My column in The Hill discusses the call of Democrats for greater censorship on the Internet. As someone who was raised in a liberal Democratic family in Chicago, I am still mystified by the conversion of the Democratic Party into an anti-free speech party, including demands for limiting speech on the Internet and social media. Yet, days after various Democratic Senators called for greater censorship from big tech companies, Twitter added another attack on free speech with the blocking of the account of acting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Mark Morgan. Morgan had tweeted on the success of new wall installed around the Southern Border.
There is clearly a reasonable basis to disagree with Morgan’s tweet stating “Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators and drugs from entering our country.” One can challenge how undocumented persons are stereotyped or the real threat posed along the border. It is a matter of good-faith disagreement. However, that is the point. This is an opinion held by one of the top officials in our government. Twitter has again decided that citizens should not be able to hear or read such views. It is no longer supplying a neutral platform for the free exchange of views, but a biased regulation of approved speech.
I have supported those attacking the immigration policies of the Administration as much as those praising it. It is all an exercise in free speech. Yet, many work harder to silence opposing voices than responding to them. Equally concerning is the silence of academic and political figures against such anti-free speech campaigns. Indeed, as we saw in the recent hearing, many leading politicians have joined the movement to crackdown on dissenting voices on the Internet.
The action taken against Morgan is blatant viewpoint discrimination by a private tech company. Even if you want censorship on the Internet, how is this view that the wall works demonstrably or presumptively wrong? It is an opinion shared by almost half of the country. The crackdown by Twitter is the realization of the “Little Brother” danger of private censorship to shape political and social opinion. Censorship, not free speech, has become an article of faith for many.
Facebook also added a controversy by blocking a large pro-Trump women’s group just days before the election.
This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
Lets point out that these comments that are being censored are part of an effort by CBP to use their government offices to aid the Trump campaign, in direct violation of the Hatch act. But JT does not care about actual lawbreaking by Rs, when he can bash Twitter.
You have no evidence of that. Just your opinion
“Lets point out that these comments that are being censored are part of an effort by CBP to use their government offices to aid the Trump campaign, in direct violation of the Hatch act. But JT does not care about actual lawbreaking by Rs, when he can bash Twitter.”
So CBP pointing out that they have done their job effectively is something that YOU think should be censored ?
Biden made a big deal of 500+ kids that have not been re-united with their families – failing to note that 435 of those families refused to take their kids back.
Illegal US Immigration is WAY DOWN. That is the objective of CBP defined by our laws.
So you think that CBP tweeting that they succeeded dramatically is illegal propoganda ?
I guess in your world – neither Trump nor Obama should be able to tout their unemployment numbers ?
I guess in your world – it is OK that 70% of the kids who illegally cross our borders are physically abused along the way ?
That it is OK that 30% of the kids who illegally cross the border are sexually abused.
Both things that are WAY DOWN.
I honestly do not understand the left. You claim ownership of facts and science – yet you are IYI – Intellectual yet idiot.
You not only sell fake news – you sell fake science.
Please tell me some controversial issue where you beleive science is on your side were you can cite a single actual study with statistically significant results that is reproduceable in the real world ? That is the standards of ACTUAL science.
You rant that somehow Trump has F;d up C19 – while C19 infections all over europe are rising much faster than in the US.
When the EU has a whole has more deaths than the US.
I think Trump F;d up – he never should have agreed to lockdowns. They were a ludicrously stupid mistake.
The US has over the long term lost more lives as a result of delayed cancer screening and chemotherapy by a factor of 3 from the short lockdown in the spring than from C19 – but those deaths will take months – years to show up. Those will be people who die of cancer in 6 months instead of 10 years.
But then you left wing nuts were never able to do math.
You rant “science! Science! Science!” – and you have no clue what a P value is or why it matters.
“Wow. Trump adviser Jason Miller just told ABC they’ll wage legal battle against ballots still uncounted after Nov 3. He equated *counting* those votes w/trying to “steal” the election. Via @saletan: https://t.co/LNX3gZTjrU This is the scheme the Pennsylvania AG discussed w/me”
What’s the issue? Gore tried to block military votes that were cast legally and on time but not received In Fla by Election Day. You don’t think Biden isn’t going to challenge ever ballot he can if he thinks it will help him?
Miller isn’t talking about ballots received after Election Day. He’s talking about ballots that were received by Election Day but haven’t been counted yet. Perhaps you’re asking what the issue is because you don’t understand what he’s saying.
Counting legal ballots isn’t “stealing” the election. Counting legal ballots is upholding the right to vote.
Anonymous – if only anyone actually beleived you.
We allready know from 2000 the lefts stratgegy – do whatever it takes to win.
Ballot harvesting – A republican went to jail for that in GA – but it is perfectly legal in democratic states like CA.
We have Omar paying $300/ballot.
There are billions being spent mostly by the left on this election – do you think that some of those people who are prepared to spend billions are not also prepared to commit Fraud ?
We have listened to idiots from the left claiming against the evidence that there is no problem with any magical way they want to run an election.
You claim that these are all votes received by election day – how do we know ? Why should we trust you ?
Are these ballots signed as required ? Do the signatures match ? Are they in the correct envelopes ?
Democrats threw out 20% of mail in votes in the 2020 primaries – why do you expect the general election will be any different ?
How do you expect that we can trust any election where there are legitimate reasons to fight over 20% of the ballots ?
No one trusts you.
I don’t trust you either, Mr. Lynch.
Anonymous – I do not care who you trust.
You have demonstrated absolutely no reason for anyone to trust you.
I provided evidence – you have provided nothing.
Do you have an actual argument – do you have anything besides insults ?
Did you listen to what Miller said?
“If you speak with many smart Democrats, they believe that President Trump will be ahead on election night … And then they’re going to try to steal it back after the election. We believe that we will be over 290 electoral votes on election night.”
No one in the Biden Campaign is saying that counting ballots is “stealing” the election. No one in the Biden Campaign is suggesting that Electoral College votes are assigned on Election night. Each state’s EC votes don’t get assigned until that state’s election is certified several days after the election.
