Google Targets Conservative Sites In Latest Crackdown

250px-googleGoogle has moved against another set of conservative sites. While many have celebrated the action against ZeroHedge and The Federalist, I remain deeply concerned over the free speech implications of such actions. I have written for years about public and private censorship, including recent actions to regulate and control speech on the Internet. Democratic leaders have been calling for censorship on the Internet and in social media for years, a move that will destroy the greatest forum for free speech in the history of the world.  Writers have joined in this movement and two such academics recently declared “China was right” all along about censorship.

As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I view this latest action as another form of private censorship that targets conservative sites while ignoring similar rhetoric from the left.  I am not very complex when it comes to such conflicts over free speech.  I am not as much concerned with the merits of these fights as the implication of targeting some sites over others.  I know very little about ZeroHedge while I am familiar with some of the writers on The Federalist. Google has said comparatively little about the reason for barring the sites and what NBC originally reported has been contradicted by the company. However, it is the explanation given for the action taken against the Federalist that I wanted to address.  It seems to follow the pattern of politically biased, content-based discrimination against conservative sites by companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google.  Despite the clear bias shown in these actions, most academics are either applauding the crackdown or remaining conspicuously silent as companies silence those with opposing or unpopular views.

NBC News reported yesterday that ZeroHedge and The Federalist were banned from generating revenue through Google Ads. This demonetization of sites is a favorite tool for critics to shutdown writers or sites with opposing views.  Google holds a virtual monopoly on such ad revenue (by some estimates over 70 percent of such revenue). Many groups recognized years ago that they could achieve a form of private censorship by getting Google, Twitter, and other companies to effectively cut off the ability of readers to see opposing views.  For those of us who are part of the dinosaur class on free speech, the solution to bad speech should be more and better speech — rather than preventing others from hearing or reading opposing views.

The NBC reporter Adele-Momoko Fraser broke the story which ncorrectly stated that both sites were demonetized.  The Federalist was not demonetized but warning that it might be demonetized unless it changed its site to meet Google’s demands. In fairness to Fraser, some have claimed that she got the story wrong. However, NBC has quoted a Google spokesperson as saying “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.” Google later clarified that it was forcing The Federalist to meet its demands.

In her reporting, Fraser characterized both sites a “far right.”  Again, I am not that familiar with the sites but “far right” or “alt right” has become a ubiquitous label for sites that liberals or Democrats despise.  There are virtually no comparable references to “far left” or “alt left” sites that routinely run conspiracy theories about Republicans or raw hateful statements against conservative figures like the Daily Kos and other sites.

Here is what Google noted about the Federalist action.

The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests, which were both included in the report sent to Google.

This is a common view held by both conservative politicians and writers today.  Indeed, it often seems that you have to turn to Fox to check on the rioting and turn to CNN to check on the protesting.  While one side claims that the rioting is being ignored, the other is claiming that it is being overblown.

This is a legitimate debate over the focus and bias of coverage. For example, Craig Melvin, an MSNBC host and co-anchor of “Today,” tweeted a “guide” that the images “on the ground” are not to be described as rioting but rather “protests.”  That and other reporting led too many questioning the disconnect in reporting on peaceful protests with the scenes of burning buildings in the background and the report of hundreds of officers injured during the protests.

Then however a new reason for the threat came from Google which objected to its comment section.  As we have discussed previously, many sites have eliminated their comments section because of trolls, paid or bot comments, or offensive speech.  As one of the larger sites committed to free speech issues, we have resisted this trend to be open a forum for people to express themselves.  We have tried to respond to complaints about offensive speech and in relatively few cases we have barred those who engage in such commentary.  Because I have teaching and litigation duties,  I have to rely on people raising racist or offensive content.  However, comment section allow people to express their views and, while I often disagree with comments, I have tried not to censor them. Indeed, I routinely leave comments that insult me or say things that are demonstrably untrue about my past writings or testimony.  The reason is that I feel uncomfortable with the role of censoring, particularly when I am the subject of the criticism.

