Facebook Under Fire For Keeping Antifa Page While Eliminating Far-Right Groups

Facebook is under fire this week after it was discovered that the company has allowed Rose City Antifa, a violent group associated with riots for many years, to maintain a Facebook page despite the company’s controversial program to take down certain sites.  As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I would not have the page taken down on free speech grounds. My greatest fear is not Antifa (which I have criticized for years) but the growing censorship of the Internet.  While I recently testified about Antifa, and specifically Rose City Antifa, as part of a violent anti-free speech movement, I have opposed declaring them terrorist organizations and believe that their speech should be protected. While Facebook is a private company not subject to the First Amendment’s limits, it should adhere to free speech values on the Internet.

RCA is arguably the oldest Antifa group in the United States and was founded in Portland.  In 2013, various groups that were part of The Anti-Racist Action Network (ARA), including RCA, formed a new coordinating organization referred to as the “Torch Network.” This lack of structure not only appealed to the anarchist elements in the movement but served the practical benefit of evading law enforcement and lawsuits. While some have attempted to hold such members accountable, like journalist Andy Ngo who sued RCA for assaulting him, such lawsuits struggle with finding witnesses and assets for an effective case.  

Under Facebook’s “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy” the company pledged to “address organizations and movements that have demonstrated significant risks to public safety.” It has removed a number of far right and far left groups.

We have previously discussed how governments and politicians have demanded greater and greater censorship of the Internet, which is the greatest vehicle of free speech ever developed.  The erosion of free speech on social media and the Internet includes calls from leading Democratic leaders for years to implement private censorship of political speech, a view supported by academics who have declared that “China was right” about censorship.  Recently, Democratic Nominee Joe Biden pushed for censoring statements by Trump and others opposing mail-in voting.

My views of free speech are well known.  RCA is an extremist group but it also engages in protected speech.  We need to criminally address its conduct, not its speech.  It is the difference between advocating violence and acting violently. If the site is actively arranging attacks or directing riotings, it is more than just speech. It generally does not do that. It calls for counter demonstrations on such sites but leaves the violent elements to local members.  Once you start censoring such sites for the actions of some members, it puts the Internet on a slippery slope of speech regulation.  Many organizations, including Black Lives Matter, have had violent followers but there are still important parts of a non-violent debate over issues like racial justice.

However, there is another reason why these pages should not be censored.  It is far better to have such groups operating openly where they can be monitored. We saw in Germany that suppressing neo-Nazi groups just forced them underground while doing little to deter their expansion.  It is better for law enforcement and others to have these groups more visible.  On Facebook, these groups can be challenged and their extreme views exposed.  When forced underground, the groups claim that they are victims of “fascists” and their hateful views grow unimpeded in radical echo-chambers.

Antifa is arguably the most successful anti-free speech movement in modern history. It has the direct or indirect support of some academics and many students. Indeed, the recent controversy over statements made by a Connecticut professor and a Rhode Island professor on the killing of a conservative counter protester reflects how such views are become more common.  Some of these individuals oppose the free speech protections that we afforded them, at least when extended to those with opposing views.  However, they are the price of true free speech.

222 thoughts on “Facebook Under Fire For Keeping Antifa Page While Eliminating Far-Right Groups”

  1. Facebook is private property. Excluding bodily injury and property damage, Facebook may do anything it likes with Facebook.

    The Constitution facilitates free enterprise while communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) attempt every unconstitutional act they are able to conjure in opposition.

    The competition of free enterprise provides the solution in every situation.

    Facebook’s arbitrary censorship must be eliminated through the introduction of a competitive entity by an ambitious and industrious, free market entrepreneur.

    Perhaps a new platform titled “Brainbook” would suffice, who knows?

    The Constitution certainly allows enthusiastic investors and consumers to support a startup through the investment of venture capital or websites such as gofundme.com.

    In the event that competition is absolutely impossible, Facebook must be subsumed under Eminent Domain and operated as a state-regulated monopoly per the Constitution including the provision of absolute, uncensored freedom of speech.

    Until the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) formally takeover, this is free America.

    “It’s time to stop talkin’ and start chalkin’!”

    – Chick Hearn, L.A. Lakers Sportscaster

  2. Sounds like the Mueller investigation had a bunch of crooked people.

    Senate chairmen asks DOJ watchdog to open probe into wiped Mueller phones
    Destroyed data “raise[s] concerns about record retention and transparency.”

    Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson on Friday asked Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to open an investigation into the dozen-plus phones belonging to associates of the Robert Mueller special counsel that had been wiped of data prior to being surrendered to investigators.

    Government documents released this week listed multiple phones belonging to members of Mueller’s Russia collusion probe as having been cleared of all data before they were handed over to Horowitz’s office. Many of the phones, according to the documents, were purged of data after the users entered incorrect passwords too many times.

    Continued at:

    1. Better watch yourself linking “just the news” , the lefties on this will surely scorn you as it’s not WPO or NYT or Clunking News Network.

    2. “Sounds like the Mueller investigation had a bunch of crooked people.”

      – Allen

      Thank you for the statement of the obvious; the revelation!!!

      Sounds like Hitler didn’t like Jewish people, right?

      The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

      The co-conspirators are:

      Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

      James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

      Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

      Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

      Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

      Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

      Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

      Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.

  3. Glenn Greenwald has a comment on academic fraud that includes pictures of Liz Warren’s claim to be American Indian to the Texas Bar and a Fordham Law Review comment referring to her as a ‘woman of color’ [BTW, what’s the difference between ‘woman of color’ and ‘colored woman’?]


  4. I’m fairly new to this Blog but I’ll say some of the things I’ve read are truly amazingly false. Today I’ve read that Net Neutrality is to protect free speech. HOG WASH! The basis of NN is ISP’s must treat all communications equally and not discriminate or CHARGE different rates based on platform, user, application, equipment etc. No where will you find the issue of Free Speech. Net Neutralities issue is to protect consumers from ISP’s charging disproportionate fees for speed, data etc.

  5. US Hollywood stars coddled up to Vladimir Putin in “Blueberry Hill” song tribute in Russia

  6. I think this is what you get when you do not understand history, national or world. The baby boom generation stopped censorship on campus, supported by college administrators and professors through the free speech movement. Today, those same people are reversing history. J.H. mentioned what happens when groups move underground, much easier today with the dark web.

    However, laws and regulations should not protect any business that practices censorship and promotes one voice, while silencing another. I do not support any censorship, but when your voice is silenced and mine is not, then laws should not protect those silencing your voice.

  7. But then facebook is a front for the socialist party in whatever version National, International or Regressive Liberal. Here’s an add on. What percentage of people in the Democrat Party are not putting food on the table for family and children and grand children thanks to Chuck the Putz and Piglosi. They claim the poor down trodden are represented by then so one would look for a high percentage of members BUT mostly we see Establisthment Statists and Statis Corporatists and neo aristocrats the ones with all the money one trillionaire and a high amount of billionaires. So you mean to tell me theat it’s OK for PIGLOSI to block incentive money needed for food on the table or is the Party of Slavery using those checks as a club to keep their personal cotton pickers in line?

  8. I totally understand your position on freedom of speech. My problem is certain do not have the full right of freedom of speech. The best example are those who wear Maga red hats. They are assulted and yelled at. I am a union member who for years was silenced. and who was forced to donate to people and causes of the union choice. I know a hat is not a person but the person wearing is normally silenced. There are plenty of examples of free speech being shut down from Congress people to artists to journalists to rioters and protesters.

  9. Prof “It is better for law enforcement and others to have these groups more visible.” What good will this do if you don’t arrest and incarcerate. This isn’t a game ANTIFA/BLM are playing their seriously out to hurt the nation and Americans. You disagree with them and they will dispatch you and your business. All those who now acquiesce to them (FB, AOL, NFL, Prof Turley, etc.) only embolden them. Prof you are a great guy with great American values but I think your wrong on this one.

  10. Meanwhile, Trump again encourages people to break the law:

    Donald J. Trump:
    “NORTH CAROLINA: To make sure your Ballot COUNTS, sign & send it in EARLY. When Polls open, go to your Polling Place to see if it was COUNTED. IF NOT, VOTE! Your signed Ballot will not count because your vote has been posted. Don’t let them illegally take your vote away from you!”