Mountain out of a mole hill. Hair on fire. Miller is just saying we’re watching you. The Democrats are saying the same thing. Geez Louise. There’s more to comment on in the comments than the Miller statement on one side or the other. Give it a rest.
Thinkit, you have apparently not been paying attention as Trump has been trying to discredit the election results for months now, and with the GOP is making every effort to have ballots thrown out that are not counted on election day. Miller is a hired gun who says want he thinks Trump wants him to say – nothing more, nothing less. Given the likelihood that this year most mail-in ballots are from Democrats – a flip of past years – Trump has signaled clearly his intention to spread doubt, suspicion, and legal roadblocks to keep them all from being counted or considered. Trump doesn’t care about our institutions, the rules, or you or me. He cares about himself and the safe haven the WH still affords him. There is no telling the lengths he will go to to not leave it.
IF you want the election results to be creditable – conduct them in a decent safe manner.
It is not at all hard to prevent fraud.
But the left has deliberately chosen to conduct this election in the manner most likely to have massive fraud.
You should not be surprised that people are concerned.
My interest in election fraud started with Bush/Gore.
The period from the election to the certified outcome was tense and a serious threat to the stability of the country.
Every moment that passed increased the odds of funding fraud – and there certainly was fraud.
I opposed Bushes HAVE Act – the addition of computers to elections was a step in the wrong direction.
Since I have learned alot about how to conduct a trustworthy election.
This election is likely to be the least trustworthy in a long long time. Possibly ever.
And we stupidly did that by choice.
The fault for any mess here rests with the left.
We did not need to engage in this kind of stupidity. But you have done so.
The mess is all on your heads.
Regardless – of course trump is attacking the fraudulent means we are using to conduct this election.
You seem to think that you can set things up for fraud, declare yourself the winner and not be subject to any consequences.
I am not sure how long things will take – but whether Trump wins or loses – there will be consequences – and democrats are going to pay them. Maybe in 2020, maybe later.
There are two possibilities – first is there will be sufficient backlash from the people we will never do anything this stupid again.
The other is that fraud will become the norm with both parties vying to see who can do so best.
I would remind you that every tactic every power move democrats have engaged in has been matched by republicans.
And in the long run republicans benefited more than democrats.
If you think “watching” is “stealing”, TIT, then your morals are askew.
Give it a rest yourself.
The election ends when the polls close on election night.
It is not 1830 anymore – there is no reason that the votes can not be counted by midnight. In most of the country they are.
If they can not be – then something is wrong with the way elections are being run.
And democrats are deliberately structuring elections such that the will go past election day.
That amplifies any tendency towards fraud.
It is hard for a campaign to predict how many votes it will need before election day – and one of the normally limiting factors on fraud is the larger the fraud the more likely it will be caught.
But if at 9pm election night the losing party in a state knows exactly how many votes it needs to find/manufacture to win the election, that has the lowest risk, and the highest incentive.
I will be happy to discuss with you the means of preventing this and myriads of other forms of fraud.
It is actually quite easy to thwart voter fraud. In person elections, on one day and voter ID are a very effective means of reducing voter fraud to incredibly low levels.
Immediate counting of votes – such as by scanners is also an effective means.
The less handling of ballots is done by election officials prior to counting the less likely fraud is.
Mail-in Voting is by far the most fraud prone form of voting. It is also the most error prone. As should be noted by the 20% of ballots democrats rejected in the 2020 primary.
That is just no way to run an election.
Forget Fraud – even an error rate of 2% will likely tip this election. And the post office error rate for mail in ballots is 4% as measured by the Philadelphia enquirer.
You have chosen the stupidest most error prone most fraud prone way to hold and election and you want to pretend there will be no problems ?
And you have had no interest in trying to minimize the opportunity for Fraud.
Any ballot not RECEIVED by the close of polls on election day should not be counted – no matter where it is from.
Any Mail-in ballot from a state without a law authorizing mail in ballots should not be counted.
Any Mail-in ballot without a signature that matches the signature in the voter registration records should not be counted.
Any Mail-in ballot that is not received in the proper nested envolopes should be rejected.
Any Ballots of any kind “found” after the polls close should be rejected.
I do not care who the vote was for,
Perfectly sensible procedural norms. The trouble is, you’re talking to people who cannot conceive of procedural norms. All they have are improvisations which justify them getting what they want.
NO MATTER WHAT – the Rules must be set and followed LONG BEFORE the election.
No one – not Trump, not Biden, not the left, not the right, should ever be allowed to change the rules in the middle of the election.
Rather than try to figure out how to game the system to favor the right or the left we should sit down and try to figure out how to be sure the elections are conducted with minimal error and minimal fraud.
If we can not trust the results – that is when things get scary.
In this election – not only did we change the rules in the middle of the election – without thought and without legitimate authrotity and process for doing so, but we continue to change them right through and PAST the last minute as some try to game the outcome they want.
I am far less concerned about whether Trump or Biden wins, than I am whether the election is not being gamed.
As it is currently being conducted, there are myriads of reasons to mistrust the results.
If most of those who lost do not accept that the system was conducted following the law – then we move into dangerous teritory.
Read the decalaration of independence – When government becomes abusive of our rights, we are free to alter or abolish it.
John, you can want whatever you want, but the decision isn’t yours to make. Yours are empty wishes.
If you expect the results of an election to be accepted by the people you must conduct the election in a fashion that not only is fraud difficult, but even the appearance of fraud is difficult.
The left just burned down the country and destroyed $2B+ of property because they likely falsely beleived that a police officer had killed George Flyod. People get angry – even violent when they beleive the system is being gamed. Do you think that there is no risk to gaming elections ?
Grow up – We conduct elections ACCORDING TO THE LAW – laws that were set long before the election, and do not get made up as we go along, so that we can trust the results – even when we do not like them. Because when we can not trust the results there was no legitimate election, and there is no legitimate government.