Google has demanded that The Federalist remove its comment section because it offended the company’s policy against “dangerous and derogatory content.” The Federalist relented and reportedly eliminated its comment section.  The result is the loss of the forum for individuals to exchange their views.  The response of Google was an unmistakable message that sites would either comply with its demands or face ruin:

“Our policies do not allow ads to run against dangerous or derogatory content, which includes comments on sites, and we offer guidance and best practices to publishers on how to comply. As the comment section has now been removed, we consider this matter resolved and no action will be taken.”

There is also a concern over the NBC reporting. It was not only incorrect on the facts of the Goggle story but Fraser appeared to erase the line between reporting and advocacy in congratulating groups which target sites on the rights and seemingly celebrating the result.

Adele-Momoko Fraser


NEW — from @NBC_VC. Thanks to @SFFakeNews and @CCDHate for their hard work and collaboration! 



Two far-right sites, ZeroHedge and The Federalist, will no longer be able to generate revenue from any advertisements served by Google Ads.@AMFraserNBC reports. 

The Federalist complained that NBC did little to seek their view before running the story. Fraser relied on the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that targets online hate and misinformation. Conservative sites have complained that the group is primarily seeking to shutdown conservative sites by labeling them purveyors of hate, including holding them responsible of comments.

As we discussed earlier with regard to Twitter, Google seems to be making the case for not only pushing forward with anti-trust inquiries but stripping it and other companies of immunity protections. Indeed, the Justice Department just announced that it is moving forward with proposals to strip away protections.  Google and other companies were given protections under Section 320 because it has claimed to being a neutral supplier of virtual space for people to speak with one another.  It is now effectively shutting down sites because they allow others to comment freely on their sites.  This biased targeting of sites has led to congressional objections and renewed threats to amend the federal law.  Indeed, Google is undermining the support with some of us who viewed protections are fostering free speech values.  It is now using its role to stifle and regulate speech, the very antithesis of not just free speech but the federal protections.


183 thoughts on “Google Targets Conservative Sites In Latest Crackdown”

  1. Since you mentioned it – point out, or better compare the number of misogynist, threatening, racist, anti-semite statements made on Daily Kos with something like even Breitbart – which is probably angelic when compared with much of the real alt-right.

    Now compare that with the number of times you raise the false alarms on antifa vs. your mentions of alt-right.

    You are really a right-wing hack with a facade of both-side-ism.

    These are private companies. If they do not want to host/assist hate-speech, it is their prerogative. People who want to deal with views like that are welcome to create platforms that will host them instead of cribbing. But then … they are too dumb … so the rest of us will be spared anyway.

    1. Hop Sing,

      Why you hide behind name Vlad?

      You Chicom, work for Fauci NIH, admit.


    “NBC Said Google Is Demonetizing The Federalist for Spreading Fake News; Google Says the NBC Report Is Fake News”

    The NBC News Verification Unit sadly did not live up to its name.

    On Tuesday, NBC claimed that Google had made the decision to demonetize The Federalist after NBC’s own News Verification Unit presented the search engine with evidence the conservative website was spreading misinformation related to recent anti-police brutality protests.

    But it turned out that the news outlet spreading misinformation was actually NBC. In a statement, Google denied that it had stripped The Federalist of the ability to generate money from ads. “The Federalist was never demonetized,” wrote Google Communications. “We worked with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section.”

    This directly contradicted the NBC story, which initially suggested that Google had found fault with The Federalist’s articles. The actual problem, according to Google, was comments on the articles, not the articles themselves. The Federalist temporarily deleted its comments section, resolving the issue. (Disclaimer: I am friends with Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, and have appeared on his radio show.)

    The NBC story—penned by Adele-Momoko Fraser, a producer with the ironically named News Verification Unit—is a perfect example of activist journalism getting the facts wrong and obscuring the truth in order to arrive at an agenda-driven conclusion. Fraser wrote that Google had punished The Federalist “after the company was notified of research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation.” Fraser further noted that “Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention.”

