Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Media, Politics

“All Speech Is Not Equal”: Biden Taps Anti-Free Speech Figure For Transition Lead On Media Agency

For those of us who have been critical of the growing anti-free speech movement in the Democratic Party, the Biden transition team just took an ominous turn.  The New York Post reports that Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. As I previously addressed in a column, Stengel has been one of the most controversial figures calling for censorship and speech controls. For a president-elect who just called for everyone to “hear each other,” he picked a top aide who wants to silence many.  Since it would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.  This is not the first Biden aide to indicate a crackdown on free speech in the new Administration and Biden himself has called for greater censorship on the Internet.

Last year, Stengel wrote a chilling Washington Post op-ed that denounced free speech as a threat to social and political harmony.  Like a number of liberal and Democratic figures, Stengel struggled to convince readers that what they need is less freedom:  “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”

It is the European view that has destroyed free speech on that continent. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). It is a trend that seems now to be find support in the media, which celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

In January, Biden called for greater speech controls on the Internet and denounced Twitter for allowing others to speak freely. In insisted that tolerating such views in the name of free speech is same as “propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” Biden called for companies to bar Trump views on such things as mail-in voting as an invitation for fraud.  He is not alone. Congressional leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff have called for labeling and removal of material with some members directly threatening a legislative crackdown. This week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for resisting speech monitoring and censorship as a matter of free speech. Pelosi lashed out that those who want to preserve a free speech zone are “all about making money,” ignoring free speech advocates who have no financial interest in these companies. Pelosi said that opposing such monitoring means that social media companies simply want “to make money at the expense of the truth and the facts” and are trying to “hide under the freedom of speech.”

These efforts are drawing upon the work of academics who are pushing for greater censorship and speech controls. The Atlantic published an article by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet.  They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” and “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”

Stengel however is one of the most unnerving and outspoken voices against free speech. He wrote how hard it was to explain our views of free speech to Arab countries which of course routinely jail or even execute people for exercising free speech. However, Stengel was raising the point to suggest that they had a valid confusion over our values:

“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

That design flaw is free speech itself. So in a nation filled with gifted people to lead the effort on government media policy and positions, Biden selected a person who rejects the very essence of free speech.  Stengel promises the “unity” of a nation silenced by government speech codes and censorship.   If no one has a megaphone, free speech is no longer a problem.

 

 

672 thoughts on ““All Speech Is Not Equal”: Biden Taps Anti-Free Speech Figure For Transition Lead On Media Agency”

  1. This is disgusting. The Left needs to go completely to hell now. Enforce the Constitution, arrest the traitors and send them all to Gitmo for public executions.

    1. Gordon, do you not recognize that sending Americans to Guantanamo to be executed is diametrically opposed to enforcing the Constitution?

    2. Gordon. The people on the left have the right to use hate speech to condemn hate speech. If we do not allow them to continue to do so we eventaully will find our own speech in jeopardy. However, If actions are taken to stop free speech actions must be taken to regain it. Free speech can be lost at the ballot box. I see that even Bill Mayer has said that these wacko policies are not approved by the American people. I appreciate his saying something, even if he is a little late to the party.

  2. Your Biden vote enabled and promoted ‘ominous turn’. Congratulations to you if they managed to get away with election theft.

  3. Turley wrote, “For a president-elect who just called for everyone to “hear each other,” he picked a top aide who wants to silence many.”

    Surprised; I’m not.

    As expected; the extreme agenda of progressives and anti-Constitutional and anti-American extremists will begin to overtake the so-called moderate mojo projected by Biden during the campaign. As everyone should have done with President Trump; ignore the words and focus on actual actions.

    1. Steve, in typical GOP hate mongering accuses Democrats of what his party has become – anti-constitutional, with a party that stole a SC seat by purposefully failing it’s constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential appointments, had no problem with their leader undercutting Congressional powers to control spending or the implied and traditional Congressional power to subpoena Executive branch members, or his directing the AG to have opposition leaders arrested. As to anti-American, we have many Trumpsters on this board, including now Steve, denouncing most of the countries voters as evil traitors who must be met with force, while their leader tried to divided the country into states he would reward and punish.depending on their loyalty to him.