That is not a candle that wise people want to dance close to.
Most of what I offered conforms to the requirements of the constitution.
But that is not what is most important. What is important is that an election conducted with actual rules – not count again and again until I get the results I want, is trustworthy. One in which we make up the rules as we go is not.
The left played with fire in this election – and all of us are likely to get burnt as a result.
Absolutely.
This is an unconstitutional mess YOU made.
The constitution says the election takes place on THE DAY set by congress – there is no election week, no election month.
Mail in ballots are an enormous oportunity for Fraud – and YOU opened the flood gates.
And you have done this without for the most part state legislatures acting – it has been entirely on extra-legal and constitutional claims of emergency powers by governors acting without constitutional authority.
Nowhere in the constitution does it allow any state governor any power with regard to elections.
Just look at your own primaries – on average 20% of mail in primary votes were rejected.
It is irrelevant precisely why they were rejected – you can not run an election where the margin for error is 20% – even if there is no fraud at all. And if the oportunity for Fraud exists – you can bet it will be pursued.
If you want your vote to count – vote in person on election day.
If you want to gamble on mail in voting – you are asking for all kinds of trouble.
There are numerous ways that a mail in ballot can end up not counting – and even more ways for a fraudulent one to count.
No matter what the outcome of the election – this is the perfect example of the idiocy of the left.
We already know that the left will not accept the results if Trump wins – they still have not accepted the results of 2016.
Why should 2020 be any different ?
Why should the right accept the outcome if Trump does not win ?
As with Fillibusters and Bork and all the other left wing violations of norms – you reap what you sew.
“ We already know that the left will not accept the results if Trump wins – they still have not accepted the results of 2016. Why should 2020 be any different ?“
Did you see this?
WND:
Leaked Zoom calls: Federal workers conspiring to shut down White House in contested election
‘It’s a coup. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s not’
Dozens of leaked internal documents and Zoom call video footage were made public Sunday describing plans by progressive activists and federal workers to disrupt and destabilize the outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election, including plans to “shut down the White House.”
“It’s a coup. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s not,” a woman states during one Zoom session.
The videos and documents, which reportedly have been handed over to law enforcement, were posted on two websites, SunriseExposed com as well as ExposeSunrise com, both of which promised to be regularly updated with additional content during the next 48 hours as Election Day approaches.
“We already know that the left will not accept the results if Trump wins ”
The evidence you supply in support of your claim is so ridiculous it is almost conclusive proof that there will be no meaningful if trump wins.
My assertion is self evident – the left did not accept the results in 2016.
The left does not accept the fact that Hillary conspired with Russians in 2016 – Trump did not.
The left does not accept the fact that Biden sold the public trust for personal gain – Trump did not.
Why would any sane person beleive that the left would accept a Trump victory in 2020 ?
Anon. at 5:30 PM —
LMAO. How about you provide the names of the “Federal workers” you’re making claims about?
Anonymous – the videos are out there. Only on the left is this some “secret”.
Nor are the videos being denied, the claim is they are deceptively edited – fine we can get the raw unedited video and see if that is true.
Regardless, after the past 4 years – do you really want to try to sell nonsense ?
“Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed”
Trump is going to win
Government will prepare to arrest the seditionists in any number
We welcome any level of conflict from the enemies of law and order!
Kurtz, you have a hamster in your pocket, and does he also share your pitiful attempt to reassure yourself and fellow cultists?
I have a lion in my pocket and baby he’s ready to roar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblt2EtFfC4
ready to party here
Jabba the Hutt Lady and the Soy Boy think they are going to shut things down? Maybe that fat lady could just sit on the White House and squash it with her fat backside
watch and see: these freaks assume no possible valid electoral outcome for Trump– obvious plan of insurgency
they have maps with government, police buildings, and ‘trump boosters”
they’re talking about “revolution” and “war” — well — laissez le bon temps roulez!
“chaos is the soup by which change emerges” “we want to be on the offense”
“whomever has the guns can often win” ha ha yes, yes!~
“we need to think about how to take over government buildings” “let’s break the windows to get in and take over the buildings” !
OH PLEASE DO TRY. THAT WILL TURN OUT VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN PORTLAND, I PROMISE!
these guys have no clue, ha ha, I totally want to see them step up their game and try. Oh, man, grab the popcorn. Soy boys and gender benders planning to storm DC! Wow please, enough talk already, enough zoom calls. Ha if they were serious they would not be on zoom talking about it. What a bunch of losers.
As if often the case, John insists that he knows what he’s talking about when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
John says “The constitution says the election takes place on THE DAY set by congress”, but he’d be better off quoting the Constitution, which says is “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
John confuses the time during which voters vote (“the Time of chusing the Electors,” since we now choose electors by popular vote) and the day on which the Electors vote (a single day — the Monday following the second Wednesday in December). The Constitution doesn’t require the popular vote to occur on a single day, and in our entire history as a nation, the time period during which the electors were chosen has always been longer than one day.
Perhaps John thinks he knows better than the Founders. In the first election, the electors were chosen between December 15, 1788 and January 10, 1789. The Founders didn’t gripe “The constitution says the election takes place on THE DAY set by congress”. They knew that the election DAY was the day that the Electors voted for President – February 4, 1789.
Anonymous – you are the one who can not read.
Please read the text you cited.
Yesterday was the “TIME OF CHUSING ELECTORS” – not the next three weeks.
Not only can’t you read the constitution – you can not read the law. Congress not the states sets the day for federal elections – both in conformance to the language of the constitution – and by federal law.
Elections occur on a single day – not smeared accross months.
There are MANY good reasons for this – it is clear to most everyone that this election has been growing closer with each day.
Did Trump win yesterday ? Maybe, or maybe Biden did. Regardless, if the election was tomorow, or next week or next month the odds would appreciably improve that Trump would clearly win.
But elections are not about who would win 9 months ago, or 9 months from now.
We have presidential elections ONCE every 4 years. on ONE and only ONE day – we do not care what the result would be the day before, or the day after, only the day of.