    The “project” was little more than a tweet thread by an activist group. The Center for Countering Digital Hate and its project, Stop Funding Fake News, are progressive workshops that engage in public advocacy campaigns to pressure companies to stop advertising on right-wing websites.


    The real Google scandal

    On Tuesday afternoon, NBC News reported that Google had “banned” two “far-right” online publications, Zero Hedge and The Federalist, from its advertising platform because both had published articles in violation of its terms of service. According to report, these actions had been taken by Google at the behest of NBC’s own so-called “Verification Unit,” after reporters showed them a listicle from what is allegedly a British think tank.

    The response to this news in right-wing circles was predictable. Which is why no one was remotely surprised when, within the space of a few hours, Google announced that it had all been an enormous misunderstanding, that The Federalist would be given three days to clean up its act, that the recent sanctions, only threatened rather than imposed, had nothing to do with the content of any actual article that had appeared on the site but rather with the fact that it maintained an open comments platform. Meanwhile, NBC also claimed that, despite its own reporters’ gleeful cheerleading on behalf of their “collaboration” with foreign research outfits, there had been no such collaboration at all, that Google had misrepresented its own actions to them, that contrary to previous reports (its own), Google would not ban a website for something it had been accused of doing in material brought to Google’s attention by, well, NBC. Got it?

    How refreshing it is to have a story about the cynicism and incompetence of government and media alike that has nothing to do with either the pandemic or impeachment. Thousands of words will soon be written about the devolution of journalism at legacy media outlets into mindless activism — what is this “Verification Unit” anyway, and why does it appear to be subject to minimal oversight from the rest of NBC News? — and the no-doubt imminent online silencing of anyone slightly to the right of Joy Ann Reid. By late Tuesday evening, Ted Cruz had already published a letter to the chairman of Google’s parent corporation accusing the company of “censorship” and actions “antithetical to American values.”

    1. continuing from above….

      Unfortunately the real significance of this affair is very likely to be lost. A far more serious problem than the childishness of 20-something journalists or “media bias” in general is the brute fact of Google’s power, not its potential or even apparent deployment against a particular website.

      No institution in the history of the world — not the Church at the height of the Middle Ages, not the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, certainly not our own federal government — has ever had so much concentrated authority over the exchange of information. This unprecedented empire was not, comparatively speaking, the result of many long decades of patient accumulation. (I and millions of others can distinctly remember when Google was a humble online search platform, comparable to Lycos or Ask Jeeves of blessed memory.) It acquired its power, historically speaking, overnight. And it did so not because anyone in particular — perhaps not even the principals at Google themselves — wished for this to be the case but simply because the relevant authorities in this country abnegated their responsibility in the name of abstract principles about freedom of speech and corporate autonomy (and a relaxed attitude toward the enforcement of existing antitrust law).

      The time for that attitude has passed. Google is not a “monopoly” any more than al Qaeda is an “activist group.” It is not even a corporation, at least not in the sense that the word has acquired in the last century. It does not exist simply in order to provide financial benefit to its shareholders (though it certainly does). To find any non-state entity even remotely comparable to Google’s scope, ambition, and unrivaled mastery over its dominion, which is to say, over virtually the entire world with the exception of China, one would have to look back to the Honourable East India Company and the other joint-stock behemoths that once privatized imperialism.

      To say that Google is the world’s largest and most powerful de facto publisher — the largest ever, in fact — would be true. It would also be a massive understatement. Google is also the world’s largest courier service, its largest shopping center (even Amazon is often accessed via Google’s browser), its largest library, its largest cinema, and its largest water cooler. Even these facile analogies fail to do justice to the role that a company roughly as old as the first Star Wars prequel plays in all of our lives. The fact that the increasingly shaky business of online advertising, upon which many publications depend for revenue, technically falls under its control is of comparatively little importance. All of this could have been prevented.