    Response from Josh Stein, Attorney General of North Carolina:
    “NORTH CAROLINA: Do NOT do what the President directs. To make sure your ballot COUNTS, sign and send it in EARLY. Then track it ONLINE with BALLOTTRAX. Do NOT vote twice (it’s a felony), or waste your time, or unnecessarily risk exposure to more people. https://northcarolina.ballottrax.net/?fbclid=IwAR2_zTMPDmbmQhdQK7Ir-_IPwy3Iw5Xut0bX4meqH1cCuFTHjd5GGsUl48E
    “The only GOOD thing about the President’s tweet is that he FINALLY encourages voters to VOTE BY MAIL. It’s an easy, safe & secure way to cast a ballot. To request yours: https://votebymail.ncsbe.gov/app/home
    “Important Thread on VOTING in NC: … 6. DO NOT VOTE TWICE …”

    Twitter has now marked Trump’s tweet advocating election fraud with a warning, but hasn’t deleted it: “This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about civic and election integrity. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”

    Trump is himself breaking the law in NC by advocating that people vote twice:

    § 163-275 of North Carolina law:
    “Any person who shall, in connection with any primary, general or special election held in this State, do any of the acts or things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class I felony. It shall be unlawful: … (7) For any person with intent to commit a fraud to register or vote at more than one precinct or more than one time, or to induce another to do so, in the same primary or election, or to vote illegally at any primary or election.” (emphasis added)

    1. Thanks for clearing things up, that Trump did not violate NC’s voting laws & your post shows that’s the case.

      Because of Trump’s comments more eyes will now be on the look out for those old voter fraud type cases of the recent past.

      1. Oky1, work on your reading comprehension. Trump wrote “When Polls open, go to your Polling Place to see if it was COUNTED. IF NOT, VOTE!,” which is inducement to some people to vote more than one time.

        Evidence of voter fraud in the U.S. is minimal and includes both Republicans and Democrats. Voter suppression is a much bigger problem (e.g., when hundreds of thousands of legal registered voters are purged from voter registration lists, when polls are disproportionately closed in some areas vs. others).

        1. “which is inducement to “some people” to vote more than one time.”

          I have no control over what stupid & corrupt people write or do, hell just look at your comments on this topic.

          1. Speaking of stupid Oky, you’re a regular provider of Alex Jones links, are are you drunk when you do that?

            1. PS Or maybe like Jones said in trial under oath in defense of his completely false vendetta against Sandy Hook parents, maybe you’re just under a temporary psychosis brought on by medication.

    2. Meanwhile,

      Commit posts another long, tedious rant against Trump.

      What is it this time, Commit? Did Trump park for 17 minutes in a 15 minute parking spot?

      You are turning into a yappie little dog that people tune out.

      1. Young, people post what ever they want here within certain rules. You and the rest of the right wing peanut gallery spend an inordinate amount of time biting CTHD’s ankles while avoiding an actual rebuttal or engagement with her content full posts. Of course your impotency in this regard is the fact to be taken from your whiny comments while the facts she reports and with a high degree of accuracy – almost always supported by links – are what is to be taken from hers. OK for you to disagree with her, but be a man and prove your point.for a change. Your whining and whimpering is pathetic.

        1. “avoiding an actual rebuttal or engagement with her content full posts. ”

          Not true. Many rebuttals and many proofs including the fact that she contradicts herself much like you. Frequently her links are off topic and when looked at deeper actually disagree with what she says also much like you.

          Young has been one of the commenters that has exposed her for what she is. He doesn’t whine. He states the facts.

        2. Book– When called on it she herself said that if we thought she believed everything in authorities she links to then we are nuts. Fair enough, but she does scrambled eggs with links and doesn’t distinguish between what she does believe and what we would be nuts to think she believes.

          You say my whining and whimpering is pathetic– ROFL, LOL you are projecting and have no facts and clearly do not understand what I am saying [and there is a plate of Commit for you to enjoy].

          1. “she … doesn’t distinguish between what she does believe and what we would be nuts to think she believes”

            I believe what I, myself, have written. (Just don’t take it out of context or substitute you inferred if I didn’t imply it.)
            Amazed that you needed that explained to you, Young.

            1. Committ Above: [Young said] “she … doesn’t distinguish between what she does believe and what we would be nuts to think she believes”

              I believe what I, myself, have written. (Just don’t take it out of context or substitute you inferred if I didn’t imply it.)
              Amazed that you needed that explained to you, Young.


              Set Up or Slander: Did Pelosi Defame A Salon Owner


              September 4, 2020 at 12:21 AM

              “It seems you believe that if I link to something, it means that I have to agree with everything in it, down to the wording of every phrase. If that’s what you think, you’re nuts.”

