Below is my column in The Hill on calls for increased censorship on the Internet and social media due to the pandemic. While academics are writing that “China was . . . right”, China was celebrating World Press Day by sentencing journalist Chen Jieren to 15 years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble, extortion, illegal business operations and bribery.” It is an ironic moment to herald China’s censorship of the media when the evidence mounts that China concealed and censored information on the virus outbreak in January.
Here is the column:
Almost everywhere you turn today, politicians are telling the public to “get used to the new normal” after the pandemic. For some people, this means public health precautions from social distancing to banning handshakes. Others have quickly added long standing dreams for everything from the guaranteed basic income advocated by Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, which was also recently raised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to mailed voting elections advocated by many Democrats.
The most chilling suggestion, however, comes from the politicians and academics who have called for the censorship of social media and the internet. The only thing spreading faster than the coronavirus has been censorship and the loud calls for greater restrictions on free speech. The Atlantic published an article last week by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet. While Goldsmith and Keane are obviously not calling for authoritarian abuse, they are advocating control over the Internet to regulate speech — crossing the Rubicon from free speech to censorship models.
They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” and “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”
The justification for that is the danger of “fake news” about coronavirus risks and cures. Yet this is only the latest rationalization for rolling back free speech rights. For years, Democratic leaders in Congress called for censorship of “fake news” on social media sites. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all engaged in increasing levels of censorship and have a well known reputation for targeting conservative speech.
Hillary Clinton has demanded that political speech be regulated to avoid the “manipulation of information” and stated that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg “should pay a price for what he is doing to our democracy” by refusing to take down opposition postings. In Europe, free speech rights are in a free fall, and countries such as France and Germany are imposing legal penalties designed to censor speech across the world.
Many of us in the free speech community have warned of the growing insatiable appetite for censorship in the West. We have been losing the fight, and free speech opponents are now capitalizing on the opportunity presented by the pandemic. Representative Adam Schiff sent a message to the heads of Google, Twitter, and YouTube demanding censorship of anything deemed “misinformation” and “false information.” Schiff told the companies that they needed “to remove or limit content” and that, “while taking down harmful misinformation is a crucial step”, they also needed to educate “those users who accessed it” by making available the true facts.
YouTube did just that by removing two videos of California doctors who called for the easing of state lockdown orders. The doctors argued that the coronavirus is not as dangerous as suggested and that some deaths associated with the disease are actually not accurate. There is certainly ample reason to contest their views but, instead, YouTube banned the videos to keep others from reaching their own conclusions.
Facebook will not only remove posts it considers misinformation about the coronavirus but will issue warnings to those who “like” such postings. Facebook said that it wants to protect people from dangerous remedies and false data. Ironically, the World Health Organization praised Sweden for its rejection of the very restrictions criticized by the two doctors. The group declared that Sweden is a “model” country despite its rejection of lockdown measures being protested in the United States.
Moreover, many mainstream media sources have reported information that is now known to be false from the lack of any benefits of wearing masks to the failure in trials of drugs like remdesivir to the shortage of thousands of ventilators. Despite those being wrong, related opposing views were often treated as either fringe or false positions.
This subjectivity of censorship is why the cure is worse than the illness. The best cure for bad speech is more speech rather than regulation. The fact is that the pandemic, as Clinton reminded voters, is a “terrible crisis to waste.” Yet the waste for some would be to emerge from the pandemic with free speech intact. Even former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, who has falsely declared that hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment, recently boycotted MSNBC until it stopped airing press briefings by President Trump as “fake news.”
Ocasio Cortez has called for action against Facebook for not censoring false or misleading political ads. In a confrontation with Zuckerberg, she dismissed concerns over censorship of speech and demanded, “So you will not take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that is a pretty simple yes or no.” Whether contesting lockdown orders by officials or challenging the views of politicians, you can just declare an opposing view as “misinformation” and demand that others not see it.
This crisis is a chance to redefine free speech to allow greater ability to control what opponents say and what the public reads. Academics have been laying the foundation for an anemic form of free speech for years. Even college presidents a few years ago had declared that there is no protection for “disingenuous misrepresentation of free speech.”