      But the question is what can be done now. It seems obvious that no private actor accountable primarily to its shareholders can be trusted with anything even approaching Google’s power. It cannot in any meaningful sense be regulated. It can either be broken up, turning its advertising business, its search engine, its Chrome browser, its YouTube video platform, and its Gmail service into distinct entities, or else nationalized (imagine the Google homepage but it’s the Library of Congress website). Doing either will require us to abandon virtually everything we have told ourselves about how the state should treat tech companies and, indeed, large companies in general. It would mean a return to the post-war consensus on the mixed economy, under which monopolies, if they involve public goods and are allowed to exist at all, must be de facto organs of the state. More important still, it will mean looking past the short-term interests of various factions in American public life — can one seriously imagine Cruz’s letter being written on behalf of Jezebel or Deadspin? — toward real threats to the common good.

      I am not optimistic.

      1. You post as “Anonymous”, but you write intelligently and offer up significant food for thought. Thank you.

  4. Google, in demonstrable alliance with communist China, is at war with American freedom and, therefore, America.

    Google is attemtping to further the campaign of “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    Google is the enemy.

    Google and/or its search engine must be designated a state-regulated monopoly and placed under the direction a a public utilities commission which must impose and allow any and all constitutional rights and freedoms including, but not limited to, freedom of speech, thought, press, publication, religion, belief, assembly, its inverse, disassembly/segregation, and every other conceivable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the 9th Amendment.

  5. Liberalism is dead. Progressive control of thought and behavior are the new norm. Unless these tech companies are stripped of all immunity, this will be decided the old-fashioned way, and it won’t be pretty. The classic liberals are being canceled and eaten by the Party that once championed free thought and expression. How the tables have turned!

    1. Hey manuel. maybe it would be best if all this was settled the old fashioned way., but yeah it will be ugly. hey, it’s ugly already. maybe it’s high time for the forces of anarchy and chaos to take their licks?

      just dont forget it was soros and the jack dorseys and their ilk who financed them.
      dont just look at the end of the barrel, look at who is holding the gun.

  6. It’s obvious – Google and others are attempting to suppress thought. Facebook canceled accounts of a number of conservative sites a month or so ago. Twitter is actually more lenient, or so it seems. Remember that “hate speech” is not a crime, regardless if leftists want to make it so. “Racist, white supremacist, bigot” etc. are labels, not crimes. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they adopted the First Amendment.

    1. If you know someone who is incapable of “thought” without Google or Facebook, that person has a serious problem.

      The First Amendment doesn’t apply to Google, Facebook, … It’s a restriction on government regulation of speech, not on non-government regulation of speech.

      1. Then they need to loose their protections from the govt. They can’t have it both ways.

        1. Are you suggesting that non-government entities can’t have legal protections?

          Because there are an awful lot of non-government entities that get diverse sorts of legal protections.

          Whether they *can* have it both ways is a different question than whether they *should* in this case.

          1. Silicon valley shill is talking.

            Time to impose a use tax on Silicon valley too. not just strip sec 230

            Silicon Valley, google, apple, twitter, they consumes the public good of the internet and gives precious little back to taxpayers in return. just manipulates us and tries to brainwash us

  7. “Craig Melvin, an MSNBC host and co-anchor of “Today,” tweeted a “guide” that the images “on the ground” are not to be described as rioting but rather “protests.”

    As a lifelong resident of Atlanta who had to witness the rioting and rioters 1st hand, I would love to ask Melvin face to face how he would feel about that if they were running through his neighborhood all night pillaging and plundering with Molotov cocktails and a host of other weapons.

      1. Then why were all of the networks except Fox refusing to call them riots or rioters in Atlanta while the rioters were rioting?

        “Blame Turley for excerpting Melvin’s comment in a way that didn’t make that clear.”

        Turley didn’t write “Melvin’s comment”, he accurately stated that Melvin “tweeted a “guide”.

        Did I “clear” that up for you?

        1. “why were all of the networks except Fox refusing to call them riots or rioters in Atlanta while the rioters were rioting?”