              In that conversation you linked to a Sci Am article and I quoted the opening statement that was closest to what you had said before.

              You then disavowed it with the statement just quoted..

              You never did offer what was in that same article that you thought was in agreement with your beliefs.

              Several of us have seen you use the same deception to divert from an idea when your argument is pursued too closely. Suddenly we are supposed to look away and pretend that you never claimed the content of a citation to a source.

              When is your version of “Pow Wow Chow” coming out Commit?

              1. Young, maybe you could type that many words about something other than nitpicking CTHD. Is that possible? Try disproving her on something substantive for a change.

                  1. No doubt why you are a big Trump fan.

                    Whatever your issue with CTHD is, your post above is unintelligible nit picking about ……. what? It seems to hinge on “You never did offer what was in that same article that you thought was in agreement with your beliefs.”

                    Oh OK. We no how precise you and your pals are with language so no wonder you insist on ………. what?

                  2. I haven’t lied.
                    Which is why you cannot quote me lying.

                    And as By the Book notes, if you believe that “Lying is substantive,” you should be horrified by Trump, who lies a great deal.

                    How did you like his lie that “The whistleblower gave a false account” / “He wrote something that was total fiction” / “What the whistleblower said bore no relationship to what the call was”? (We know from the phone call summary and testimony under oath that the whistleblower’s complaint was accurate, not fiction.)

                    How do you like his lie that “Article II allows me to do whatever I want”? (It doesn’t.)

                    How do you like his lie that “You’re not paying for those tariffs. China’s paying for those tariffs” / “We’re not paying for the tariffs; China is paying for the tariffs, for the 100th time”? (China isn’t paying the tariffs.)

                    How do you like his lie “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.” (Nadler to Mueller: “Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Mueller’s response: “No.”)

                    How do you like his lie “The wall still, obviously, has a ways to go, but we’re building it at a breakneck speed.” (In over 3 years, he’s only added ~3 new miles of wall to the existing wall.)

                    How do you like his lie “as you know, there was just a case where they found a million fraudulent votes”? (There wasn’t.)

                    How do you like his lie that “they say the noise [from wind turbines] causes cancer”?

                    How do you like his lie that “I disagree with John McCain on the way he handled the vets, because I said you got to get Choice. He was never able to get Choice. I got Choice.” (McCain co-sponsored the Veterans Choice Act, which was signed by Obama in 2014.)

                    How do you like his lie “we have no soldiers in Syria”? (There are still U.S. soldiers in Syria.)

                    The list of his lies goes on and on and on. There are compendia of his false statements, like this one: https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/ (unfortunately only goes up to mid-2019, when the reporter left the Toronto Star) The Washington Post has another, though theirs includes misleading claims in addition to false ones.

                    Do you consider Trump’s lies substantive?

                    1. To clarify, by “new miles of wall,” I mean wall built in locations where there had previously been no barrier, not improvements of existing wall.

                    2. And it turns out that the data I was looking at from June were slightly outdated. As of Aug. 7 (the most recent data I’ve been able to find from CBP), ~5 miles of primary wall have been built “in locations where no barriers previously existed,” which is what I was referring to.

                      Recall that Trump claimed that 1,000 miles of wall needed to exist: “They built the Great Wall of China. That’s 13,000 miles. Here, we actually need 1,000 because we have natural barriers. So we need 1,000.” “We need 1,000 miles.” He was explicitly not talking about fencing: “Jeb Bush just talked about my border proposal to build a ‘fence.’ It’s not a fence, Jeb, it’s a WALL, and there’s a BIG difference!” “I’ll tell you what it’s going to be made of. It’s going to be made of hardened concrete, and it’s going to be made out of rebar and steel.”

              2. Young, if you think that
                1) “I believe what I, myself, have written. (Just don’t take it out of context or substitute [what] you inferred if I didn’t imply it.)” and
                2) “It seems you believe that if I link to something, it means that I have to agree with everything in it, down to the wording of every phrase. If that’s what you think, you’re nuts.” (emphasis added)
                are inconsistent with one another, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

                When I link to something (an article, a tweet, etc.), the words on the webpage I linked to are not something that I, myself, have written. I link to all sorts of things: things I wholly agree with, things I agree with in part and disagree with in part, things I wholly disagree with, depending on my reason for linking to it. I link to things for different reasons. Among them are to provide evidence for my own claims (in which case, as long as the citation provides evidence for my claim, it doesn’t matter whether it also includes other info that I may not agree with), to provide a source for a quote (where I might or might not even agree with the statement I quoted, much less agree with everything else in the link), to provide a site with more info should someone want more info, etc.