Goldsmith and Woods wrote that the public should resist those “urging a swift return to normal,” and the “extraordinary measures we are seeing are not all that extraordinary.” So this is the new normal that some leaders and academics want the public to accept. After all, it is hard to get people to give up freedoms. It takes a crisis to convince them that notions like free speech are no longer relevant. After spending years seeking to convince Americans to follow the European trend against free speech, these folks are using the pandemic to claim that free speech could kill you.
Censorship works in a country much like the coronavirus. Initially, you feel better from silencing those views that you consider lies. Then comes the crash as others demand more and more censorship, including views that you consider to be true. That is what has happened in Europe, where an expanding range of speech is being criminalized or censored. Without uncensored speech, the political system is left gasping for air.
China has been particularly eager not to “waste” the opportunity of this crisis. Chinese professor Xu Zhangrun is one of many citizens arrested after publishing criticism of Xi Jinping on his handling of the crisis. The government deemed such criticism to be fake news causing panic. It has censored accounts of its concealing the source of the original outbreak, including censorship on popular Chinese apps such as WeChat.
Citizens now will have to decide, as Goldsmith and Woods insist, if “China was right.” For my part, I remain hopelessly wedded to old-fashioned notions of free speech before the pandemic. You see, this “new normal” seems a lot like the old normal that the Framers changed with the First Amendment. China may be right for many in Congress and academia, but it remains on the wrong side of history. Not even a pandemic will change that.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
The sole power source of Academics is based on tenure, a principle based on the notion that Academics must have full free speech to avoid dismissal for seemingly outrageous ideas worth discussing and researching; however, that concept of free inquiry is now denied to us who must accept withiout question their approved conclusions of “settled science” by whom they tell us are the “authorities” on the matter. All else is “misinformation.
Does anyone else see the parallel to pre first ammendment censureship in the West spearheaded by the clergy, the very ones who then dominated the Univerities whose sole degree was a Doctor of Divinity degree or Ph.D??
Again, these are faculty, who fancy ‘free speech’ is for peers. Look at faculty governance models. You ever wonder why there are faculty committees on subjects faculty-in-general know diddly / squat about? (But no staff committees on anything but toy telephone subjects?). Because academe is status driven, not function driven.
The faculty’s objection is that speech is being exercised by people they haven’t licensed. (And judicial review as currently practiced is to prevent democratic-decision-making by people whose views are opposed to the faculty consensus).
There is a solution, professor, but you’re not going to like it.
1. the commies have purposely crippled our economy. check.
2. the socialists need to suppress our free speech on social media. check.
3. take our guns away. working
4. voter fraud (i.e. voting by mal, etc.) to secure their majorities. working
5. the ‘free’ press to become a propaganda machine for the leftists/socialists. check
6. one once free western country after another (aussies, canooks, brits, etc.) must give up their ability to resist communist invasion. check.
they have us reeling like never before. we are prepped. what’s next? kypd
The communists in Canada just took away assault rifles – .223 or .300 caliber assault rifles but not .375 caliber bear rifles.
Idiots.
I’m opposed to government controls or protections on the social media sites beyond anything other wise illegal. They are private businesses, not utilities.
One hopes that with advanced sophistication, users – actually the “product” harvested for advertisers – will learn to not accept the latest conspiracy theory making the rounds anymore than they would the one being touted by the guy who lives under the bridge on the interstate ramp. Posters on this site have bragged about not reading newspapers and getting their news from YouTube. Exactly, and it shows in the ignorance about facts available to most Americans without much effort.
I am not totally clear on the law but some special immunity has been provided by law to social media providers. Based on what you say the act that provided such immunity should be withdrawn.
Social media claims to be a platform so they are not liable for what is or is not said on the platform. Since they are not a simple platform and make broad decisions as to content perhaps they should be sued for libel and the like based on comments made by their subscribers.
I think if they exercise significant control over their output they are publishers open to suit. If they claim to be simply an electronic billboard they are not liable for what is put up. The law may not need to be changed if it is recognised that they are publishers exercising substantial control over content. Also it might, in time, be possible for people who are dumped or defunded to claim liability under a form of quasicontract despite what their endless user agreements may say. Just guessing. I haven’t researched it. Failing that they may need to be made into public utilities.
“I think if they exercise significant control over their output they are publishers open to suit.”
Young, that is my understanding but even doing that I believe due to their monopoly status and a lot of other factors their actions break the spirit of the law.
