawyer or public servant would rise up against this breach of our 1st amendment is unconscionable. Let this happen and we become a 3rd rate dictatorship.

    1. The armies of lawyers employed by Silicon Valley could care less about who’s writing their paycheck or what they want

      Why for example is porn now available to any child with a cellphone?

      Not because of the mafia, not because of slimy porn film execs, not even the ACLU. Actually, it’s because the CEOs of Silicon Valley want to make sure they have a right to monetize the titanic amount of porn traffic on the net and their armies of lawyers make sure they can keep it that way.

      problems like kids watching disgusting and obscene sex acts are now tacitly considered the parents’ problem. the bigger issue is making money. and again, I’m not talking about the losers and pikers taping porn…. i mean guys like Google’s CEO who makes the real money off of it.

      ——————————————–

      guess what, there’s a funny thing about the PRC China, obscenity is totally illegal on the net,
      and they actually mean business on this.

      the lgbtq rights author of this article says they’re very dastardly censors

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/29/chinas-pornography-laws-are-backdoor-censorship

      but you an be sure he would be willing to censor anybody who says homosexual is bad…. which insight kind of takes you back to what Zuckerberg said in the first sentence of his quote.

  5. Hate speech promoted the Nazi Party into power and was part of the Holocaust. Head em up, roll em out. We outlawed hate speech in Germany’s after we won and took some control. Some species of humans are not capable of having free speech.
    Heil Hitler! That still should be outlawed in Germany.

    1. If you believe in liberty then you must let everyone speak and be heard. There is no freedom more basic that freedom of speech. If you can’t come up with arguments that are more persuasive than the arguments made by Nazis, you should become a Nazi.

      1. We had the German American Bund here in America in the years leading up to WWII. They had free speech and marched the streets. They went underground when the war began.
        Ocasio Cortas speaks of wiping out Israel. She sits in Congress.
        Achtung!

    2. “Hate speech promoted the Nazi Party into power and was part of the Holocaust.”

      It wasn’t the hate speech as much as the lack of free speech from others. Those who objected were killed and free speech was eliminated.

      We see that cropping up among leftists in the US though in a more subdued way, violence, not murder. They are wannabe Nazi’s sometimes supported by local governments.

      1. That’s the guy who used to post under the moniker ‘Jack Ruby’. He’s trolling you.

        It wasn’t any sort of ‘speech’ that propelled the Nazi Party into power. It was serial policy failures by Germany’s political establishment which accomplished that.

        1. DSS, I don’t remember a Jack Ruby alias. In the end there was unrest of too many people and incompetent leadership providing power to the Nazi’s whose power was augmented by a lack of free speech. I don’t think Liberty is trolling in this case. I think he lacks understanding of the subject matter.

          There are so many aliases on the blog it is almost impossible to keep track. Changing ones alias without letting others know only permits people to repeat stupid comments that they couldn’t defend in a prior alias. Being anonymous permits them to confuse their stupid remarks with other stupid remarks and there is no reason to do that with an infinite number of individual aliases exists.

    3. it is outlawed and for decades there have been around 10-50 people or so locked up at any given time in Germany for Roman salutes or NS outburts in public

      the irony is lost on the German mind, that banning Nazi speech is so very like nazis. thus your joke

      1. the nazis were fighting in the streets with communists who wanted to eliminate a lot more than just freedom of expression. they wanted to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and eliminate private property and eliminate the lives of their adversaries

        the nazis met them in the streets while the Weimar government twiddled its thumbs, and the nazis earned the admiration of a large plurality of normal people who were scared out of their wits by riots and the disastrous maladministration of the Weimar Republic

        it used to be this is what history teachers taught as insight. now i say this and I’m called a neonazi sometimes. well, that’s just a slander. but understand when you are dealing with a bunch of communists, guys, they don’t fight fair

        zuckerberg is no nazi. neither is he a communist. he is a capitalist. he like nearly every other billionaire wants to tweak the system of liberal democracy and make it more stable so he can keep on raking in the money. to see him as Left or Right is to miss the point of his actions.

        billionaires however do not all think alike. Some want to tweak it towards globalization and a model of the European social welfare state model (Soros) and some want to tweak it another way. Trump, sees a greater prosperity and stability potential in a higher degree of nationalism. The billionaires occasionally decide to go to war with each other and then things get hotter and hotter.