          Yours is what’s known as a “loaded question.” I’ll wait for you to provide evidence that “all of the networks except Fox refusing to call them riots or rioters in Atlanta while the rioters were rioting” and that it has anything to do with Melvin’s tweet.

          “Turley didn’t write ‘Melvin’s comment.’”

          And I didn’t assert otherwise.

          “Turley … accurately stated that Melvin “tweeted a ‘guide’.”

          Turley misrepresented the *content* of Melvin’s tweet, by excerpting it in a way that made it seem that his “guide” applied to more than Minneapolis on the morning of May 28.

          1. Yet his guide ended up carrying over to Atlanta.

            Are you getting paid for this?

            You’re just a hack, and not a good one.

            1. You haven’t provided any evidence that “his guide ended up carrying over to Atlanta,” and there’s no reason to assume your claim is true.

  8. Meanwhile, in underreported COVID-19 news…

    Jeremy Wallace (Houston Chronicle):
    “NEW RECORD: Texas has set a new record for hospitalizations for COVID-19 in Texas. The state just reported 2,793 lab-confirmed hospitalizations – that is an 11% increase from yesterday’s record and now an 85% increase since Memorial Day.”

    Of the ~445K COVID-19 deaths reported globally, the U.S. accounts for ~117K, or over 1/4 of all reported deaths (numbers from Johns Hopkins: ).

    Or if you don’t want to make a global comparison, look at the data comparing the US to the EU: (graphs in the thread, including both rolling new case numbers and total deaths — and because the U.S. rolling new cases continue to be high, the disparity in total deaths is very likely to grow larger over time)

    We have a president who is such a narcissist that he can barely bring himself to wear a mask in public, even when he was near elderly WWII vets the other day.

    The response in the U.S. has been much less effective for Trump being President, and more people have become sick (and more are then dying or surviving with longterm harm) than would be the case if we had a competent president.

    1. I live in Texas, just outside Houston, and the facts are that the media is overblowing the situation. They ignore reports of active cases and focus on new “positive.” There were only 13 cases in my Houston Metro county in the hospital as of the last report. Overall, only some 8% of “confirmed” cases are hospitalized and that is throughout the state. My county was one of the first in the nation to report cases back in February. Since then, we’ve had exactly 50 deaths, nearly all of them of people over 70 and in most cases in nursing homes. Bear in mind that nursing homes are where people go – or more, likely, are sent – to die.

      1. It makes zero sense to focus on your unnamed county.

        Again: Texas “just reported 2,793 lab-confirmed hospitalizations – that is an 11% increase from yesterday’s record and now an 85% increase since Memorial Day.”

        The U.S. has over 1/4 of all reported COVID-19 deaths, despite accounting for only ~4% of the world’s population. We have the third highest deaths per capita globally. At this point, more people have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. than American soldier deaths in WWII. And we’re nowhere near the end of this.

        Trump’s unfitness has resulted in lives lost unnecessarily and in unnecessary longterrm health problems for many others.

          1. sars cov 2 is real and it will vary in its spread and effects

            ,meanwhile, not shutting down the economy again, and not goign to stay home while BLM riots at will, green lighted by the Democrat leadership.

            sorry, not gonna follow these fake rules anymore. both sides will be taking casualties one way or another. if we stay home while BLM continues to oppress and scare the bejeezus out of the cops, destroying law and order in the cities, well, we might as well just cut our own throats at this rate.

            1. Those aren’t the only options. Continue social distancing and mask rules and increased testing with contact tracing. Unfortunately there is no national leadership, just a stupid punk who sabotages the efforts of others.

              1. physical distancing is fine unless you need proximity to get the job done
                for something kinds of work you gotta be close
                masks for sure

                1. As usual, people have a choice: Death by economic suicide or temporarily suffering a cold or flu. A vaccine is not available and too far off. No pack, herd or tribe ever sacrificed the group for the weak, young or old among it. This organization, the United States, must resume forward movement or die. Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America are taking full advantage of a crisis, the “China Flu” pandemic deliberately caused, as an act of war, by China in an election year. Oh, and did I say

                  IN AN ELECTION YEAR?