“possible for people who are dumped or defunded to claim liability under a form of quasicontract”
That I like.
“Failing that they may need to be made into public utilities.”
It’s possible but I prefer private over public utility and I think private can be constrained just like we constrain other behavior. Though I don’t like the decision very much I think of Ollie’s Barbecue (?v ?Katzenbaum) commerce clause? Is cancelling one’s Twitter account impeding the flow of commerce?
When FB or Twitter censor a post as “fake news”, they are making disparaging comments about the author.
Truth is a defense, but if the statement censored turns out to be true, then FB/Twitter may have libeled the writer.
Monument, that is another area that needs investigation.
its called section 230 immunity https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
but it was contingent on them not actually exercising a lot of control over content, which they now clearly do
this is an unacceptable situation, it needs attention
i am not sure jettisoning section 230 is the answer– it’s been a good part of the CDA– but maybe antitrust is the thing to break up the social media oligopoly. issue needs analysis
Kurtz, I think that is what Young was pointing to and I had understood in the past. I agree with you and believe that alone may not be enough.
England gets help from Youtube silencing and banning David Icke from the internet
he was interviewed by American expat Brian Rose on the popular “London Real” show
I dont agree with many if not most of David Icke’s often wacky contentions, but why try so hard to censor him? What are they afraid of?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797
https://twitter.com/LondonRealTV
They don’t care about Icke. That’s just road testing. The eventual target will be the British equivalent of Breitbart or Michelle Malkin.
Democrats have become the most totalitarian party ever. Even reasonable people have let 2 decades of Democrat blather corrupt their mind and decimate their ability to think rationnally. You can’t trust Democrats becuase they will say one thing to get elected then follow the orders of their few supreme leaders almost without exception. Classic liberals need to wrest power from the present day Dems or declare a 3rd party.
Good news from Wuhan, China. Drug traffickers have a Wuhan problem
Before it saw its first COVID-19 cases, Wuhan, China, was a global hub for ingredients needed to make fentanyl and synthetic opioids. But Wuhan’s chemical factories have shut down over the past few months, leading to shortages that have sent street drug prices soaring as far away as the United States.
Wuhan’s vendors used to ship chemicals worldwide, and “the biggest customers were Mexican drug cartels” that had shifted to fentanyl production after heroin became too expensive. But a lack of ingredients has translated to rising prices for street drugs in the U.S., where cartels’ goods usually end up. Individual fentanyl pills have risen from an average of $5 each to $7, and a pound of methamphetamine has jumped from $1,000 to $1,400 a pound, a spokesperson for the San Diego field division of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency said.
Those who wish to Silence our voice need to be Silenced themselves…With Force if necessary.
They got their marching orders from the Senior Comrades of the Socialist World?
Leftists are going to destroy our society to enforce an equality which does not exist anywhere in nature, nor corresponds to the human experience. Egalitarianism is creationism for leftists and a tenant of faith to be believed without question.
I wonder who will be the first to call JT a “nazi” for holding a traditional view of the 1st amendment?
And don’t worry sweet, tolerant, morally superior, virtual signaling liberals, you are going to get your censorship laws sooner or later. And it will all be done for our “good”.
antonio
When deciding who should lead the country the single most important issue is who believes in freedom of speech for without freedom of speech we are slaves and cannot freely advocate for change.
The Professor writes: “The most chilling suggestion, however, comes from the politicians and academics who have called for the censorship of social media and the internet.”
The Professor and I are on different sides of the political sphere, but that statement is why I listen to what he says. He believes in discussion not control.
The others wish to be autocrats whether Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Nazi or any of the other isms that take complete control from the individual and place it in their own hands.
Turley’s rule “The best cure for bad speech is more speech rather than regulation” is the key. Unfortunately Democrats of today (formerly concerned with civil liberties) don’t believe that.
Well said Allen.
We agree on this one.
“We agree on this one.”
I hope we have other agreements as well.
Jonathan, you are right. So, what are you going to do about it? Who should we vote for in November?