        But after 3 years of modest success, its more than just Trump who is seeing things his way. Globalization is in the hospital, critical. Nationalism is ascendant. The trend is masked by the lying press, but it is real.

  6. It would seem that as long as we believe in the free market, this threat should resolve itself. Facebook is free to censor how they would like and would most likely reap the cost of doing so and hopefully give birth to a new social media site that does not censor. When the govt. steps in, that is when we need to grab the pitchforks.

    1. Two problems with ‘muh market’:

      1. What economists call ‘networking effects’ have manufactured an effective monopoly in modes of digital transmission.

      2. These firms have legal privileges which exempt them from liability that attaches to publishers.

    2. “hopefully give birth to a new social media site that does not censor”

      There are probably plenty out there already, so what’s the problem? Instead of complaining about the death of free speech in the west, Turley should promote one of them, or just build his own social media platform. No biggie. The LAST thing we want is for the government to require that Facebook be content neutral. In that case the government would actually be protecting our freedom, which, as every libertarian knows, is a logical absurdity.

      1. There are probably plenty out there already, s

        There aren’t. The one competitor they had was MySpace, which withered away for some reason.

        1. Myspace is still open for business. Also, have you checked the “dark web”? Besides, if none existed, a handful of smart libertarians like yourself could take a month off from commenting and build one.

        2. You’re out of touch. Kids are rapidly fleeing FB, considering it to be the domain of nosy/annoying old family members. There are more social media sites than ever, you just don’t know about them, apparently.

        3. Gab is the place where a lot of socalled right wingers went when they were offlined by youtube

          Gab had a throng of socalled racists in the mix

          Then Charlottesville and Gab knuckled and cut them out too

          the most disgusting forms of sexual conduct imaginable, from simulated rape, necrophilia, zoophilia and scat, can be obtained by any kid with a cellphone, but “society” has to go to great lengths to stop them from thinking that people should stick with their own kind. roll this over in your head folks long enough and you will see that where we are with “First amendment free Speech” has departed from all sanity

          Bork said the core interest of free speech is protecting POLITICAL speech. How right he was. And departing from that insight has lead us to where political speech is on the chopping block first. And the rest of it is all buried under a mound of ever expanding filth and inanity

          I submit that it’s less sexually harmful to legalize sex work between consenting adults than it is to continue to allow the sexualization and attention-deficit conditioning of the youth which is increasing under the current regime of free and easy access to porn for all.

          again, there are financial interests at stake. the oldest paid work in the world, has got to be illegal for some reason, but endless visual depictions of it are “Free speech”

          https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/why-is-pornography-legal-and-prostitution-is-not-31164

          we descend ever more into a simulacrum of life rather than living it

      2. Yyy, Once again DSS has responded and I agree but would like to add an additional problem. Companies that are faced with competition and have huge wealth can completely buy out any promising competitors totally extinguishing the philosophy of the company being bought out.

    3. Jim22, DSS already responded to some of my concerns. Broadening the issue, when a monopoly exists inhibiting free speech and government steps in to supply that monopoly with guidelines it is doubtful that would be the impetus to ” give birth to a new social media site that does not censor.”

      How does one start a business under such conditions and if one is able how can one expand to compete with the favorable circumstances the government will give to the opposition? Think of Fascism.

  7. What you’re forgetting about this is that the source of the problem is all around you, professor. ‘Free speech’ is a right which – see Robert Bork – ‘derives from democratic processes’. It presumes you have a body of citizens that deliberates over public policy. Academics and lawyers do not believe we live in such a society. They believe free speech is for peers, and the rest of us are not entitled to it.

        1. In a great many venues, it doesn’t exist at all, nor should it.

          Natural rights always exist. The issue is the degree, if any, that rights have been disabled.