      And Steve has the balls to call someone else anti-constitutional and anti-American? GMAFB

      1. Joe Friday loves to troll people. In several posts, Friday talks about his love of argument and states that he came on the site to argue.

        But I am not going to give much weight (or time) to a troll who is here just to argue.

        Friday can antagonize his wife, the rest of us should recognize him for what he is – a provacateur looking for attention.

        Also, his discourtesy to our host has gotten old.

        Wrong opinions can be ignored, bad manners is just plain low class.

      2. Funny thing Joe Friday, based on your regular trolling comments (like this one) I really don’t give a hoot what you write about me or anyone else. The fact that your obsession forces you to take time out of your life to troll me with your hate filled rhetoric, rationalizations and deflections means that my comments must be fulfilling useful counter-troll purpose on this blog and it’s obvious that I’m occupying enough space in your brain that you can’t resist spewing your blithering nonsense at me.

        Thanks for your “valued” input Mr. Friday.
        Steve

        1. Steve, I accept your surrender, Based on your oft demonstrated inability to argue a point – in this case, one you introduced – I fully understand.

    2. As everyone should have done with President Trump; ignore the words and focus on actual actions.

      That is sage advice and the primary reason I voted against Clinton and for Trump. It is remarkable how many people value political speech alone in determining who they will support and completely ignore the true measurable which is the actions they take. This problem is compounded by the media propagating the rhetoric without a mention of the actions that follow. This selection by Biden is a clear example of where his his actions telegraph to anyone paying attention that he has no intention of unifying this country under the principle of freedom, liberty and the security of rights.

  4. Few observations:
    1. JT is right about free speech (at least in this posting). The nominee is wrong.
    2. He will not be in a position to influence policy on hate speech, so no actual risk. He will be overseeing our international radio.
    3. Trump’s person for this job was anti-independent journalism, and made a massive mess of the US overseas radio.
    4. If bad policy positions on one issue would disqualify you for all government jobs, then the entire Trump administration should never have been hired, so hypocritical much?

    1. Molly. Some issues are more important than other issues. When an attack is made on one of the basic freedoms that guarantees our right to our liberty it should not be bunched in as just another issue. You take away the foundation and the building collapses. Ofcouse it doesn’t matter if you really don’t like the building to began with. It just may be a lack of understanding about its construction in the first place.

  6. Lefty, lefty no feffty.
    Banana danna fo mefty.
    Fee fi moe eighty.

    Or:. Moe, Larry, Cheese!

  7. What we need is a free speech website that conveys news and individual jabber. The only thing to censor would be cuss words like itShay. The word itShay is piglatin. The pigs will go along with that.

  8. So now there is to be a government “Ministry of Truth” — backed by the government’s police powers — to determine which speech “incites hate.”

    And which speech, exactly, is that? When I hear a socialist defend redistribution of income, that incites hatred in me. Is that type of speech to be banned? Some hate pro-abortion arguments. Are those to be banned? At one point, writings in defense of the heliocentric view of the universe incited hatred among Church leaders. Are those ideas to be declared illegal? During the American revolution, pro-liberty speeches incited hatred among the British monarchy. Are such speeches today to be banned? Are dissidents, by their nature, “hateful” — and therefore to be “re-educated?”

    Or are we no longer allowed to ask such questions?

    Congratulations, America. This is what you get when a presidential candidate is given a free pass.

    And George Washington warned you:

    “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

    1. “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

      Don’t you know Sam, those old-timey words of wisdom were appropriate for the 18th century. But we’ve evolved as a culture and the progressives have assured us that the intellectual elites guiding us in the 21st century are not standing on the shoulders of those enlightenment giants; no, they have replaced them. /sarc off

  9. Biden’s choice of a person who is anti free-speech is not surprising. The left is moving in the Marxist / Mao direction. They don’t like free speech, religion, freedom of assembly, guns, etc. The left is anti-American to the core.

  10. Censor! Censor Biden!
    Whaaaat kind of people censor Biden?
    Fat kids, skinny kids.
    Kids who climb on rocks…
    Etc

  11. Georgia just “found” more President Trump uncounted ballots. They say it was just an error. Poll worker signs affidavit and video’s claim they were double counting Biden ballots in Michigan. Wittiness says: Dominion exec on phone call says he made sure Trump would not win.