The real issue is thought control. Speech and the written word are merely expressions of our thoughts. Academics, who are of the variety of “can’t do, so teach” have massive egos and convince themselves that their opinions are the only ones that matter (and argue with each other over what is right.) We have armies of so-called “experts” whose expertise is their own imaginations. It doesn’t surprise me that Democrats are in favor of censorship (in their favor) because the Democratic Party became Marxist decades ago. They – academics and Democrats, which is synonomous – want to have absolute control over the human race. In short, they are wannabe dictators and they know that mind control is even more crucial to their aims than gun control. And, yes, they are winning and they’ll continue to win until the day divinity touches the Mount of Olives.
You’re a Marxist piece of garbage and have no business teaching anyone your twisted ideology.
Ok, you convince me. Trump in November.
I cannot see how you come to that conclusion, I see Mr. Turley on a slow progression away from the radical left as he feels the sting of having his own opinions that do not have the dem party stamp of approval on them lately.
Alma– That sounds about right. The sting of reality has changed many opinions. I think the Professor has always been honorable and intellectually honest and he has assumed the same in others. It is a shock to learn that assumption is often wrong. It was to me.
THE DEMS/LEFT/ EGHEAD PROFESSORS all want to restrict our Freedoms, for they want POWER and POWER to tell us vs letting us chose. They hate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and the Supreme Court. They all get in the CORRUPT DEMS and LEFTS way.
ICE CREAM QUEEN NANCY PEOLSI, wealthy, wants more power and wealth but Crumbs to the little people. Schiff is a thug wanting power.
We saw the same thing in the 1930’s and 1940’s in Europe, rise of Dictators and Authoritarians and censorship .
Yeah JT, it’s not like we have a president who wants to be able to sue newspapers, is OK with one of his buddies killing journalists, or wages daily war on the free press.
Chinese government does their censorship. Europe governments right behind. Our government, next change of the guard. Watch!
Yeah, he wants to sue them for LYING. If you want an honest press, then that is a good thing. What, you are afraid that if MSNBC, CNN, and the NYT can’t lie, then Democrats will lose more power???
Says a lot about YOU and the Democrats.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Can we sue him for lying?
Any adult with a functioning brain – no, not you Donald or Sadie Mae – understands that there would be no free press if public figures could take it to court on any disagreement on issues. Somehow assuming JT or Fox would not be similarly constrained is just some special thinking it probably takes a Trump supporter to come up with.
Obviously, you don’t have one. Your mind is already being controlled.
I don’t agree. Actually it is not the 1st amendment which protects the press from defamation, it is not a Congressional edict of law, it is a judge made law which gives them special liability protection. It is itself a form of protectionism of a favored industry, mass media. The NYT v Sullivan decision should be reversed or truncated down to proper size
Spot on!
The press should be free, but not allowed the special privileges of slandering and lying about any public figures they dislike, without consequences. The NYT v Sullivan case is outdated and should be overturned.
Kurtz- Yes it should be overturned. A case intended to protect the press has turned into a license to slander and destroy.
It was rightly a 9-0 SC decision. It won’t be and shouldn’t be overturned.
Isn’t interesting that most on this board are all gung ho with JT on denouncing democrats and anyone else calling for curbs on free speech except when it comes to black Rutgers professors saying something they don’t like and any position taken by Trump – like suing newspapers – that must be defended.
PS Anyone can say anything they want about public figures, not just newspapers. Good.
The press has long abused their “rights” and via clever litigation expanded their “privileges” to a point which allows them a range of “freedom” far beyond humble citizens like us.
They have the power of a megaphone, they used capital markets to raise billions to finance their operations, and their media editors and bosses are ten times the tyrants when it comes to censorship as one can see in other liberal regimes which do not have quite the same latitude for defamation that the US allows its newspaper businesses.
One thing i like about some of the so-called democratic socialists in the US, is that a lot of them, oftentimes the friends of Julian Assange, fully understand how the power of capitalism is infused into the mass media in the US and has created a frankenstein that runs amuck out of control. A frankenstein that is jealous of its own privileges not just under NYT v Sullivan– But also NYT v US!
Here’s a recent example. Youtube which is owned by google, has censored a popular English “conspiracy theorist” David Icke, who gave some interviews to American Brian Rose, on the “London Real” internet program. Icke has been deplatformed by facebook and youtube and other social media giants, because he’s saying something kooky and perhaps wrong.
Is Google now the Ministry of Truth?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797
No one is stopping Kurtz from opening competitors to You Tube and the NYTs, the latter by the way which makes it’s living by being the paper of record, a position they must continually maintain by accurate reporting.
boy oh boy see what a fan of capitalism book is when it comes to the news business.
why is mass media the only business in America that’s allowed to operate without the slightest hint of regulation and even has more privileges than you and me?