                  No virus is allowed egress from a multiple redundant, fail-safe, secure virology lab. Communist China deliberately released COVID-19 as an act of desperation and last resort for the benefit of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America in an election year. Communist China kills opponents by the thousands as the acceptable losses of collateral damage in a deleteriously overpopulated society – communist China could care less about internal deaths from COVID-19.

                  1. “As usual, people have a choice: Death by economic suicide or temporarily suffering a cold or flu.”

                    a) Your two choices are a false dichotomy:
                    b) SARS-CoV-2 is neither a cold nor the flu.
                    c) For those who die from COVID-19 or suffer permanent health effects, it’s not “temporar[y].”

      1. Pay attention to what they actually said:

        In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, … we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US …” (source: )

        Imagine that: diverse local, state and federal government officials put some control measures in place, and many individuals also spontaneously changed some of their behavior.

        Are you crowing that we did better than nothing?!?

        The point is that we didn’t do as much as was wise and still aren’t doing as much as is wise, and Trump’s unfitness for office is a key reason for that.

        1. So you just proved that Trump has done very well according to your own specious pretzel logic.

          1. No, though that clearly doesn’t prevent you falsely claiming it.

  9. I am literally stunned that Turley would criticize NBC news for being “incorrect on the facts” and blurring the line between reporting and advocacy. WHAT ABOUT FOX “NEWS”? Talk about criticizing the splinter in your brother’s eye while ignoring the post in your own eye.

    Meanwhile, your hero lied yesterday when predicting a vaccine “before the end of the year”, and that it was being brought to market by the same people who created the AIDS vaccine. Trouble is, there is no AIDS vaccine. Doesn’t this endless lying bother you, Turley? Plus, because he is going through narcissism withdrawal and must have the cheering crowds of dumbasses to recharge his tender ego, he’s pushing ahead with holding a rally that virtually every public health official says is a bad idea. Even before the vainglory rally, Covid-19 cases have been spiking in Oklahoma, as in multiple other states, but that fat ego needs a salve and that’s all that really matters. Next, you have Mikey Pence telling the nation’s governors to lie to their constituents about the risk of Coronavirus, telling them to argue that because of increased testing, the numbers are going up. The number of cases is the number of cases. Testing isn’t causing the numbers to rise. This is like arguing that if we stop doing pregnancy tests, there won’t be any more pregnancies. Encouraging politicians to lie about a deadly pandemic is beyond irresponsible–it is reprehensible and should be criminal. And, didn’t Fat Boy say COVID-19 would “magically disappear” by April? Well, we’re 2 months past that, and the numbers that had been stable due to closing down businesses and schools and working from home are surging again because of reopening.

    1. blah blah blah

      truth is revealed in markets; zerohedge is a financial website. i have been making money reading zerohedge and placing bets on hidden truths for about a decade, maybe longer.,

      read ZEROHEDGE

      here’s a toast to gold guns and glory

      ganbei! nastrovyeh! cheers!

    2. Natacha, your comment reminds us that just 2 days ago the FDA withdrew all support for the Malaria Drug that Trump spent so much time promoting. The FDA’s abandonment of Hydroxycloroquine, as a Covid 19 treatment, essentially closes the door on this controversy.

      But because of Trump’s insistence that the drug was a miracle cure, the government is now left with a giant stockpile of Hydroxycloroquine that will probably go to waste. In fact the entire discussion was a total waste.

      However because Trump called so much attention to Hydroxycloroquine, other nations have also wasted time on the discussion. Brazil is now experiencing an ominous virus surge after their Trump-like president jumped on the Hydroxycloroquine bandwagon.

      It all shows how an irresponsible president can use social media to stoke waves a misinformation amid a global crisis. How pathetic we now look for having such a fool as our leader.