          1. there is a natural law i believe, which is God’s will, infer-able from the order of the cosmos, which indicates some ideals for human law. from this you can see for example that murder and theft are nearly always unlawful. but the termination of rights in the governed, is inherent to the action of laws.

            but, in general, the idea of natural rights is like human rights, it’s so hard to define that it’s most often just a plastic goo in the hands of clever propagandists. i don’t throw these notions out altogether, but when I hear them invoked, I tend to put my hand over my back pocket and make sure my wallet is still there, because there are pickpockets afoot

            1. but, in general, the idea of natural rights is like human rights, it’s so hard to define that it’s most often just a plastic goo in the hands of clever propagandists.

              From what I’ve seen, it’s not so much that they are hard to define, it’s that many, many people have been convinced they cannot be unalienable (not natural) because the government can take them away.

              1. Well Olly I guess I am one of those “convinced”

                In practice, I don’t know what inalienable means. inalienable is supposed to mean:

                “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor”

                Is there any such right at all?

                So if the government CAN alienate it, then it’s alienable.
                In practice the government can take away 100% of your rights just by execution, so, all rights are thus alienable.

                I think Tom Jeff flew on a lot of flights of fancy and fiction, and we have swallowed them as credulously as a child hopping on Santa Claus’ lap at the mall

                1. In practice, I don’t know what inalienable means. inalienable is supposed to mean:

                  “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor”

                  Is there any such right at all?

                  Mr. Kurtz,
                  I understand what you’re saying and I struggled with it as well. I spent quite a bit of time researching this and in my opinion, it is best understood by piecing together the sources used by the framers and analyzing the events that led up to the DoI. That document is an abstract of those sources and events. If we don’t study them, then we lose the context of the DoI. Without the context, the self-evident truths are not so self-evident. Without the context, then created equal doesn’t feel right coming from a slave owner; unalienable rights doesn’t make sense when those rights are being alienated. I reference Bastiat’s The Law because that writing is a deeper dive into the context behind the DoI without going deeper into actually reading Locke, Hobbes, Cicero, Aristotle, etc.

            2. The Constitution mentioned a few rights and freedoms.

              The 9th Amendment provides the rest.

              Natural and God-given rights and freedoms are those that people enjoy in the absence of tyrannical and oppressive dictatorship.

              Under the Constitution, the People are maximally free and government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that freedom through the provision of security and infrastructure.
              _________________________________________________

              9th Amendment

              The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      1. Jim22, free speech might be inalienable but whereas under your definition free speech cannot be taken or given away the person exercising such free speech can.

        1. every right is alienable. meaning, it can be taken away. I still don’t understand this little piece of propaganda work by Tom Jeff. the older i get the less sense it makes.

          1. Kurtz, Thomas Jefferson is nowhere near perfect but the use of the word unalienable rights (Jefferson though today the word is inalienable) is perfect in my mind. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” These rights were provided by our creator rather than a king (a man). If those rights were created by a man they could be taken away forever. If created by a creator or God they might seem to temporarily disappear but those unalienable rights remain and that prompts man to recognize the limitations of other men whether they be kings or dictators.

      2. no, every right is alienable including speech.

        people can talk yes but its in the very nature of government that there is a system of laws which curtails some range of human action

        libertarians are befuddled by their own BS. i should know, i labored under the misconceptions in my youth, which is by now definitely over.

        1. Yes, we can be alienated from our natural rights. That does not mean we lose ownership of them. Whatever rights we have in the state of nature are ours when we enter civil society. Individually, we use force to secure our natural rights. When we enter civil society, we agree that a common force (the law) is to secure for us collectively that which we have a natural right to individually. Civil society enables government to do specific things to secure those rights better than we could do for ourselves in the state of nature. Everything we artificially enable government to do, disables what we naturally can do. Bastiat has a very good explanation for this:
          The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

          1. Olly I am familiar with Bastiat’s short and worthy book “the law”
            it mirrors John Locke and and certainly is a shared idea behind a lot of American political theory.

            it is sometimes referred to as “social compact” theory

            A few decades ago I read every book by Jack London and began to see things in a different light. Not just Call of the Wild and White Fang, but the short stories, Sea Wolf, and Iron Heel.