The answer is not the First amendment. That is an excuse not an explanation.
The explanation is the magic of capitalism and public capital markets bankrolling newspaper and tv operations during the 20th century and into our century now.
Wapoo is owned by the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos— wrap your head around that, the richest man in the world!
Who made his billions at amazon, thinking up an ingenious form of retailing, which has destroyed literally millions of small bricks and mortar businesses in small town America.
Google owns youtube and google is also one of the biggest market caps in the world
Facebook is enormoous.
They have followed the Sulzberger NYT model in some ways and blown it apart in others.
The notion these maintain their dominance via “truth” or any of that sort of mom and apple pie shibboleth stuff is delusion.
I need you to consult with some Marxist people on this topic since you won’t believe me and probably they can explain it a lot better than me.
Right now Amazon keep on trucking while malls in America are mothballed and going terminal. It wont be just Nieman Markup that goes bankrupt, and Sears, and JCPenny, it will be a lot more
But Bezos and a bunch of faceless bureuacrats at Google, they tell us what is truth!
And trust me, if you cant see on your own how obvious it is, how google and amazon are hand in glove in stealing retail markets from local vendors.
Finance capitalism is a bloated behemoth which is astride us all like a Colossus. While we are fooling ourselves with old shibboleths like nationalism or liberal freedoms of the press, they are busy plotting to strip more and more of everything out of the naitional economies.
There is a big irony to the title of this article: in fact yes, in a way, maybe in many ways, the Chicoms are right.
Right when they put the national body of the people above the slogans of international capitalism.
And maybe right to make themselves the bosses and not allow the international mass media to call the tune which they’re supposed to follow every day, either.
Do I approve of the Chicoms? No. Do i respect their cohesiveness and resolve? Of course!
I’m saying flat out to my follow Americans: perhaps you’re all too enamored of this First Amendment which has been stretched so wide and thin by the corporate lawyers of the NYT that it barely means anything compared to what it did in 1789.
Perhaps its not exactly what it’s all cracked up to be. There may come a day for America just as it has come for other nations from time to time, whether we decide to be fooled by mere slogans and verbal fantasies that are window trappings for global capitalist behemoths who care nothing for you and me, or do you act with resolve to secure tangible national interests instead.
Perhaps these forces that so exploit the First amendment for at least a century now, will be done in by their own greed. Perhaps the censorship they impose on sincere voices today, we will enforced on them by genuine patriots, tomorrow.
Perhaps the demise of the mass media will fertilize a new era of freedom, soon enough, with the blood of their corrupt enterprises dunging our future fields.
We will see!
Kurtz, I am a business owner. My obvious point was neither the NYTs or You Tube are government utilities who’s content we should or do have control. Complaining about their own editorial control is the same as Democrats who openly seek to constrain them. The internet remains uncensored and there are innumerable alternate places to express yourself – like here – or seek news. Hopefully you don’t confuse the social media gathering places for news sources, unless they are reputable for news, not opinion, though many obviously do.
Bezos bought the WaPo which has been a valuable news organization for many decades. and he has a largely hands off policy towards it. Amazon has killed many local businesses, but no one has a gun to anyone’s head making them use it and like the automobile and the interstate is new technology and infrastructure making a huge impact that’s a mixed bag. That’s how big change works. The interstate was a government project and maybe more thought should have been given to it’s impact, but probably not. I personally avoid it as much as practical and my willing wife- she likes the 2 lanes too – will allow added time to our trips. My good friends lost their otherwise popular local bookstore partly to Amazon, but more to big boxes Borders and Barnes and Noble, themselves since deceased. Amazon is mostly killing big boxes because that’s all that’s left in Main Street USA except for the occasional niche retailer.
The NYTs struggles to keep up with the digital age though having some success, so I don’t think Facebook is copying anything about them. I still support my local newspaper, how about you? It’s one think to try and save what we value from the past without fighting a losing battle against the future. It will happen.
There is so much wrong with what Anon says that I won’t even start.
Every time I see a group on the Left or Right go nutz about a social media account being removed, “censored” or their CEOs make statements contrary to a particular mob, it tells me they have no friends or interpersonal skills. They have lost the importance of in vivo relationships.