                I’ll note that you, too, sometimes link to things you don’t agree with. Do you need me to find a couple of examples?

                “You never did offer what was in that same article that you thought was in agreement with your beliefs.”

                And you didn’t ask me what I agreed with and what I disagreed with in the article as a whole, and by the time you’d started quoting from it, you’d already shown me that you weren’t trying to have a sincere discussion, so had you asked, I would have told you that I’d only answer your question after you answered my questions that I’d already asked and that you’d ignored. And I’ve already pointed this out to you more than once. Here’s another example: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/03/set-up-or-slander-did-pelosi-defame-a-salon-owner/comment-page-3/#comment-1996768

                I’ll add that you STILL haven’t explained your own words in that discussion. Here, AGAIN, is an example of me pointing this out to you: “You say things like ‘race is a genuine way of sorting different biological varieties of people and that the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species,’’ and ‘We can classify humanity into four major races …, but it will not cover every contingency …’ So go ahead: identify the four or more subspecies of H. sapiens corresponding to the races you ‘classify humanity into,’ and explain why biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens.” (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/22/court-orders-president-trump-to-pay-stormy-daniels-attorneys-fees/#comment-1993105) You can’t do it, and you still can’t admit that you can’t do it.

                “Several of us have seen you use the same deception to divert from an idea when your argument is pursued too closely.”

                On the contrary, Young, what you’ve seen is that I refuse to let you put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and didn’t imply, despite many of you trying to do that because it’s the only way you can win a debate with me.

                “Suddenly we are supposed to look away and pretend that you never claimed the content of a citation to a source.”

                What does “claim the content of a citation to a source” mean, Young? Again: It seems you believe that if I link to something, it means that I have to agree with everything in it, down to the wording of every phrase. If that’s what you think, you’re nuts. (You think that when I link to a quote from Trump it’s because I wholly agree with him? Are you nuts?)

                I haven’t ever asked you to pretend anything.
                But I have rejected some of your claims when *you* pretend things about me (sometimes inventing things out of whole cloth, sometimes cutting off quotes so that they seem to say something different than what my entire sentence actually meant).

                BTW, Young, do you not know how to identify the permalink for the comment you’re quoting from? If so, just ask.

                  1. Allan, Thanks for that observation. I really hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out, but it I think you have a point.

                    I am going to respond in part not to fight with her but because the subject interests me and her opposition, when not silly, is helpful. In particular I am thinking of her question how many races there are. She asked to corner me rather than engage in an actual discussion, but it is a legitimate and interesting question and I have given it some thought.

                    1. Young, I asked you to “identify the four or more subspecies of H. sapiens corresponding to the races you ‘classify humanity into,’ and explain why biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens.”

                      Don’t forget the subspecies part.
                      Don’t forget the part about biologists disagreeing with you.
                      And taking your own words seriously and pointing out that you’re wrong (e.g., when I noted that your claim “the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species’’ is false) is part of engaging in an actual discussion.

                    2. Commit– I will probably answer on my own terms thinking through the questions rather than play gotcha with you,

                      One question, and not a trap, you said biologists say that races are not a subspecies. Maybe some did but I am not sure. Which biologist has actually said that? I would like to see the reasoning.

                    3. BTW, Young, you’re lucky that I’m a more reasonable person than you are, which is the reason I gave you a citation for your question despite your many dishonest and insulting comments about me.

                  2. Young, what I said is “biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens.” Since there is a single extant subspecies, I assume that your own logical reasoning skills allow you to conclude that either (1) there’s a single extant race, corresponding to the one extant subspecies, or (2) races aren’t subspecies, since the number of races and the number of subspecies aren’t equal. Are you able to reach that logical conclusion?

                    Here’s an example, referring to “modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)” — our one living subspecies — vs. an earlier subspecies, Homo sapiens idàltu:

                    If you’re referring to something else I said, just quote it.

                    To answer your question, here’s one source, and you can look up others for yourself:
                    Templeton, A. R. (1998). Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist, 100(3), 632-650.