            In my view since ancient times the state has been constructed not upon what men could gain from organizing government, but upon the essential distinction between “us and them”

            this is why i nearly every day refer to Carl Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political”

            Enlightenment notions will not bring victory in this struggle. We are not dealing with people who respect individual rights. Karl Marx destroyed the Enlightenment fancy of the social compact. He identified group interests and resource competition as a fundamental factor in social and political organization.

            With this valid insight, Marx smashed the “social compact”

            Smashed it with a hammer, the likes of which we saw in the Soviet flag. And they reaped the lives of their adversaries with the sickle. That lesson lingers in the minds of all those who are collectively called the “Left” and that certainly includes the “moderates” like Hillary or Pete Butt, whose father was a professorial chronicler of the Italian Communist Gramsci.

            Dealing with this situation will require an understanding that we are in a low intensity conflict, essentially, an incipient civil war. the side which rushes to understand and organize based on that fact will have the advantage. Enlightenment era style thinking actually stands in the way.

            1. Enlightenment notions will not bring victory in this struggle.

              I disagree. Only Enlightenment notions will bring victory. The question is to what degree will we have to struggle for enlightenment to be acquired?

              Jefferson describes this phenomenon in the DoI. This section describes why we struggle and the 27 grievances listed is the evidence of that struggle.

              Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

              We have accumulated grievances not dissimilar to those in the DoI, but not enough to overcome the political divide. That divide benefits only the government, under the illusion your side is not losing rights and their side is not taking your rights. The truth is citizens on both sides are losing power and the government is gaining.

              Dealing with this situation will require an understanding that we are in a low intensity conflict, essentially, an incipient civil war.

              It’s always low intensity until people have had enough. That period leading up to the war for independence is an example of that. Same with our Civil War. Same with what we’re struggling with today. It’s the idea that a housed divided against itself cannot stand. We will reset. Enlightenment will happen. The question is whether it will be done peacefully or not.

    1. There’s that too. Alan Dershowitz came of age 60 years ago when the left was left pretentious and had a vigorous interest in policy and in argument over policy. His frustration is derived from the evaporation of that culture. You can read what Natacha says, what Gainesville says, what Paint Chips says, and what the snotnoses say and see what lefoid culture is today. It isn’t pretty.

  8. Who, exactly, does what you write? I do not know any “conservatives” who do what you describe. I want to know who they are so that I might challenge them. But without more information, I cannot do this directly to the source. Thank you. I await your list.

    1. People are no more likely to walk away from Facebook or any other internet media, than any of the regular users on this blog will limit themselves to posting 1 comment a day, and then lead productive lives off of the internet.

      I just exited a staff meeting where we discussed the escalating anxiety that university students present to us in clinic, their lack of interpersonal skills to interact with their peers (and faculty) and their dependence on the internet to create fictitious relationships and hence deficient lives

      Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pyramid comes to mind

      https://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0495570540_162121.pdf

      1. “I just exited a staff meeting where we discussed the escalating anxiety that university students present to us in clinic, their lack of interpersonal skills to interact with their peers (and faculty) and their dependence on the internet to create fictitious relationships and hence deficient lives”

        Which comes first the nanny state/ community or Internet community? If students were more aware of having to be independent they would rely lesson on the Internet community. I think we have made the University into a babysitting community for all too many.

      2. I’ll concede that nearly all of those users on Facebook, who aren’t bots, will just cave in to the familiarity of FB and not try other media. Your observation of this is correct. But if people don’t want to stand up for themselves and suffer censorship and forced submission into a term of service they strongly disagree–well–I can’t say I feel any sympathy for them. If as you point out they are among those students who lead hollow existences due to relying on avatars on the internet to provide them with meaning in life, we can show them some alternatives such as, oh I don’t know, reality, and encourage them to get out and develop actual interpersonal friendships they might find it a preferable existence. If they instead abandon reality and wish to remain in their fake realm of platitudes/rage harvesting online they will just be bits and bytes to be deleted when the computer is shut off for the night.