This is important – because the more of this BS you foster the more unclear the results of the election become.
As an example AZ appears to have gone to Biden – because many in AZ voted early – before anything regarding Hunter Biden was reported, and AZ does not allow mail in voters to vote on election day and spoil their mail in vote.
If you want to allow votes to be smeared over days, weeks, months – then you must allow EVERYONE to do that.
I did not vote for Trump yesterday – In YOUR scheme – why can’t I change my mind today ?
Not only do you have a constitutional problem, and a federal law problem, but you ALSO have a practical problem.
Ultimately you MUST have a hard deadline – and that deadline will be a single day.
Further the longer you make that deadline from the actual election day the greater the election fraud you incentivize.
There are some reasons today why fraud by democrats is more likely than republicans – but that is because of issues that may change in the future. What is true is that regardless of party the inventive to cheat increases the more fluid you make the rules.
And the most dangerous thing we can face is an actually fraudulent election victory – that destroys the legitimacy of government.
In 1788 the electors were chosen by the state legislatures – the choice of electors was made on a single day in each state.
There were only two states that had popular votes for president – on ONE DAY.
There were a few states that did not vote – because they failed to ratify the constitution in time.
Please reread the constitution.
The day in which the electors vote – also set by congress, is not election day.
It is also independent of this discussion.
The electors ARE and have ALWAYS been expected to vote as they were directed by their state.
Since you are fixated on microparsing(badly) the constitution, I would further note that in nearly every clause in which the constitution refers to federal elections it explictly refers to STATE LEGISLATURES – not the governor, not the state supreme court.
The election of the president, the senate, and the house or representatives are FEDERAL ELECTIONS – not state elections.
Your state can dictate the rules for electing dog catchers. Your state constitution, and your state courts, and governor have a say in those.
But FEDERAL ELECTIONS are the domain of the federal government – the constitution REVOKABLY delegates some specific powers regarding federal elections – to STATE LEGISLATURES – not governors, not state courts.
Just so I am clear – I do not actually care that much about the specific mechanics of elections – with a few execptions.
My reason for applying the constitution rigidly is to preclude those like you attempting to game the system.
I have zero doubt that if you thought that you would get the outcome you wanted with a different arrangement you would argue for that arrangement – and if 4 years later the opposite was true – you would argue the opposite.
“We already know that the left will not accept the results if Trump wins – they still have not accepted the results of 2016.
Why should 2020 be any different ?”
John, if Trump wins, which I believe will happen if there is no cheating, he will be in a much stronger position than in 2016. He will know the players and be able to choose better people to fill the various vacancies. I think he will have a lot less trouble from Republicans so that he will act in a somewhat different fashion.
The son of Lev Parnas offers one more Trump tell-all
As a law student, Aaron Parnas says, he witnessed many of his father’s encounters with President Trump and his inner circle.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/01/lev-parnas-son-trump-tell-all-433790
So what? People encounter one another all the time.
Your point?
Should I care that you’re too lazy to read his article and understand his points?
What did he hold the hand of a former KKK recruiter While he praised him? Oh, That was Biden
He didn’t make any points. In fact, he didn’t write the article.
Anonymous, I can easily easily read and comprehend what he says, but I wanted to know what your point was. What you cite and what you think aren’t always the same and a lot of stuff you cite is junk considering what the discussion is all about.
I thought you guys though Parnas was a criminal and a Russian operative ?
Why are we supposed to beleive him whan he says bad things about Trump but not when he says bad things about Biden ?
Do you often confuse fathers and sons, John?
Do you mix up Trump and Jr. too?
Do you have an actual argument ?
Am I to take it that you do not Trust Donald J Trump – but do trust Donald J. Trump Jr.
That you do not Trust Hunter Biden – but Do trust Joe Biden ?
If you are going to make an argument – the least you can do is beleive your own argument.
Democrats like Cuba more than Israel. That opinion matches the Democrat totalitarian nature where free speech is suppressed and the MSM supports the party not the people.
—
Democrats more pro:
Cuba: Dem 39% Republic 16%
Republicans more pro
Israel: Dems: 36% Republicans 69%
https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/articles-reports/2020/10/26/what-countries-do-americans-most
(⅔ down the page)
Who says the media’s in the bag for the Dems? Just days before the election, the Wall Street Journal published a hard-hitting expose on Kamala Harris’ sophisticated fashion sense. Honed during her years as an attorney. Punctuated by pointedly casual touches. Their investigative team even uncovered a picture of Senator Harris in her San Francisco district attorney days rocking a chocolate-hued variation on her signature suit.
President Obama always said she was hot. Smokin’ hot. She could soon be the hottest President ever. You go, girl!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kamala-harriss-style-mixes-courtroom-and-converse-11604145618
Epstein, I saw that and it’s hard to miss how Melania Trump, whose beauty and fashion sense could run circles around smirking Harris or “becoming” masculine Michelle and obese Stacy Abrams, etc. but there you have it.
You’re quite the feminist DV.
@Anon – Barack and Willie Brown always had an eye for fine ladies. Too bad DV can’t join them behind Kamala and her chocolate hued suit, but if DV has some kind of political hang up that’s his problem. BTW, be sure to check out the first picture of Kamala sporting an awesome pearl necklace. WSJ says its part of her uniform!
New York Times, Washington Post, and Twitter are the definition of Pravda. They don’t like Putin, but they sure try to emulate him.
The Dems have come full circle from their pro-slavery days. They consider blacks for Trump to be runaway slaves and they want to get them back.
Trump has a Twitter account. Is he Putin in your scenario?
Wow, pretty ignorant reply.. Not witty, just dumb
>> I am still mystified by the conversion of the Democratic Party into an anti-free speech party, including demands for limiting speech on the Internet and social media. <<
You have had plenty of time to come to grips with it. On 9/11/14, Senate Democrats thoroughly disgraced themselves when they UNANIMOUSLY voted to "amend" – meaning repeal and replace – the First Amendment. You've known for at least six years that if given enough power Democrats will criminalize speech they don't like.