    It’s hard to believe this is going on in this great nation. Where is our protection? Two posters previously intimated there would be a civil uprising. I’m beginning to think it may have to come to that to rid ourselves of the Marxist among us.

  12. This is a conversation late in coming. Conservatives speech has already been banned on Twitter and Facebook. They determine what is hate and what is not. “ Death to America” by the Ayatollah is perfectly acceptable, but a video of several doctors that disagree with Fauci on Covid 19 is harmful misinformation. The only reason we have not been fined or jailed yet is ; we haven’t gotten to the point Communist China’s puppet ,Biden ,has taken over the White House. We are weakened to the point freedom may not survive without a civil war. The violence from the left is the catalyst which will catapult us there.

    1. Phyllis, Twitter and Facebook can ban whatever they want if it violates their policies. They are not forbidden from censorship of speech because they are private companies, not government entities. The constitution only applies to government actions.

      The irony is that everyone signed the user agreement which states they also agree their comments can be removed.

      1. Not referring to anything in particular but you seem to not recognize that in general you cannot give up your rights despite a signature.

      2. The irony is that everyone signed the user agreement which states they also agree their comments can be removed.

        AT&T was a private corporation. Had subscribers signed a user agreement that permitted them to cutoff conversations they considered in violation of their standards, you’d accept that?

      3. You can sue private companies. You can’t sue Twitter and Facebook because of their claim to be a public platform and not a publisher. Once they started breaking the Section 230 given to them and started editing content by censorship they broke that agreement with governments and FCC. They are in front of the Senate this week which will determine whether to take away their Section 230 exemption and allow the public to sue for censorship.

        1. Sect 230 does not require companies to provide a platform for any and all content or we could post pornography with our comments.

          1. The DMCA requires that those companies protected from defamation claims must provide a neutral public platform.

            As a legal term of art that means their ability to censor is restricted the same as that of government.

            The simple solution is to strike the DMCA. It was a bad idea fromt he start.

        2. Unfortunately the Senate can not unilaterally withdraw its consent to a law it passed in the past.

          That is one of the flaws in our constitution.

          It is fortunately hard to pass laws, but unfortunately even harder to get rid of bad ones.

          1. I suppose that is why the big tech executives are playing games at Senate hearings. We are in a sad state, but I believe more and more people like me are deleting their FB and Twitter accounts. I have moved to MeWe and Parler and am glad to be able to feel free. Perhaps with time the loss of patronage will make a difference to them. If not, who cares, it is unlikely the new platforms will track their users everywhere they go on the internet. That gives everyone a choice.

            1. I am with you.

              I have setup Parler and Gab accounts.

              I have an FB account – but all I use it for is as a login service for other sites.

              I have noticed that slowly over the past couple of years my YouTube feed is getting curated in a way divergent with my own preferneces.
              I am looking for alternatives to YouTube.

              I barely use twitter anymore.

              I ceased using Google as a search tool long ago.

              I would cease using anything by google altogether but for business requirements.

              Regardless, I have every intention of punishing “big tech” into the future – to the extent I can do so without harm to myself.

              Google, FaceBook, Twitter, …. should all expect me to reduce my reliance on them and increase my involvement with competitors.

              1. John,
                I setup:
                – Parler to replace Twitter.
                – MeWe to replace Facebook.
                – Rumble to replace YouTube https://rumble.com/
                – Telegram for Instant Messaging

                I downloaded all my FB data yesterday and then deleted my subscription.

                1. Thank you.

                  I will look at your choices.

                  I am already on Parler and Gab.

                  I do not at this time feel the need to delete accounts.
                  For now not using them is enough.

                  I am sufficiently libertarian to beleive that if nudged (aka kicked in the balls by shareholders) Social Media will change their ways.

                  Nothing like a 1% drop in share prices to convince a business where its values really lie.

                  1. Once I watched The Social Dilemma, I had made my mind up to terminate all those social media apps. And after watching these tech tyrants get raked over the coals, I was confident I wanted no part of what they “currently” had to offer. I’ll always have the option to use their app in the future.