    2. I am not sure of the American trend regarding Facebook. I only go to it when I am trying to verify something and don’t use my name. I don’t like Facebook as it opens people especially families with children active on Facebook to reveal things better not revealed to the world. Example ‘All of us are going on vacation for 3 weeks’ which opens the door to criminal activity. We all know what happens when Facebook is used to evaluate us for jobs or some others which can then attach some meat in their libels.

    3. There is a social media app called MeWe that touts has this list of user rights:

      – You own your personal information & content. It is explicitly not ours.
      – You never receive targeted third-party advertisements or targeted third-party content. We think that’s creepy.
      – You have full control over your newsfeed and the order of how posts appear.
      – We do not manipulate, filter, or change the order of your newsfeeds. Only you can do that.
      – Permissions & privacy are your rights. You control them.
      – You control who can access your content.
      – You can opt out of our member directory to protect your privacy.
      – We do not sell your personal information to anyone.
      – Your face is your business. We do not use facial recognition technology.
      – You have the right to delete your account and take your content with you at any time.

      1. sounds great but they will not make nough money to endure

        people are willing to trade away privacy for FREE STUFF every day of the week

        FREE STUFF is paid for by ….. advertisers

        1. people are willing to trade away privacy for FREE STUFF every day of the week

          For sure. Eventually willing becomes forced and the bill comes due.

      2. I haven’t heard of them but this information does appear promising. Unfortunately for me, I can no longer believe anything that is promised by an Internet outfit as far as privacy and content ownership. Most would be better off if they could achieve a basic understanding of website management, domain hosting and registration: Sticking to the basics eliminates nearly all of the bs forced upon users who own their own internet domain and server.

        1. Unfortunately for me, I can no longer believe anything that is promised by an Internet outfit as far as privacy and content ownership.

          Agreed. They’re all suspect.

    4. i used if for nearly a year over a decade ago and decided it was just a big waste of time

      at least wasting time here I can learn something

    5. It’s useful for keeping track of your relatives and quondam co-workers, provided they’ve joined. And, of course, for the cat videos. On our list, very few people give TMI, though the number is not zero. (Memo to Lisa: that you purchased emergency contraception for your 16 year old son and whomever to use is not something we needed to know). Some people put out clutter: pictures of kitchen utensils, ‘inspirational’ blather, &c. (HL Mencken once said “I write in order to attain that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved which a cow enjoys on giving milk”; girls are like that regarding the use of words). Some, nearly all Democrats, insist on regaling you with their thoughts (if that’s what they can be called) on the issues of the day. It has persuaded me that most Democrats think in slogans and memes, and fancy that you’ve demonstrated a point when you’ve retailed something that sounds like it was dreamed up by a mediocre comic.

      1. i am on the insta and it’s kind of like that but less time consuming

        it’s a big disappointment that some creative people who may present interesting photographs or different mixed media collages, also feel the need to bloviate their stupid woke nonsense. that is indeed a trait which seems stronger in the female sex

        some of these people never had a firm authority figure in their life to give them the good advice “if you have something worthy to contribute do so, otherwise, STFU!”

  9. Zuckerberg cares about one thing Zuckerberg. It’s hilarious when “conservatives” bemoan the death of free speech when they whole heartily support stoping scientist from using certain words in reports on weather or sea rise and force doctors to remain silent about women’s health issues including contraception and abortion while in the same breath forcing them to pass on questionable “information” and have no problem with ads by environmental and other groups being blocked.

    I’m against censorship and hypocrisy. I’m also against lying.

    1. bemoan the death of free speech when they whole heartily support stoping scientist from using certain words in reports on weather or sea rise and force doctors to remain silent about women’s health issues

      1. Yes, government employees are expected to support government policy, and policy is set by elected officials.

      2. ‘Women’s health issues’ is libtardspeak for ‘promotion of abortion’. And, no, decent people don’t want people with professional licenses to promote criminal activity. If you check your state penal code you’ll find a proscription which corresponds to what is called ‘criminal solicitation’ in New York.

    2. What conservatives are trying to prohibit any doctor from saying anything? Are you confusing “force doctors to remain silent” with disagreeing with their position?

      Doctors around the country have spoken out both for, and against, abortion. I don’t see anyone going to prison for it.

Leave a Reply