What's also interesting is how in many ways the Democrat Party coalition resembles the caricature of the Republican Party 50 years ago. They now brag and run ads about being the party of former Republicans (mostly pro war neo-cons who people like Bill Kristol, Steve Schmidt, Jennifer Rubin speak for), Wall Street, country club corporate elites, and former members of and apologists for the "intelligence community", who Democrats used to be highly suspicious and critical of.
It's been a remarkable transformation.
You’re lying, Scott.
There was no attempt to repeal and replace the First Amendment. There was an attempt to propose another Amendment relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. The text said the following –
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
Article —
SECTION 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”.
“Amending” an amendment is functionally equivalent to repealing and replacing it.
By the Book, as always, is a dishonest hack.
Google returns 75 million hits for “Democrats vote to amend the First Amendment”. Here’s a sample article from Reason from that infamous 9/11/14 date, titled, “Senate Democrats Fail to Amend the First Amendment”
https://reason.com/2014/09/11/democrats-fail-to-amend-the-first-amendm/
This is another one of By the Book’s parsing con jobs. He thinks it makes him look smart. Instead, as always, it exposes him as the dishonest hack that he is.
You keep lying, Scott.
If you search on the quote “Democrats vote to amend the First Amendment,” Google says “No results found for “Democrats vote to amend the First Amendment”.”
If you meant a search on the words and not on the sentence, it pulls up all things that have those words, including results that have nothing to do with the 2014 proposal. If you search on Republicans vote to amend the First Amendment, you get 116M hits.
I’m not By the Book, and the stream of insults from you is projection.
You quoted a law that was an egregious infringement on the first amendment.
The fact that you can not read is your problem.
If you restrict people from speaking as a group – i.e. corporations – you are infringing on the individuals right to free speech.
If you restrict spending for speech – you restrict speech.
The law you cited did both.
It’s not a law, jackass.
So your argument is that democrats did not infringe on the first amendment because the legislation that you quoted, that democrats voted for, did not become law ?
So we should trust democrats with free speech only because others thwarted their efforts to infringe ?
You’re still lying. The First Amendment would remain unchanged –
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Amendment states: ” Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”
That certainly abridges the right to free speech.
Not only that but the bill offers the ability “regulate and set reasonable limits” which is open ended because who is to define what “reasonable limits” are.
You certainly have a problem understanding the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” along with what the Constitution says. I think Castro, Stalin or Mao would be your preferred leader.
Allan, you again resort to some of your favorite go-to strategies –
— insults, and
— pretending that someone believes something they don’t believe, pretending that someone doesn’t understand something they do understand, and then attacking them for what you imagine instead of reality.
The proposed amendment did not attempt to repeal and replace the First Amendment. The First Amendment would still be there, unchanged.
Read what an actual repeal looks like –
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-21/
No it does not attempt to repeal and replace the first amendment – it attempts to egregiously violate it.
If you want to limit the speech fo people in groups or of people in politics – amend the constitution.
In the meantime it is the duty of all judges and specifically the supreme court – whether on the left or the right to declare laws such as this unconstitutional – because they are.
John, are you trying to double down on showing what a jackass you are?
It WAS proposed as Amendment.
If you had read the text and were paying attention to what it said, you’d have noticed That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Are you completely clueless ?
If you propose an amendment to the constitution to murder all lesbians – does the fact that never is enacted make your actions any less heionous ?
Anonymous, I read every word you said and more. I can’t help it if you don’t understand what you are talking about.
1st Amendment “no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Abridgment of speech is a no no according to #1. What are you proposing? Abridgment of speech.
I know its hard to put 2+2 together but I wasn’t “pretending that someone believes something they don’t believe” You don’t understand. It’s a matter of reading comprehension and thinking logically.
Nothing you’ve said, Allan, changes the fact the proposed amendment did not attempt to repeal and replace the First Amendment.
1st Amendment “no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. Abridgment of speech is a no no according to #1. What are you proposing? Abridgment of speech.
It doesn’t make much difference what you call it. The effect is the same. That is what is important. You have filled your head up with useless soundbites and now there is no room for logical thinking.
It makes a difference whether a statement is true or false.
SCOTT lied when he said “On 9/11/14, Senate Democrats thoroughly disgraced themselves when they UNANIMOUSLY voted to “amend” – meaning repeal and replace – the First Amendment.”
“Amend” doesn’t mean “repeal and replace”. You can keep trying to move the goalposts. You often do that.
Anonymous, as I have told you over and over again, I don’t waste so much time dealing with semantics and even in this joust I tried to deal with meaning and logic.
If the first amendment says: “no law… abridging the freedom of speech”.
What do you think that means?
Spending money to influence elections is part of free speech. [You have to stop and think. You have to understand what the words free speech mean.]
In fact I think the founders in discussion considered the most important part of free speech, political free speech. [Influencing elections is part of free speech, right? If I am correct in what I remember it is the most important part of free speech, Right?]
I think everything I have said to this point is true and I don’t think you will disagree. If you disagree with fact you can always check the Internet.
If you accept the above as true then regulating and setting “reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” is an abridgment of free speech.
Think about it step by step and then go back to my first quote from the first amendment.
—
An additional thing to consider, when terms such as reasonable limits are used it means they cannot define the term. If they can’t define the term then how is anyone to know what is reasonable? To make “reasonable” decisions one needs a third party. You can take the logic from there. Such an amendment should not be passed due to vagueness.
Have you ever heard of the repeal of prohibition
Any yet on its face it does.
Any you are now trying to argue that we need not take is seriously because it was never enacted.
That is interesting – the DMCA is therefor arguably a violation of the first amendment,
While private actors can censor as they please.
Government can not convey on private actors immunity that results in further abridgement of first amendment rights.
“Congress shall make no law .. abridging the freedom of speech,”
So in your world – it is OK to limit peoples speech when they do so in groups ?