We have gotten to know our newest neighbors these past 2 months. We sit and chat with people who just joined the hood, and no one brings their cell phone: carefree, spontaneous, laughter & attentive listening. There is hope
Complaining about their own editorial control
Are they common carriers or are they publishers? They can have one role or the other, not the privileges of both. This isn’t that difficult.
One question that arises time and time again is the question that revolves around breaking up a monopoly. Google can be considered a monopoly. Whether it should be broken up is another story, but there are rational reasons to do so.
“No one is stopping Kurtz from opening competitors ”
That is the question that is asked when considering whether or not a monopoly has overstepped its bounds. Anon is drawing a conclusion (as usual) that he presents as fact.
Allan, you put your finger on a big issue when you named the monopoly issue.
But you see they have everybody thinking that their favored model for their advertising businesses ie newspapers, is actually a sacrosanct “free speech” issue. Bull! Break them into a thousand pieces for all I care and we will see a lot more free speech take root from the scattered parts of their carcass.
I’ll tell you the main way in which google escapes this justice from Antitrust enforcement. The Deep State wants it to! Yes I said deep state, I know some people hate that term, but it’s apt.
Google and others, are in a near mind-meld with the intelligence apparatus.
This is an emergent reality that defies the categories of 2 centuries ago.
Much of silicon valley was seeded with what venture capital?
Venture capital from the CIA– “In-q-tell”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cias-venture-capital-firm-like-its-sponsor-operates-in-the-shadows-1472587352
And DARPA built the internet highway for them to ride to their billions in the new era on the taxpayer’s dime, too.
Call this fascism or call it corporatism or call it capitalism or whatever, whatever it’s name, the dungheap stinks the same. It is hardly the same social or economic scenario which fed into the concerns that lead to the First amendment.
Also hard not to suspect that some of that wealth isn’t sliding into private purses of people in DC.
Kurtz, I mentioned a few other things to Anon that were off the cuff. This is a bigger issue than appears on the surface and has a lot of implications.
Consider the fact that Twitter at least briefly may have considered cutting off the President of the United States. That could be interference with election law. If that is so and they cut my political opinions off that too could be considered interference. If you want to say it is a private entity then we have to consider whether or not the value of advertisements should be considered donations to particular political parties etc. I might not be stating this correctly but I think you get the gist of how far and wide one’s thinking process must go. This is something that requires tremendous research and understanding but just looking at the end product, we see today, we know that the spirit of the law is being broken.
On Facebook let us say an underage kid talks about what is in his parent’s home and that they are leaving on vacation. The home is robbed. Did FB take due care? If they are moderating posts then perhaps that should have been moderated as well. If they think that is impractical then perhaps other moderation should be deemed impractical as well.
FB AMZN and GOOG– they’ve grown fat on section 230 immunity and yet they are actively censoring content, which actually should deprive them of section 230 immunity.
this is a huge problem and its getting worse
the internet for a couple decades was open and now it’s closing up, crushed not under the heel of government censors, but the biggest global corporations the world has ever seen, which are a thousand times more powerful than whatever trifles King George had done.
Yes I agree Allan, people need to develop more nuanced thinking about these issues
Yes, it should deprive them of immunity and just one successful suit could do it.
Kurtz, the DOJ is in more or less constant battle with Google and Apple for access to their data and Apples personal phones, which they resist. If you resent those 2 – which by the way the NYTs and other major US news sources shares virtually nothing in common – it should be their collecting and selling of data to other businesses who will use it to try and sell you their product, not catch criminals. Facebook – which I also don’t use – will do the same. Hopefully they don’t sell it to someone with worse motives, though at least in the case of Google, all your information is sold without your actual identity.
Anon – even JT can see what is happening!!!!
Its again is very ironic and not at all surprising that the powers that basically controlled the avenues of public speech before social media want to throttle social media; where almost anyone can distribute speech.
Ocasio Cortas needs to be shut up. SHE is the Congressional flu.
Can the left become anymore despicable and still remain valid citizens of this constitutional federal republic. I would wish that each and every one who aspires to this leftist ideology were magically and permanently transported to the most egregious nation that is an example of the mindless pap to which they aspire. Let them “live” their dream but not at my expense.