                1. CTHD, Allan has long been on my “not worth a response” list and it looks like Young has found just the right buddy. Neither seem capable of a discussion that doesn’t revolve around personal insults.

                  1. “Allan has long been on my “not worth a response” list ”

                    I am honored to be on your list (and CTDHD). I can save water by not having to shower so much.

                    1. If I were on Allan’s “not worth a response” list, I could save water by not having to shower so much.

        1. I will try to think of another cute expression for you to borrow since you seem unable to craft insults of your own.

    3. “Meanwhile, Trump again encourages people to break the law:”

      Proven false many times for multiple reasons.

  11. I don’t believe it, you mean some groups get preferential treatment over other groups. I can’t believe that’s happening in America.

  12. Hmmm, if Turley is so supportive of the Antifa site, why not the so-called “far right” sites that Facebook kicked off, and refuse to allow sharing of posts from them, regardless of the content. In truth, many of the banned sites are merely expressing views not consistent with the status quo – and the Democratic Party. They are mostly sites that express views such as restricting immigration and deporting illegal immigrants or have reservations about racial subjects. The owners of those sites and those who visit and post them have the same free speech rights as everyone else, but their speech is being restricted because Facebook censors don’t like it. Twitter is not as bad.

  13. Where can we learn the type of content or words that Word Press censors? This blog vendors with Word Press.

  14. “I have opposed declaring them terrorist organizations and believe that their speech should be protected.”

    So Jonathan, in your opinion an organization that repeatedly sets occupied buildings on fire while barricading the occupants inside the buildings in order to burn them to death, is not a terrorist organization?!

    WTF are you thinking?

    1. I have to agree on this one. Would love to know the Professor’s definition of terrorist. I’m certain it would be your description verbatim. It’s like saying Wagener wasn’t a Nazi because he never personally broke a window. The blinders on many Progressives mules mules look accommodating. I can only surmise that Jonathan is basing this on his own limited experiences that mainly involve flyers and shouting. To be fair, he has stated he may be a tad out of touch regarding such, but come on, man. No one is ‘faking’ the fires, bodily injury, death, or mayhem.

      1. “We do not need to use the designation of terrorist organizations to curb acts of violence in this country. When antifa members or others engage in criminal acts, we have ample criminal laws to use against them. Indeed, cases currently being prosecuted by the Justice Department for throwing Molotov cocktails in New York, including charges against two young attorneys, are likely to be framed as domestic terrorism without any formal designation.”


        Prof Turley did add this link to his past comments to his comments here for the reader’s consideration.

        But Antifa & B “Burn” L “Loot” M “Mur.der” AKA” BLM, now have a long history of violence & with police standing down in many places it would seem to many it’s times just like these that call for the citizens to use their 2nd Amd to defend their 1st Amd, their families, homes, businesses & communities. Much like Klye Rittenhouse seems to have done in Kenosha Wi after Antifa/BLM threw the first Molotov bo.mb at him & armed criminals chasing him trying to mur.der him.

        BTW: Who was that Democratic Party leader that within the last couple of weeks said in public that if Trump wins again “They” will burn every phkin city down to the ground in the US? I’d like to send that info to some people.

  15. monument– Well said. Hatred seems to be the dominant emotion among democrats– not just the extreme left wing– but what used to be called moderates. The hatred of President Trump (after four years of unrelenting, frequently false, media coverage) has been stoked to the extent that rather than vote for a President whose achievements have been remarkable, they all would rather vote for a senile, corrupt career politician with no discernible accomplishments and a far left Senator who espouses things like open borders, Medicare for all, and late term abortions, all of which tear at the fabric of our country. Oh, and did I mention that the “moderates” embrace Black Lives Matter like that wimpy Episcopal Bishop Curry in DC praising BLM just after they tried to burn his church down. I wish it was possible for the democrats and their candidates to inflict the damage on themselves but unfortunately those of us who still love this country and who served it proudly will be along for the ride.

    1. Honest, wasn’t collusion with the Russians a proven fact. Why isn’t Trump in jail?

  16. “While Facebook is a private company not subject to the First Amendment’s limits, it should adhere to free speech values on the Internet.”

    There are no “free speech values on the Internet” in general. All sorts of websites have long deleted content that’s protected in the public square, or prevented publication on the site in the first place. Turley himself periodically deletes comments that would be protected speech if made in the public square rather than on his blog, and WordPress also prevents some comments from being posted on this blog in the first place, if the comment contains certain words that are prohibited by WordPress but protected by the First Amendment when it comes to the government interfering in their expression.