It is OK to limit peoples speech when they spend money to speak on TV or Radio or Billboards or the internet ?
The media may yet achieve their goal of installing Joe Biden as interim President till Harris replaces him but they need to look at history.
If Trump is defeated with the help of the massive propaganda push by the majority of the media, it will establish their power to unseat elected representatives. This will lead to their demise. Despots have historically destroyed those who have helped them, once it is evident that those same entities can oppose them if they get too far afield.
Prime examples are Castro, who murdered some of his rich enablers, Stalin who went through a series of purges, academics, military officer corps, and JOURNALISTS; look at Mao and Robespierre and you get the picture.
It will only be a matter of time before social media will be regulated, domesticated, and muzzled, to curb “hate speech” and “systemic racism”. The mass media are not far behind.
If all goes well, Trump will be defeated with the help of a majority of voters.
And we will have elected a man who is self evidently more crooked than any prior american president – and we have had some dooseys’
Democrats once again screwed up. You had a primary. There were atleast two dozen candidates – and this is the best you could come up with ? You might as well have drafted Hillary. Atleast she is better at sanitizing her corruption.
Regardless, the worst thing for both democrats and the country would be for Biden to win.
Democrats will be enthrall to the left, they will be unable to govern without doing worse than under Obama.
You can hide the corruption – with the help or an obliging media.
But you can not hide from the fact that Trump has succeeded as president – much better than Obama or Bush.
He has been better for the rich, and the poor, for black and white and for everyone in between.
Democrats will have to match that – and they can not do so and make their own left wing happy.
Frankly they just plain can not do so. What is necescary to make the country work is alien to democratic DNA.
I do not expect Biden to win. But I am not that worried if he does. I am not worried if Democrats sweep the federal government.
I am not worried if they stack the courts or whatever other nonsense they engage in.
What I am most worried about is democrats do not understand why they lost in 2016, and even if they win in 2020 they will not understand the extent to which they have alienated most of the country.
If Trump loses – there will likely be another Trump – and he will be louder, more authoritarian.
That is what history teaches us – when the far left takes control – they either become authoritiarian, or they are driven out by even more authoriatains.
We actually need a sane centrist democratic party that looks inward to figure out what its problems are.
Things will get worse until that happens.
The Chinese and Russians accept your invitation to the Biden victory party. They will bring their checkbooks.
If Trump is defeated with the help of the massive propaganda push by the majority of the media, it will establish their power to unseat elected representatives.
That power was established on (or before) August 9, 1974.
Reiner, that was when the media actually reported. Meaning they investigated and looked for corroboration. Nothing like now.
False.
Government may not limit free speech. NOR may it limit the necescities of free speech.
Government can not say that you can advocate for whatever polical candidate you wish – from 2am-3am on Sundahys in the shower, but that you can NOT do so by running expensive Television commericals or Radio Advertisments.
You can not limit free speech through the back door by limiting political contributions.
BTW a corporation is a group of people acting together for a shared purpose.
Individuals do not lose their rights by acting in concert with others.
Can we shut down “Act Blue” because they are a corporation ?
Are you capable of anything more than the shallowest understanding of your own idiotic actions and their consequences ?
The law that you quoted is from end to end self evidently unconstitutional.
Congress does not have the power to regulate speech. Not even through the back door, by regulating the money used to amplify speech, nor by limiting speech solely to individuals and depriving us of the right to speak as a group.
JS: “Government may not limit free speech. NOR may it limit the necescities of free speech.”
And that is the key issue. You cannot sunder the use of a right from the possession of a right. For decades, the fascist strategy has been to (artificially) separate possession from use. So in their view, you have a “right” to speech, property, association, et al. — but in name only. The government controls and limits how an individual uses that right.
They’re like a kidnapper telling a victim: “Sure, you’re free to do as you please — so long as it pleases me.”
Well said.
I always liked this from Holmes’ dissent in Abrams: “I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death …”
Your last analogy brought to mind Mrs. Oleson listening in to the Walnut Grove residents’ telephone conversations, but with Dorsey pulling the plug out of the switchboard when he doesn’t like what is said.
No one is making “demands for limiting speech on the Internet”.
Anyone who wants can host a website and post whatever they want, subject only to standard laws against defamation, child porn, and so forth. People can write whatever they want in their emails. Etc.
If people don’t like the Terms of Service for social media companies, they shouldn’t agree to them.
The big tech companies are too big. Why isn’t JT arguing that they should be broken up?
Corporate censorship, is still censorship and cuts against the value of free speech.
John530, the First Amendment is a restriction on government regulation of speech. How do you want it amended to regulate corporations and private citizens?
My comment had nothing to do with the first amendment. My comment was concerning censorship, which I detest, no matter if it’s the government or the corporate overlords.
The value of free speech is as the only mechanism, as far as I can tell, whereby we can resolve our disagreements without resorting to violence. And I don’t think that it should be ideologically trampled, as is currently happening with these tech companies.
In the entire history of the US, can you name even one for-profit company that hasn’t censored speech?
No, I can’t. How is that relevant to my position on censorship?
I think your position is overly broad. Do you think all regulations “cut against the value of free speech”?
In terms of Twitter they were given immunity from suit in their actions as a platform that is permitting anyone to post on the site. Why shouldn’t people have a right to sue for defamation? No large companies I know of outside of the tech industry has been given such immunity.
You are being disingenuous.
I do not.
What I want is an end to government providing selective immunity to some and not to others.
Either entirely eliminate defamation laws,
or only eliminate them for those who limit their censorship to that allowed to government,
or subject all publishers to the same liability for the content they distribute.
Separately I do expect that Bif Tech will be held accountable for violating past inducements of free speech they have subsequently written out of their TOS.
Recently Twitter locked NY Post out of their account, Twitter has been dancing arround on that for weeks – why ? Becasue they actually did violate their own terms of service.
And this si where Section 302 immunity matters. Twitter violated their on TOS in banning NY Post (and many others) – but they can not be held accountable for that.