  10. Professor Turley is defending the right of good conservatives to maintain a bigoted cesspool in their comments section. That is, of course, no real surprise (just read the comments on this very website for five minutes). But he is defending that treasured right to bigotry against the right of a private entity to disassociate itself from such vile trash.

    For some, the need to foment bigotry supersedes all other rights in the Constitution. For others, the entirety of the Bill of Rights is a bit more important than focusing solely on the needs of unaccomplished, insecure, irrationally fearful, and ignorant bigots who have nothing to be proud of beyond their pasty white complexion.

    Let them revel in their hate and their silly “white pride” all they want. But that doesn’t mean anyone should be forced to associate with their section of the trailer park. Racist slime can and does rub off onto those associated with it and can damage any reputation – even Google’s.

    1. You obviously don’t understand the concept of free speech. You refer to bigotry, which apparently is whatever you disagree with.

      1. Trump is the guy who rips off the working class and stiffs the sheetrock hangers.

        “…Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will “protect your job.” But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them..

        At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others…”

        1. yeah so he screwed some of his creditors in a corporate BK or two or three
          nonetheless. that was then and this is now.

          now he’s leading economic war against the CCP and PRC which has grown fat and rich off exploiting their citizens as a captive slave labor force always ready for more outsourcing and offshoring by the titans of global finance and Silicon valley capos

          who are seeking to destabilize our country with chaos in order to unseat trump most of all for this very reason– fair trade over free trade

          in a way i can’t blame the CCP for what it does in china. that’s their country. but i blame my fellow countrymen, both the fuddy duddy old conservatives on the right, and the Democrat Hillary cheerleaders on the left, for their continuing failure to see the global economic drama and how it relates to our present situation.

          oh, you can mock me book but we realize you perceive that you have a “berth” in the Democratic party machine, as we have learned from your boasting. this belonging you feel, is perhaps why you devote such energy to projecting their talking points.

          1. No, he screwed little guys ALL THE TIME. He’s an a.s..e who’s completely unserious about anything other than himself. Why do you defend him and pretend he cares anything about working class guys?

            I don’t have “berth” in the Democratic Party machine. There are no more machines since primaries, just independent players.

            1. if you don’t know there are still machines, then yes, you are not part of them. there most certainly are. they are just smaller in number, more factionalized, and more subrosa. like mayor pete’s “wine cave” billionaire donors. that’s your Democrat party


              you can think what you want and i will do the same. i realize you won’t be swayed. and yet, all your insults will not deter me from exercising analysis and spreading my humble ideas, either.

    2. “fiver” is almost 100% likely to be a wimpy lace curtain white person who licks the boots of some richer-than-he boss. hence the hand wringing about “trailer parks” etc.

      class fear and envy among working class white people is a deeply ingrained bad habit of Americans. don’t talk down to people who are less fortunate than yourself, is what I was taught.

      i was taught, in my republican household, to respect unions and even FDR.

      FDR didn’t spit all over poor white folks, they were his constituency. My how pathetic and hateful of their now-forgotten base, the Democrat cheerleaders have become.

      1. Democrats have consistentlt worked for raising the minimum wage, extending health care to the uninsured, not giving more tax breaks for rich guys, equal pay for equal work, unions, unemployment, keeping SS – which they invented, maintaining Medicare – which they invented, and workplace safety. Kurtz’s party hasn’t done dick for working people.

        1. it’s true that Republicans have a poor track record on certain things. but changes are a comin

          for example, I personally think “right to work” state laws are a bad idea and i support the right to organize

          but who is behind that? Trump? No, the billionaires who hate Trump, the Kroch bros

          Trump is calling a new Republican party base into existence, and you can’t stop it with all your baloney, book

          it’s a whole new ball game. sycophants of global finace are being shown the door. and why not? they all supported Hillary anyhow

          make no mistake. nationalism and global capitalism are mortal foes. you can’t be both. time for Republicans to outgrow the dated and stale Cold war narratives and get with reality

  11. I saw this sophistry from one of the shills below:

    >>Demonitizing a website isn’t preventing people “from hearing or reading opposing views.”<<

    You destroy their business by demonetizing the site/channel and thereby prevent people “from hearing or reading opposing views.”