    1. “There are no “free speech values on the Internet” in general.”

      Translation: As long as FB is deleting the pages of “far right” groups you’re fine with that censorship.

      But if FB took down Antifa’s page, or any other leftist pages, you’d be screaming like your hair was on fire.

      1. You fail as a translator, Rhodes, and you have an overactive imagination.

        1. It’s extremely easy to translate your simplistic partisan BS, Buttercup.

          And thanks to its simplicity, no imagination is required.

          But keep defending Antifa, and see where that gets you.

          1. Keep assuming things you have no evidence for, Rhodes. That’s your overactive imagination.

          2. Rhodes, you are the one guilty of “simplistic partisan BS” in your discussion with Commit, She has not said what you allege.

            To the larger point she addresses – which is not whether she thinks Antifa is peachy keen or not – while I agree with JT that the internet presents the greatest boost to free speech in a generation, if not ever, individual sites including JT’s do not adhere to the strict rules he seems to advocate. He is correct that FB et al are not government run and therefore not subject to 1st amendment constraints, but then persists in arguing that they somehow should be without supporting principles. No, they shouldn’t and the GOP and right seem confused about positions they have taken previously and this particular one.

            The GOP in the Reagan era successfully dumped the fairness rule for businesses operating on what were deemed to be public airways – TV and radio – and we got wall to wall 24/7 right wing talk shows with no opposition, including even guests – wouldn’t you love to see Limbaugh actually try to debate someone as opposed to his 3 hour pontificating each day? Then in the Net Nuetrality arguments the GOP favored free rein for providers, unencumbered by rules meant to maintain net neutrality . Now on this one suddenly, the argument is purely situational and aimed at individual companies – not new standards – which are deemed not friendly enough to their interests.Hey, start your own social media platform and let George run it. Knock yourself out, but cut the whining.

            1. Book, unlike you and Commit, I have no partisan Party affiliation. Never have and never will.

              Commit is about as complex as an earthworm.

              She has no original thoughts of her own, and all she does here is cut and paste articles that align with daily DNC talking points. Just to make it worse, she constantly does so even though they are completely off topic, in a sophomoric attempt to derail any thread that doesn’t align with her partisan teams ideology.

              You aren’t even that imaginative. All you do now is act like you’re the defender of Commit’s inane postings.

              But speaking of the topic of this thread, and your inanity. You were the one who recently claimed that Antifa doesn’t exist.

              Yet here you are posting comments on a thread about Antifa’s FB page?! Maybe you should consider getting out of the woods.

              1. Rhodes is about as complex as an earthworm. He has no original thoughts of his own, and all he does here is insult people in a sophomoric attempt to derail any thread that doesn’t align with his ideology. His inane postings aren’t even that imaginative.

                1. Rhodes, this is the world of Anonymous the Stupid. I said it before and I will say it again. The world to Anonymous the Stupid is a great ocean until someone flushes.

                  1. This is the world of Allan the Stupid. I said it before and I will say it again. The world to Allan the Stupid is a great ocean until someone flushes.

                    1. I love how you copy what I and others say. It helps set into the mind the point being made. In this case it is your ocean that disappears with a flush. Right, Anonymous the Stupid?

                    2. Allan loves listening to himself speak. It is his ocean that disappears with a flush. Right, Allan the Stupid?

                    3. To add to the flushable world of Anonymous the Stupid there is a good documentary about Biden. If one lacks the time one can skip to the later portions but it is worthwhile tor review the details behind Biden’s dealings with China and how his family benefited while the security of the United States was compromised.

                      ‘Riding the Dragon’ documentary alleges Biden family self-enrichment from China

              2. Rhodes you simpleton, I have never believed or said Antifa does not exist.

                The rest of your post is not worth a response. I’ll defend Commit from stupid claims from you and the other posters butt hurt to the point of obsession from run-ins you’ve had to retreat from, but that’s not why I’m here. Let me know if you want to discuss anything interesting.

    2. Commit– “There are no “free speech values on the Internet” in general.”

      True to a degree and becoming more so every day as big tech yields to leftist pressure and to the autocratic inclinations of their own people despite many of us wanting free speech values broadened.