Ordinarily NY Post would have a significant breach of services claim against Twitter.
The problem is not corporate censorship.
It is that promises were made – inducements long ago that have subsequently been abandoned
AND
There is no corporate liability for editorial choices.
“If people don’t like the Terms of Service for social ”
In short. Twitter grew to its present size based on section 302. They have misused the law and presently have monopoly status. 302 protection should be withdrawn from Twitter and other companies permitted to enter the market with section 302 in place as long as they don’t abuse it.
It’s Section 230, but we get what you mean…
Allen, thank you for correcting my error.
They also grew to their present size based on prior promises of free speech.
The type of censorship we are seeing in Big Tech today is actually fairly new.
It is not just section 302 that propelled them to their current sizes, but also their past promises of freedom.
“No one is making “demands for limiting speech on the Internet”.”
Of course they are – what rock have you crawled out from under.
Not only are there PLENTING demanding exactly that – the elimination of free speech, and not just on the internet,
but all too often their demands are met.
You are partly correct that anyone can host a website – try getting a website with a controversial premise hosted anywhere today.
And what constitutes controversial is broadened every day.
If people like Martina Navrotolova and J.K. Rowling can not speak freely about gender – in what world do you think the rest of us can ?
Look arround – your ilk are demanding that people be hunted down, fired and deprived of any ability to make a living for offending you on issues that for the most part you are clueless about.
Nor is this free market buy what you want censorship – everyone is expected to kowtow to your whims. Employers and webbhosting services do not for the most part give a damn about the issues in the speech they are supressing – they care that angry mob’s of violent and destructive left wing nuts will turn on them next.
That is your idea of “no one is censoring you” ?
Separately – The social medi giants CAN excercise editorial control over content they publish but do not create – immune from the liability for defamation that the rest of us are subject to.
Free speech is NOT the ability to whisper things that others might be annoyed at in your bed with your wife at night.
It is the ability to shout it from the mountaintops.
As to Social media Terms of Service – Whatever the internet service – the terms of service were quite different when I joined them.
Twitter and FaceBook inititally promised to raise free speech to new levels. As has been noted – do you think that FB would have crushed MySpace a decade ago – by promising to censor viewpoints – even facts they did not like ?
You do not seem to grasp that the promises you take to induce someone into an agreement are binding and violating them is fraud.
The problem is not that Big Tech companies are too big, it is that they are too protected by government.
We have standards for government censorship – the constraints government can place on free speech are incredibly narrow.
We have different standards for private censorship – but as you noted – private speakers have more freedom as well as personal responsibility for what they say.
Big Tech companies benefit from a lack of liability for their content that government has granted, while having the freedom to censor that private individuals have. It is that that is improper.
“Of course they are – what rock have you crawled out from under.”
One can assume that the poster who made those ridiculous comments is intellectually impaired. Whether he was born that way or did it to himself cannot be determined, but the latter seems more likely.
Sooo, JT says above: “As someone who was raised in a liberal Democratic family in Chicago, I am still mystified by the conversion of the Democratic Party into an anti-free speech party…” It’s no longer a liberal party. The liberals I know are either in a state of bewilderment or angry – voting third party or Trump, and I don’t personally know any, but I’ve seen testimonials of liberals leaving the party outright.”
How coincidental. Just yesterday I wrote:
———–
I think Republicans are wrong about Democrats being “low information” voters. I think Democrats are “no information” voters instead. Because NO information whatsoever goes into their choice. They are Democrats for the same reason nincompoops in West Virginia dance around with rattlesnakes and speaking in tongues – FAITH.
If the Republicans were running Mitt Romney or Susan Collins, those type of Faith-based Democrats would still be voting for a grifter with senile dementia issues – because he is a Democrat.
When you listen to some of the #walkaway stories on youtube, it is usually the same story , to wit, “I grew up in a liberal household and I was taught Republicans were evil, etc. etc. etc., so I have always voted for Democrats. Whenever I was confronted by conservatives, I had no real arguments and I just repeated whatever talking points I heard.”
It has taken some of the people decades to actually compare the two parties and realize the Democratic Party SUCKS, big time. Sadly, most Democrats will never actually think about what they believe, or take good hard look at how mentally ill so many Democrats are. I say that being an ex-Democrat, who worked for Hillary in 2008, and would have voted for her in 2016 except for the stupid email stuff, and the fact that Trump came along.
——–
C’mon man, did I nail it or did I nail it???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Given the massive majority of R voters that do not accept basic facts, you are quite wrong. They think Trump won the pop vote, they think climate change is false, they make up their own facts about covid, and many more.
Here, Molly. You can #walkaway too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flp7gKg5G4E&t=8s
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Here, Squeaky, you can walk away from the GOP:
“Given the massive majority of R voters that do not accept basic facts, you are quite wrong. They think Trump won the pop vote, they think climate change is false, they make up their own facts about covid, and many more.”
I have not heard anyone – republican or otherwise say that Trump won the popular vote.
He won the election – by the same rules we have used for 250 years.
I have not heard anyone claim the climate does not change. I hear alot of left wing nuts claiming that CO2 is a polutant when it is actually fertilizer. I have heard them claim that Humans have increased CO2 in the atmostphere – when all available scientific data indicates that atmostpheric CO2 has been rising linerearly since about 1750. I have heard them claim that Humans are responsible for global warming that has been occuring since 1750. I have heard them claim that current warming is unusual – when the warming trend has been the same for the past 250 years. I have heard them predict doom and gloom – and we are long past the moment of truth for those predictions without doom and gloom. There is still ice in the arctic, Antartica has more ice than ever, At the current rate of “melting” Greenland will be ice free in 200,000 years – or maybe 1M depending on where you get your numbers.
I have heard left wing nuts in february claim Covid would kill 2-4M people in the US – if that were True – then Trump has done a great job.
I have heard them claim that the benefits of HCQ are a myth – yet we now have 126 published studies indicating statistically significant benefits from HCQ from accross the world – many Double Blind RCT’s.