  13. It’s just another indication, in case we needed one, that the Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle of all the a**holes in America. The a**holes come in two varieties: abusive and / or other directed professional-managerial types who fancy the rest of us are just pairs of hands and (2) the sort of lumpenproletarian you see rioting this year. The a**holes are supplemented by dupes from every other walk of life for whom contemplating public life is an occasion for their social fantasies to be given free play.

    It’s going to be very difficult to maintain some semblance of a free public life and competitive electoral institutions if these people continue to behave as they have. This will not end well.

    1. Says a guy who is blind to all of the Republican a**holes in America, the biggest of whom is tRump.

          2. Anon. Your argument is “I’m rubber and your glue. Everything you say bounces of of me and sticks on you”. The same as the look in the mirror argument. A comment filled with knowledge and maturity indeed. It’s like watching an argument on a playground. You get into a trivial argument when the article you are not commenting on is about the serious possibility of the loss of free speach in our nation. You almost always make some negative comment about Republicans, but you never discuss the pending loss of free speech and other rights by the citizens of this nation. It shows a lack of understanding about the things that matter. You turn no one to your side of the argument with your approach.

        1. No one should unless there is verifiable fact attached or logic that makes sense. Most comments by anonymous characters is pure garbage.

    2. You are right. Like I have said before, it will take right wing death squads to fix our country. But most of the country will not be ready for that for maybe 75 years or so. Then, we will get our incarnation of Hitler or Pinochet who will take out the garbage via helicopter. Maybe a conservative left wing tyrant could do the same. The “left” in many countries are run by very conservative people. See China, North Korea for example. Who knows??? Whatever, America is not currently fixable. In any feasible sense.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    3. AD3: “This will not end well.”

      Tragically, you are right. When free speech is abridged, there is only one means left by which to settle disputes — physical force.

  14. Free Speech: Lets start with the Trumpist Republican party that has systematically purged every centrist voice in the party, and the toady Republican representatives and Senators too afraid to voice their opinion for fear of personal destruction via tweet and rightwing media, tacitly suborning the destruction of our institutions. All opposing voices have been silenced. Lets consider that those engaged personal destruction are virtually immune from liability to those they intentionally, foreseeably, and gratuitously sought to harm, effectively weaponizing libel and slander under the guise of opinion and free speech. Without recourse in a global network, the speed of personal destruction is measured in nanoseconds while the injury lasts a lifetime.

    Free speech is not the issue, it is freedom from liability for the foreseeable and intentional harm caused by disinformation.

    1. Free Speech: Lets start with the Trumpist Republican party that has systematically purged every centrist voice in the party, a

      You don’t name names, because you cannot. This is a flat-out lie.

      Not many politicians are inclined to be temporizers. That’s where we are as a political culture. All the temporizers (e.g. Bill Nelson) have disappeared from the Congressional Democratic caucus bar one: Joe Manchin. On the Republican side, you have a half-dozen – Susan Collins among them. Mitt Romney doesn’t get his phone calls returned not because he’s a ‘centrist’ but because he has behaved in a manner than is untrustworthy and dishonorable. The same is true of weasels in the executive branch who got the axe, like that nobody in the Homeland Security department the Sulzbergers passed off as a ‘senior administration official’.

      1. History will recognize Romney as the only Republican Senator who took his oath seriously.

        2. Wrong again! And – no factual support for your position. The better question, for purposes of this column, is whether “history” will be recorded accurately.

        1. Svelaz, you are really stupid. If one knows God doesn’t exist then the term moron would be erroneous. If he does exist, then…

    3. “Lets start with the Trumpist Republican party that has systematically purged ”

      You ought to spend a bit more time in fact gathering. Trump expanded the Republican Party and that is why more blacks and Hispanics voted Republican. Rino’s couldn’t stand Trump and many “left” the party on their own accord while others are waiting for the voters to vote someone new in.

      The only ones to curtail freedom of speech are Democrats and leftists, but perhaps you haven’t noticed that because of the cancel culture the Democrats promote.

  15. While I feel enlightened by many of your topics I read your commentary primarily for your takes on preserving free speech. I consider myself a foot soldier in this fight to preserve free speech and expression that can only be won on the battlefield of ideas.

    Fascinating, that some blame speakers for supposedly “inciting” violence above those who are violent, using what was said as an excuse for those who actually committed the violence. Maybe this is because they are too scared to address the actual perpetrators of violence. Maybe they feel that speakers are easier to scapegoat, safer to attack, less likely to physically hit back.

    There are never precise parallels in history but I keep returning to the French Revolution for what I’m witnessing in our society today.

    1. C.G., you nailed it. All of the violent protests of the past several months were condoned by many on the left as free speech.

  16. The Left has charted a path for us. Resist we must should Biden take office. Only through expressing ourselves freely will we remain free.

  17. FREE SPEECH is our right. The Intellectuals, the Global Elite, The Liberal Left US, Main Street Media, Dem politicians can’t stand it. They are afraid of the Truth or someone else ideas. HANDS OFF but Biden is not in control he is a Puppet of the Left Wing and Intellectuals/Elites.

    FREE SPEECH is a must or we loose our rights.

  18. Turley, is always concerned about “diminishing” free speech or “assaults” on free speech, but even Turley has to contend with the fact that free speech has its limits. No right is absolute.

    He excoriates Biden’s pick because he is discussing a nuance of free speech and Turley amplifies that nuance by implying it’s some draconian issue when it’s not.

    Just like the 2nd amendment, it has its limits. Just because you have a right to bear arms doesn’t mean you have a right to own a fully functional howitzer or a granade. Turley seems to be advocating for the free speech version of it like owning the literary version of a howitzer or a granade. He argues putting limits on such speech is an assault on free speech. If that’s true then being able to threaten anyone including the president with harm should be protected speech. No?

    1. Political speech is not howitzers. That’s an absurd comparison. If you want to limit political speech, would you start with your own? Anybody who burns the US flag should be arrested and jailed for hate speech? How about radical mosques? How about BLM screeds (which, by the way, are disgustingly violent and racist)? The problem with speech codes is the way politicians, especially scoundrels on the left, use them selectively to persecute their critics. I agree with Professor Turley, this is a well-established and blatant hypocrisy in Europe. And you suppose Beijing is closer to the truth? Ask the Uyghurs about Beijing’s record on racism. Ask Hong Kong about Beijing’s record on police brutality. Ask Tibet about Beijing’s record on tolerance. Ask Taiwan and the Philippines about Beijing’s record on peaceful coexistence. Beijing practices hate and oppression on an industrial scale, but we’re supposed to consider their version of speech a model?? If the Democrats steal Georgia, democracy will be dead, but it won’t be at my hand. I’ve never been more fearful of people like you in my life.

      1. You think the only way that Georgia could elect Democratic Senators is through theft?

        1. Anny-Why who would ever distrust an organization that filled America with Russia Russia Russia for 3 years? Who would distrust the likes of A Shitiff or Smallballs? Who would distrust a group trying to impeach a President in a hidden bunker. So why would I think the Democrats could steal an election.

          1. VV, perhaps you should read the report released this August by the GOP led Senate Intel Comm on the 2016 election. They further document, confirm, and add to the instances of Trump campaign interactions with Russians agents and Putin cronies all in furtherance of that campaign. You are being fed a “big lie” by Trump and team players like Turley, enough times that you accept it.

            Here you go:

            https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

            1. JF-I stopped reading all things Russia Russia Russia a long time ago when Shitiff and Smallballs said they had proof positive. Stop beating a dead horse the only Russia Russia Russia came from the Hillary campaign, now that’s fact.

              1. VV, thanks for admitting your wilfull pursuit of ignorance, but why would anyone try to converse with you.

                By the way, the Senate Report was controlled by the GOP majority. Do you think they are part of a conspiracy against Trump?

        2. Yep – Probably the only way Jon Jackoff and Jeremiah Wright Jr. could ever be elected.

      2. Diogenes, what does Beijing have to do with free speech here. You just went on an nonsensical rant.

        There is certainly literal versions howitzers or granades of political speech. Any speech can be used in such a manner. That’s the point.

        If democrats win Georgia fairly it’s not stealing. Even Lindsay Graham wants to throw out legal votes because he thinks they shouldn’t count when his buddy trump is clearly losing. Yeah that’s not stealing alright. Smh.

        1. “Diogenes, what does Beijing have to do with free speech here.”