      At the moment big tech enjoys a degree of protection because we value free speech in this country. The more they tear it down the more likely that they will invite regulation or anti-trust action from the same people most inclined to protect them from interference.

      They still enjoy legal protection as ‘neutral’ services not accountable for what third parties post. Once they edit and ban and shape opinion in politics they abandon the pose and should be open to a settling of accounts. Lawsuits won’t really curb them; regulation would be a farce increasing their power; but breaking a few of them up might get their attention.

      1. Young, in previous clashes over these principles the GOP successfully removed government refereeing of public debate. They managed to get the “fairness” doctrine removed for public airwaves – TV and radio – defeated Net Neutrality. Now some individual companies are not full on right wing shouting machines, like radio is now, and you forget the principles and target these companies. Please explain, or did you oppose the GOP on these 2 previous fights?

        1. I have no interest in anything a liar like Warren has to say. She speaks from convenience rather than conviction. I do think a lot of Google and Facebook acquisitions should be stripped from them. Leaving monetization and control of video content and the like in the hands of a half dozen oligarchs is not a safe way to run a country.

          It is possible that they have reached the point of being utilities that must not discriminate. Would we allow power companies to turn off electricity in the homes of Bernie supporters just because of their looney political opinions?

          1. I didn’t ask if you were interested, only whether you agree.
            It certainly seems like you agree with her.
            You say “breaking a few of them up might get their attention.”
            She advocates “breaking up Amazon, Facebook, and Google” and specifies ways to do that.

            You lie when you assert that “She speaks from convenience rather than conviction,” presumably because you dislike her political views more generally. You dislike her so much that you cannot even bring yourself to read what she wrote that’s relevant to an argument you, yourself, are promoting.

            1. One can always start the argument of Elizabeth Warren’s convictions by recognizing she was the first American Indian professor at Harvard and work one’s way up from there.

              1. She also claimed to be an American Indian to the Texas State Bar.

                Possibly she believed she was. But publishing a book of authentic family Indian recipes [Pow Wow Chow] that were stolen from a French chef is no mistake. It was a shocking display of depravity for a public figure.

                She isn’t particularly popular with real Indians either. For a political party that frets about ‘cultural appropriation’ if a white woman makes a taco, overlooking Warren’s behavior is shocking.

                1. Not particularly shocking, just another part of the act. Biden appropriating Neil Kinnock’s family history was rather arresting.

          2. Young, you are making essentially the same argument the left made on Net Neutrality, i.e., large companies should not be allowed to control the internet, and a government referee was necessary, Do you believe in that general principle, or only as it impacts the goring of your particular ox? The utility argument you raise fits the Net Neutrality argument more than this one as AT&T and Cox for example are “utilities” with often virtual if not real monopolies on service – I have no other option than AT&T unless I want to go the very costly satellite providers. Individual companies like FB are not anything like utilities as competitors can appear and make a go of it right now.

            1. “Young, you are making essentially the same argument the left made on Net Neutrality, i.e., large companies should not be allowed to control the internet, ”

              You apparently don’t know what Net Neutrality is.

          3. Young, Elizabeth Warren use to be against millionaires and billionaires. Now that she is a millionaire she only rags on billionaires. She still one of the little people.


          back then she advocated giving BK courts ability to “cram down” collateral in the form of home mortgages such as how secured lenders can get a haircut in a corporate reorganization
          of course nobody passed a bill to implement it


          and it has to happen before they stick us all under an ever growing glacier of AI censorship and control

          1. Mr. Kurtz, this seems reasonable. But unlike the period when ATT, Standard Oil and others were broken up, the average American probably knew little about it.

            If that were to happen today, big tech would flood social media with ads telling Americans how bad it will be when they fould not buy their widgets from Amazon and naming legislators to vote out. Many would believe those ads, legislators would lose their CAREERS, and would have to find a real job. That wont happen!

  17. As I read the responses of the lefties on this blog, I realize more and more that they cannot be reasoned with.

    Their intellectual dishonesty, their moral obtuseness, and their unrelenting hatred of conservative values makes them objects of contempt rather than fellow citizens to be reasoned with.

    The lefties will get the dystopia that they want, but I suspect that it will bring them no joy.

    Conservatives lament the passing of what made America great; we will be (mostly) OK because most of us live in smaller communities that maintain our values.

    The coasts and the big cities are already declining because of Democratic governance. Smaller communities will avoid some (but not all) of those ills.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: