We have been discussing the calls for top Democrats for increased private censorship on social media and the Internet. President-elect Joe Biden has himself called for such censorship, including blocking President Donald Trump’s criticism of mail-in voting. Now, shortly after the election, one of Biden’s top aides is ramping up calls for a crackdown on Facebook for allowing Facebook users to read views that he considers misleading — users who signed up to hear from these individuals. Bill Russo, a deputy communications director on Biden’s campaign press team, tweeted late Monday that Facebook “is shredding the fabric of our democracy” by allowing such views to be shared freely.
Russo tweeted that “If you thought disinformation on Facebook was a problem during our election, just wait until you see how it is shredding the fabric of our democracy in the days after.” Russo objected to the fact that, unlike Twitter, Facebook did not move against statements that he and the campaign viewed as “misleading.” He concluded. “We pleaded with Facebook for over a year to be serious about these problems. They have not. Our democracy is on the line. We need answers.”
For those of us in the free speech community, these threats are chilling. We saw incredible abuses before the election in Twitter barring access to a true story in the New York Post about Hunter Biden and his alleged global influence peddling scheme. Notably, no one in the Biden camp (including Biden himself) thought that it was a threat to our democracy to have Twitter block the story (while later admitting that it was a mistake).
I have previously objected to such regulation of speech. What is most disturbing is how liberals have embraced censorship and even declared that “China was right” on Internet controls. Many Democrats have fallen back on the false narrative that the First Amendment does not regulate private companies so this is not an attack on free speech. Free speech is a human right that is not solely based or exclusively defined by the First Amendment. Censorship by Internet companies is a “Little Brother” threat long discussed by free speech advocates. Some may willingly embrace corporate speech controls but it is still a denial of free speech.
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.
Russo’s comments mirror the comments of other Democrats who are seeking greater censorship. Indeed, in the recent Senate hearing on Twitter’s suppression of the Biden story, Democratic senators ignored the admissions of Big Tech CEOs that they were wrong to bar the story and, instead, insisted that the CEOs pledge to substantially increase such censorship. Senator Jacky Rosen warned the CEOS that “you are not doing enough” to prevent “disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech on your platforms.”
Again, as someone raised in a deeply liberal and Democratic family in Chicago, I do not know when the Democratic party became the party for censorship. However, limiting free speech is now a rallying cry for Democratic members and activists alike. At risk is the single greatest invention for free speech since the printing press. Russo’s comments reaffirms that the Biden Administration will continue this assault against Internet free speech. What is most unnerving is that Russo is denouncing such free speech as “shredding the fabric of our democracy.” There was a time when free speech was the very right that we fought to protect in our democratic system. It was one of the defining principles of our Constitution system. It is now being treated as a threat to that system.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/obama-official-ben-rhodes-admits
Obama Official Ben Rhodes Admits Biden Camp is Already Working With Foreign Leaders: Exactly What Flynn Did
In late 2016, the FBI investigated Gen. Michael Flynn when he was a transition official for the possible “crime” of talking to Russia about foreign policy. Why can Biden do this?
Glenn Greenwald
Despite its normalcy, Flynn’s call, which was recorded by the National Security Agency that had been targeting Russian officials, prompted the FBI — under the leadership of then-Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe — to decide to criminally investigate Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak.
Although the mid-2016 FBI investigation into Flynn’s possible corrupt connections to Moscow had been ordered closed for lack of evidence, the FBI manufactured a possible ground of criminality to justify its investigation of Flynn for this call: namely, possible violations of the Logan Act, a 150-year-old law that purports to criminalize attempts by a private citizen to conduct foreign policy at odds with official U.S. foreign policy which (a) has never been used to prosecute anyone; (b) is almost certainly unconstitutional; and (c) has been ignored — properly so — in countless more blatant cases, such as when then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi undermined Bush administration policy to isolate Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for helping Iraqi insurgents kill U.S. troops in Iraq by visiting Assad in 2007, infuriating the Bush White House and leading to frivolous calls from fringe right-wing voices for Pelosi’s prosecution under the Logan Act.
But Flynn’s ordinary call with the Russian ambassador became the pretext for further abuse of FBI and NSA powers as part of the security state’s ongoing efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and then sabotage the Trump administration before it even began. One way this corrupt agenda was carried out was by attempting to criminalize officials of the Trump campaign and then the new government with blatantly political motives
First, agents within the security state committed the most serious leaking crimes that exist under U.S. law — revealing the contents of intercepted communications with foreign officials — by leaking the contents of Flynn’s calls to The Washington Post’s long-time CIA spokesman David Ignatius, which Ignatius reported on January 12. Two weeks later, on January 24, McCabe — acting on Comey’s orders but without notifying the White House Counsel, angering outgoing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates — called Flynn and told him that FBI agents would visit him to interrogate him about this call.