          Let’s look at how the Democrats played footsies with China and social media has adopted Chinese methods of censorship. We can also look at the Biden Family involvement in China where tremendous increases in Biden wealth have occurred.

          1. Anonymous, trump literally praised China on its ability to control the internet. He actually mused about having that ability himself. You didn’t seem worried about it then.

            Your “concerns” are very cosmetic.

            1. Trump is smart and is polite to leaders of countries with nuclear weapons but at the same time he will act against that same leader to protect America. Specifically note trade policies, military policies (in specific the China Sea and the military build up).

              Biden on the other hand sells America out to China. Biden Corruption inc. ended up transferring a company to Chinese control whose technology aided the Chinese Air force. Also note the $1.5 billion invested in a Biden company.

              You are too naive to recognize that it is not the smile that counts but what is behind the smile.

    3. “nuance of free speech”

      Don’t mind those Secret Police shutting down your websites, banning your books, shuttering your speeches, and storming through your doors in the middle of the night. They’re just a “nuance.”

  19. Freedom of speech should only be legally constrained when the speech itself is an action of clear and serious harm (or very serious threat of harm) to life, liberty and/or property. Some cases are obvious such as lying to commit fraud, or the famous example of creating an extremely safety threatening situation by yelling fire in a crowded theater. The problem is when the high thresholds of serious harm that need to be met for limitation of speech are relaxed to the absurd degree we have with this fellow. What happens is that minor perceived harms such as disrespectful speech ( “All people who believe X are stupid morons”) are transferred to the serious levels, usually by the “I feel threatened” standard of proof of harm. This happens with speech codes on campuses. Calling a religion or ideology stupid is not a serious direct threat to the life, liberty or property of anyone. Limiting free speech by reference to “general well being” rather than explicit harm explanation is recipe for an “anything goes” level of speech control

    1. RD, your points are well taken. However I see Turley being overly sensitive to what the person who he’s criticizing is saying and blowing it out of proportion just so he can express “alarm” over a nuance.

      Many people confuse criticism as censorship or violating free speech. When it’s his being offended at the idea that you can be called out for being a bigot, or a racist, or because one is being criticized because a religious belief is bigoted, etc, etc. Those who espouse such ideas or sentiments are deeply offended at being criticized despite the irony that it is a consequence of exercising free speech. They label such criticism as censorship and therefore an attack on free speech. Even liberals go too far in their criticisms to the point were they are just ridiculous. Freedom of speech is also about being responsible for what you say and accepting of the consequences of saying it.

      The president had often spewed racially and bigoted rhetoric that because of his position inspires others to act on it. This is where your point becomes a grey area. His statements such as “rise up against a governor in Michigan” are suggestive and dangerous. This was proven to be true when federal authorities broke up a group plotting to kidnap and storm the statehouse. Luckily they were caught before they could act on it, BUT it was clearly an act inspired by the President’s rhetoric. That’s where free speech is and should be limited as it has been lately by Twitter and Facebook Turley railed against it as “an assault on free speech” while ignoring the reality of its consequences. There are clearly limits, but Turley seems to focus only on partisan limits not the often obvious from the president.

      1. Svelaz. Please tell us the exact hate speech rules. Write them down so we will have an exact code of conduct. Your manifesto can then become the law of the land. You would be considered a brillant forefather. Ofcourse, in any law a punishment for noncompliance must be included. Long term imprisonment perhaps. Even death if the action is egregious enough. Please give us your penal code. I’m sure that we are all ready to jump on board. Let us know your motive and to take us to the final outcome. You could be the one in history known as the “The Great Leader”.

        1. Thinkitthrough, the “punishment” is pretty simple. In fact it’s always been this way. It’s called….wait for it…..GASP!….criticism.

          1. Svelaz. Take a look at history. Criticism was never enough. People will not stop speaking bad speech if you don’t do something to stop them. You must do something to stop them! After all, their speech is evil isn’t it? Please help us with a new Penal code. These heathans must be brought to heal.

  20. The irony of the Lefty posters here is that they shriek (yes, they are shrill, strident, and rude) about Turley, but they would be mortally offended if Turley were to ban them.

    Sadly, they would never make the link between tolerance and the ability to speak out.

Comments are closed.