I have heard that lockdowns, social distancing and mask wearing would bring the transission rate of C19 below 1.0 – which must be done to stop the epidemic – yet recent data from the EU and UK imperial college indicates that the best that government policies have managed is reducing R0 to between 1.19 (about the same as the flu) and 1.59. Lets us be clear – if you can not get R0 below 1.0 you have done HARM and NO GOOD
I have read recent meta studies by the CDC covering 16 real world studies of masks, social distancing, etc. that found the net impact of all of these combined was ZERO.
I would note that more and more the voices of reputable scientists are getting out – and more and more even the left wing nuts at WHO and Imperial College are joining them. Never in human history has man stopped a respiratory virus with an R0 of 2+ once it has infected more than 10,000 people. NEVER. We have not thwarted any flu, we can not stop the common cold – both of which have R0 values far below C19.
It is not those on the right selling delusions – it is those on the left claiming that somehow this time is different.
And you idiots are not even able to do basic Math.
Today in the US about 1000 people die per day from C19. Can you do the 3rd grade math necescary to determine how many people an effective but not perfectly safe vaccine can kill today for it to be a better choice than waiting until may for a perfectly safe vaccine ?
And you think those on the right are stupid ?
You are IYI – Intellectual Yet Idiot.
“As someone who was raised in a liberal Democratic family in Chicago, I am still mystified by the conversion of the Democratic Party into an anti-free speech party…” It’s no longer a liberal party. The liberals I know are either in a state of bewilderment or angry – voting third party or Trump, and I don’t personally know any, but I’ve seen testimonials of liberals leaving the party outright.
What used to be known as the “Democrat party,” is now the Red Guard in its natal form. Frankly, I think people have to be pretty screwed up to knowingly ally themselves with this party. Look at its history! It has always been the seed of America’s destruction, and now it’s finally sprouting.
Pass the roundup.
Why Congress ever agreed to pass section 302 protecting companies like FB and Twitter is beyond reason. That is what our government does all too frequently. In general people have little money but these giant corporations have a lot of money that finds its way into the pockets of our leaders. Is it no wonder that when bills are passed they are generally incomplete and favor the people, company or industry in power?
This is not new. We were taught this in grade school. Remember long haul, short haul railroad legislation? If not, look it up.
Less laws are better.
Thank you Allan – this is fundimental.
The DMCA as currently applied has disrupted the entirety of the public sphere.
We have provided a select segment of the public square witht he immunity that government has without holding them to the same standards that government is bound to.
The problem is NOT that twitter FB etc have their own dynamically changing standards. It is that they are not accountable.
As we saw with the Covington Kid when the print and Television media defame others – they can be held accountable.
Washington Post gets to decide what it will publish and in return it is accountable for what is published.
Twitter FB, Youtube have protection from government for any content published AND editorial control over the content published.
I do not think that was the actual intention of Sect 302, I beleive that the language offers a clear trade – immunity in return for abiding by the censorship rules of government provided public forums. And I beleive the courts have warped Section 302.
But in the event I am wrong, then the DMCA is unconstitutional. The government may not take from us our right to damages for defamatory speech while allowing editorial control over public speech.
John, the DMCA provided safety and the ability for easier expansion of these businesses. But for its ability to restrict the rights of individuals these companies could not have grown in the rapid fashion they did. Their business problems encountered along the way were theirs.
The democratic party’s supervision of social media has indeed turned little brother into big brother. Add that to the court packing which would eliminate any check on government going berserk in two ways: First the last resort appellate function of the supreme court would be neutered and striking down lower court decisions based on partisanship would disappear. Second, the judicial review function would no longer be used to have the constitution restrain laws that contradict it. Any rationale for upholding law can count under this extremely wide interpretive stance such as Breyer’s active liberty.
So public reason is censored and punished and constitutional remediation flies out the window.
I don’t maintain a large social media footprint but I am an internet “originalist”. There are options available to users of platforms such as Twitter, FB and others. First we can put up with their censorship, or being told what we are to think and say. Two, stop using the offending platform(s). Fewer users mean less revenue, if you happen to be a stockholder sell your shares.
Twitter and Censorship/Censors has become a real issue for Free Speech and especially in this case, a US Gov’t Account, advising the public what has happened and Gov’ts work, in this case the border which is a touchy issue with some. But, its informing the Public and Twitter Censors, who are very biased, as we saw in the NY Post Hunter Biden story, decide to block and lock down a Gov’t Account and refused to unlock until it hit the Press and once again “JACK” had to back down.
Its not right and the Liberals have to get over it, Twitter allows a lot of terrible posts by Dictators and etc. and Antifa and etc. The rules have to apply to all. Censors need to be NEUTRAL and trained NO Political Bias.
Twitter is not reflective of the public, majority of the Posts a Bots controlled by a hand full.
Twitter has just realize, with a drop in Earnings and Drop of users that perhaps their Censorship is actually hurting them.
there are other alternatives such as Parler Social Media which are growing at a fast clip, mainly due to Twitter Censorship
please do not call these left wing nuts liberals. They are ill-liberal.
A liberal is someone who prizes individual liberty,
Calling the modern left liberal is newspeak directly out of 1984.
What do you call right wing nuts?
Righty tightly lefty loosey! I’m taking my ball and going home! Crying liberal!
“What do you call right wing nuts?”
What has that comment got to do with mine ?
My sole point is that left wingnuts are not liberal. They are illiberal.
I have made no claims at all regarding “right wing nuts”. Though if you called them liberal – I would probably object too.
Besides censorship, Twitter news or Trending is relentlessly negative Trump 4 negative news articles in displayed in a row on the right of my Twitter account screen This is obviously curated to be pro Biden and negative Trump, Its become just propaganda news . I’m for free speech but Big Tech is killing the modern day town squares with relentless left wing bias.
.
Mr. Turley, Do you agree now that the Democrat Party is trying to take over the entire government and becoming a dictator to the citizens rather than representatives?