    1. Yeah, Google ads and unmoderated comments are the only way to monetize the site. All of the sites that reject Google ads and instead choose to support themselves via subscriptions, donations, etc., simply don’t exist, as do all of the sites that use Google ads but moderate comments. /s

  12. Today’s leftist “(s)news media” is attempting to corral everyone into one “think”. By pinching off the above mentioned sites as well as others such as One America News, tech giants are wielding their digital powers to gain a stronghold into the minds of everyone. Well, everyone with a brain of play doh which can be easily shaped and reshaped. With nearly zero options for different or opposing viewpoints, they are effectively hog tying the First Amendment and what WAS known as free speech. We, the people, are being treated just like a liberal university. Just simply squash what you don’t like…but funny how that bias only flows (like a torrent now) one way. What’s that old saying…..” Repeat the lie long enough and eventually it’ll be believed”, (but not necessarily a truth) or something like that? We’re there folks, and it’s a sham..,er I mean shame.

  13. I guess the question is: are we going to have the guts to regulate Google, or not? I don’t know the first site, but I know The Federalist, and their news is news, their op-eds are op-eds. It’s going to be tricky to back peddle if we don’t start now. This needed to be addressed at least ten years ago with big tech.

    1. Google’s issue with The Federalist is with some of their unmoderated comments, not their news or op-eds. The Federalist has chosen to shut down their comments temporarily in response:

      As for regulating Google. Sen. Warren has proposed to break up several Big Tech companies, including Google:
      Plenty of Democrats agree with her. Do Republicans and Independents want to join her in that or propose an alternative?

    2. I’ve participated in The Federalist’s comment section for years and it is no echo chamber. In fact, Turley’s blog would be considered censored compared with The Federalist’s comment section. This action by Google is not much different from the IRS targeting of conservative groups.

      1. Turley doesn’t actually censor much. He or Darren did remove some of Squeeky’s racist comments and some of Allan’s plagiarized columns from elsewhere. Turley likely has a legal obligation to remove plagiarism, and it’s easy to avoid plagiarism, by citing the source.

        1. Turley doesn’t actually censor much.

          And that’s the point. As little as this blog is censored, The Federalist is even less.

      2. It’s easy enough to block the uglies in The Federalist’s comment section.

        1. Or don’t. I’ve posted this a few times, but this topic really exposes how deep we are into an era of unenlightenment. Read this paragraph from Kant and tell me if you believe it accurately describes the current state:

          Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on–then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind–among them the entire fair sex–should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

  14. Free Speech on blogs. I don’t think the Turley blog here should censor. Maybe cuss words are not fit to print. Piglatin might be ok. ItShay might be ok as a Piglatin word.
    But some words are beyond the Pale. I’m not referring to Joann Palin but to being beyond the Paletinate. N word and f ing Jews are too mean. Calling someone Communist might be a lie and an insult beyond the Pale. It’s ok to call Putin a Commie but not Bernie. But maybe criticising Bernie for far left policies might include how his policies are communist leaning. It’s ok to criticize Bernie for talking turdy turd and a turd dialect. He is the one who pronounced 33rd Street and 3rd Ave in that dialect.

  15. To paraphrase what Brit Hume said last night on Tucker Carlson’s show: I remember when newspapers (media) had a news section and an opinion section. The news section presented facts. The opinion section included editorials from both sides; comments from both sides were also published.

    Without open discourse, no one can learn anything. Particularly anything that will possibly change their mind about an issue or matter. Of course, such blindness of thought serves the purposes of the left, the Democrats. A dumb people are an easily-led people. A people over whom they can rule and plunder at will to succor their deep-seated inner fears of self-sufficiency and responsibility.

Comments are closed.