Documents finally made public earlier this year show that the FBI agents who visited Flynn did not believe he was lying to them, and that they openly discussed their intent to entrap Flynn into lying so that they could concoct a crime. Although Flynn said he could not remember having spoken to Kislyak about sanctions, the FBI agents, as well as FBI Director Comey himself, said that they believed this might have been by-product of honest lack of recollection, not an intent to deceive. After all, what motive would Flynn have for concealing a perfectly normal, customary and legal call as a transition official with this Russian counterpart other than, perhaps, a desire to avoid triggering what had became the insanely intense anti-Russian political obsession in the Democratic-friendly press?
Despite doubts by the FBI itself that Flynn had lied when saying he did not recall talking with Kislyak about sanctions, the Mueller team negotiated a deal with Flynn in which he would plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI about his call with Kislyak. Mueller recommended no jail time for Flynn. Like so many guilty pleas that prosecutors coerce, it seems that Flynn pled guilty in large part due to threats by the Mueller team to prosecute his son if he refused.
Estovir,
Glenn Greenwald either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is lying for some unknown reason. The FBI didn’t investigate Flynn “for the possible ‘crime’ of talking to Russia about foreign policy”. Crossfire Razor was opened in August of 2016, months before the late 2016 conversation with Kislyak that Greenwald focuses on. The document where the investigation was opened was made public by the DOJ: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.3_1.pdf
The FBI interviewed Flynn because Pence made statements on national TV that indicated that Flynn had lied to Pence about his conversations with Kislyak. It wasn’t a normal phone call. For example, despite the U.S. having just sanctioned Russia for its interference in the 2016 elections, Flynn didn’t condemn that interference in any way. The agents did not plan to entrap Flynn, and although they said that Flynn didn’t give any physical indications of lying at the time, once they investigated further, it was clear that Flynn had lied to them. Among other things, Flynn denied knowing about the Obama sanctions prior to the call and said that he couldn’t know because his Blackberry wasn’t working, despite the fact that he’d been informed about the sanctions by K.T. McFarland.
But ultimately, Flynn wasn’t charged because of the phone calls. He was charged because he knowingly made materially false statements to the FBI in his interview.
To be clear, Biden’s conversations are not like Flynn’s, in part because Biden released same-day public read-outs of his calls (copied in the tweet below), something Flynn did not do:
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1326263115651100672
CTHD –To refer to an earlier discussion with you: Contrary to your position, Judge Sullivan wanted to drag the resolution of the Flynn case past the election. That being something I thought probable. The federal courts are looking rather shabby these days. Perhaps there will be a small measure of redemption if they help put an end to the theft of an election by the Democrat/Anarchist operatives.
Committ, I’m always amazed at how Trumpers love to quote Glen Greenwald like he’s the ultimate authority on American politics. Yet none of these Trumpers would ever read Salon, The Guardian or Intercept, the three publications Greenwald is most associated with.
Put your amazement back in your pocket. I have read all three at times. Also The Observer. While I seldom find something with which I agree in them, I don’t want to suppress them.
Greenwald was very good on Snowdon and, while I disagree with him on some issues, I share his concerns about the push by governments, academia, and business to grab the flow of information by the neck and squeeze.
If you will notice, the calls for censorship are greatest in cases when the opposition party accuses them of malfeasance (note Neil Cavuto censoring a Trump campaign press conference on Biden vote fraud during his Fox News show). It seems like the plan is two fold- prevent information of malfeasance from being distributed and prevent debate aimed at discrediting the thought and philosophy that has been weaponised by the Democratic party such as “critical race theory”. The Democrats use racism (and identity politics in general) to vilify the opposition not only to smear the Republicans but to convince their supporters that engaging in acts of corruption (like voter fraud) is completely justified and actually a noble thing to do (like killing a human being is o.k. if that human being is Hitler). If we allow one party to do this unchallenged, we end up in a totally corrupt single party system like what happened to Mexico with the PRI. At that point, a free society is lost to political corruption where are all the mechanisms of prosperity (free market principles) get divided up among the corrupt power brokers and society deteriorates under a oligarchical system.
Be helpful if Jonathan Turley and others learned what philosopher Karl Popper had to say about tolerance and intolerance.
Applies to so-called speech acts.
the paradox of tolerance that a socalled open ie liberal society must not tolerate, intolerance!
it makes little sense unless you recognize that liberalism is a class-ideology that protects property rights most of all, hence, it protects the rich most of all, and thus is perpetually at odds with democracy or populist movements which seek radical change
liberal society wants no major changes, so, what is unacceptable for the vested interests, is labelled intolerance, and therefore, must be intolerated.
ie, the self-appointed “watchdogs” hate, hate! and haters. by which they mean, those whose hate does not coincide with their own
I suspect Turley is full well aware of the concept as are most people with passing exposure to the various censors of contemporary times
My how clever and timely for calling attention to this Benson. It is not a paradox it is just a hypocrisy of liberal society. Many have observed it without knowing it by name.
I too have made jokes about this for decades, considering it a ridiculous irony, and only today did I know that Karl Popper observed it long ago, though I am not surprised.
I guess I should say, thanks for that little infobit
I now utter my hate speech: i hate the billionaire class, they should be arrested, expropriated, and severely punished for the good of American society
-Saloth Sar
hate is what an established class power structure calls what its targets feel when they are squashed beneath the wheel
when the powerful oligarchs act to destroy their foes, it’s only love! it’s human rights, for example, to crush Westphalian international order, in favor of UN lead globalism
the love of the patriot for his own land, now is anointed hate, and the children are taught in the papers, tv, and universities, that the love of the nationalist, is just hate
but the hate of the billionaire, is really love! of course. because the tv writers and editors say so; the movies say so; the professors say so. the social media censors agree!
words are controlled by the powerful who set the rules of language in universities, advertising, entertainment, etc. the “postmodernists” illuminated this well
It would be smart for the average Republican-conservative-Trumper sort of person:
1. to quite whining about Marxism, and instead use it to get tuned into how billionaire global capitalists overclass is turning us all into wage-slaves
2. to quite whining about post-modernism, and use it to learn who is controlling your words, and hence your thoughts, and why
3. to quite worrying about “socialism” and instead use it to unify society against the 700 some billionaire pigs who manipulated this election and cancelled it so cunningly
4. quit turning the other cheek like some battered woman to her abuser. hit back at those who abuse you. rise up against those who harm you. don’t be a weak victim, get strong
Is that bad? Bad for those who abuse you, it is. Not bad for you!
———————
hate is all a matter of perspective. it is the other side of the coin. it is the gemini twin of love. it is the darkness which frames the light. it is the day which takes turns with the night.
it all depends on values. hate is not bad in itself. it is a natural human emotion that millions of years of evolution gave us to help us stay alive
if you hate yourself, then you are done, finished, over. that is the easiest victory your foes can ever have. don’t hate yourself, for starters. hate those who harm you! that is healthy
–Saloth Sar
The third part involves the obvious transition of the anti Pelosi democrats to Independent Democrats and then forming a coalition with the Constitutional Republicans and using it to form a new Second Party. so who would be the Transition Presient.
Act of Succession is an act of congress and can be over ridden snap of fingers by the congress primarily the Senate by following the Constitution which states concerning this sort of situtation ?MAY select someone to ACT as President.” Check that one out as it appears it’s a very real possibility and there ain’t a damn thing the left can do about. If they are counting on an act of congress or the whim of one half branch they are in for shocking surprise but no bother to me. The founders figured it out two hundred plus years ago …..the socialists lasted less than a hundred then died in place.
The end of this week, or the beginning of next week, would be the perfect time for Barr to turn Durham loose.
Man! That would be fun to watch.
The guy isn’t sworn in and may not be with the illegal votes to be considered by the AG and the Courts no doubt the supreme court. He isn’t inaugurated yet and already the socialist comes out and he doesn’t even mention the FACT that he is supposed to be President of a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. And you think he isn’t a tool of the socialist new face of the old Communist Party as Putin pointed out.
Can this be put off pending SCOTUS. Sure can.
Number One Trump or whomever must vacate but what if he just turns it over to Pence who immediately hands him a Presidential Pardon which is a federal pardon and makes everything disappear local to federal in past.
Pelosi has no such coverage. She is facing depending on the outcome of the Congressional races being voted out as Speaker and faces the all to real possibility of being not only unseated from the Speakers position by virtue of not being the largest party anymore but. kicked out of the House of Representatives. Remember Adam Clayton Powell? And that means the anti socialist in what’s left of the Left become in effect Independents and join with the other party. For them it’s worth it. Only question is where is Pelosi hiding all the money she raked in for seling committee seats?
The US is both a republic AND a democracy –
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and/
If Trump resigns, then Pence could choose to pardon him for federal crimes, but there is no guarantee that Pence would do it, and Pence couldn’t pardon Trump for his state crimes, such as tax fraud in NY.
Democrats have already won a majority of the House seats. It would be good to replace Pelosi, though.
You ain’t Democrats.
you just figured that out? Ad Machina.
Call me when the shooting starts. The rest of this blather is boring and most cannot be believed anyway. So call me.
Biden has identified the members of his Transition Team –
https://buildbackbetter.com/the-transition/agency-review-teams/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk&campaign=5076B85C-2391-11EB-B9A7-F2E44F017A06
None of them should quit their day jobs.
Here’s Pompeo trolling the Left. 🙂
“There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration,” Pompeo said during a briefing Tuesday. “All right? We’re ready.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-2020-election-results/2020/11/10/933516479/pompeo-promises-a-smooth-transition-to-a-second-trump-administration
Mights well get the experience but remember your boss can change in the snap of a Supreme Court finger.
Well Jon, it’s really obvious when the Democratic Party became censors – it occurred in the 1960s when the Far Left took over the party and conservative Democrats left the party in droves. The modern Democratic Party is Marxist/Maoist in every respect and has been for decades. They are totalitarian would-be dictators who want to control free expression, even free thought. They have two goals – censorship and confiscation of the means to resist them.
It’s sad that you have such a distorted view of reality.
It’s sad when The Collective resorts to mechanical devices to do their job because the machine parts that look human aren’t. So
as boringly usual you can’t claim humanity and there fore AD MACHINA
T