Ron Paul Posts Criticism of Censorship on Social Media Shortly Before Facebook Blocks Him

We have been discussing the chilling crackdown on free speech that has been building for years in the United States. This effort has accelerated in the aftermath of the Capitol riot including the shutdown sites like Parler.  Now former Texas congressman Ron Paul, 85, has been blocked from using his Facebook page for unspecified violations of “community standards.” Paul’s last posting was linked to an article on the “shocking” increase of censorship on social media. Facebook then proceeded to block him under the same undefined “community standards” policy.

Paul, a libertarian leader and former presidential candidate, has been an outspoken critics of foreign wars and an advocate for civil liberties for decades.  He wrote:

“With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.”

His son is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted, “Facebook now considers advocating for liberty to be sedition. Where will it end?”

Even before the riot, Democrats were calling for blacklists and retaliation against anyone deemed to be “complicit” with the Trump Administration. We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican party or President Trump. Others are calling for banning those “complicit” from college campuses while still others are demanding a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.” Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for “humiliation,” “incarceration” and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column.

After the riots, the big tech companies moved to ban and block sites and individuals, including Parler which is the primary alternative to Twitter.  Also, a top Forbes editor Randall Lane warned any company that they will be investigated if they hire any former Trump officials.

The riots are being used as a license to rollback on free speech and retaliate against conservatives.  In the meantime, the silence of academics and many in the media is deafening. Many of those who have spoken for years about the dark period of McCarthyism and blacklisting are either supporting this censorship or remaining silent in the face of it. Now that conservatives are the targets, speech controls and blacklists appear understandable or even commendable.

The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown has become. It shows how the threat to free speech has changed. It is like having a state media without state control. These companies are moving in unison but not necessarily with direct collusion. The riot was immediately taken as a green light to move against a huge variety of sites and individuals.  As we have seen in Europe, such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control.  Even Germany’s Angela Merkel (who has a long history of anti-free speech actions) has criticized Twitter’s actions as inimical to free speech.  Yet, most law professors and media figures in the United States remain silent.

244 thoughts on “Ron Paul Posts Criticism of Censorship on Social Media Shortly Before Facebook Blocks Him”

  1. The Left keeps telling us that ‘race’ is only a social construct without any relationship to biology.

    Biden’s choice to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, August Takala, is now proclaiming Black Supremacy.

    “”Melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured by Eurocentric standards.”

    Doubtless that explains why African countries are world leaders in science, engineering, medicine, mathematics, education and democracy.

    It looks like it is okay to say race exists again, so long as you credit melanin with super powers.

    And then there is the soi disant ‘Wise Latina’ on the Supreme Court.

    What a mess. Time to look to your own tribe. These people hate you and they aren’t even pretending not to anymore.

    1. Young, Clarke wrote that in 1994 when an undergrad at Harvard. Calm down. You write worse everyday here and you’re old.

      1. Just a few years before the Central Park Five incident. I’m sure you afford Trump the same latitude.

        1. Trump wasn’t an undergrad at the time. He took out a full page ad in the newspaper. No, we don’t treat them as analogous. Because they aren’t.

      1. Like the idea or not – I don;t go for all the God stuff – Clymer suggetsed it as “unifying”. There is no mention of race or being black or white in it.

        Lift every voice and sing
        Till earth and heaven ring
        Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
        Let our rejoicing rise,
        High as the list’ning skies, let it resound loud as the rolling sea
        Sing a song full of faith that the dark past has tought us,
        Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;
        Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
        Let us march on till victory is won.
        Stony the road we trod,
        Bitter the chast’ning rod,
        Felt in the day that hope unborn had died;
        Yet with a steady beat,
        Have not our weary feet,
        Come to the place on witch our fathers sighed?
        We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,
        We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,
        Out from the gloomy past, till now we stand at last
        Where the white gleam of our star is cast.
        God of our weary years,
        God of our silent tears,
        Thou who has brought us thus far on the way;
        Thou who has by thy might,
        Led us into the light,
        Keep us forever in the path, we pray
        Lest our feet stray frm the places, our God, where we met thee,
        Least our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world, we forget thee,
        Shadowed beneath the hand,
        May we forever stand,
        Tru to our God,
        Tru to our native land.

        1. Oh, I’m a good old rebel
          Now thats just what I am
          And for this yankee nation
          I do no give a damn
          I’m glad I fought against her
          I only wish we’d won
          I ain’t asked any pardon
          For anything I’ve done
          I hates the Yankee nation
          And eveything they do
          I hates the declaration
          Of independence too
          I hates the glorious union
          ‘Tis dripping with our blood
          I hates the striped banner
          And fought it all I could
          I rode with Robert E. Lee
          For three years there about
          Got wounded in four places
          And I starved at Point Lookout
          I caught the rheumatism
          Campin’ in the snow
          But I killed a chance of Yankees
          And I’d like to kill some more
          Three hundred thousand Yankees
          Is stiff in southern dust
          We got three hundred thousand
          Before they conquered us
          They died of southern fever
          And southern steel and shot
          I wish they was three million
          Instead of what we got
          I can’t take up my musket
          And fight ’em down no more
          But I ain’t a-goin’ to love them
          Now that is certain sure
          And I don’t want no pardon
          For what I was and am
          I won’t be reconstructed
          And I do not give a damn
          Oh, I’m a good old rebel
          Now that’s just what I am
          And for this Yankee nation
          I do no give a damn
          I’m glad I fought against her
          I only wish we’d won
          I ain’t asked any pardon
          For anything I’ve done
          I ain’t asked any pardon
          For anything I’ve done…

          See internet for the music. Very well done song! by Hoyt Axon

    2. You seem very confused. I doubt you can quote anyone who says that race is “without any relationship to biology.”

      Race IS a social construct. It does have a relationship to biology, in the sense that skin color, nose shape, hair color and texture, etc. are determined by biology. However, the specific features that are associated with a given race is a social determination, not a biological one. You can find people with the same skin color who belong to different races. You can find people with the same hair color who belong to different races. Etc. Height is determined by biology, yet we don’t say that tall people are a different race than short people. Sex (as contrasted with gender) is determined by biology. Yet we don’t say that men and women are different races. The features that people focus on for race are superficial. There’s more variation within a race than between races.

      1. “I doubt you can quote anyone who says that race is “without any relationship to biology.”
        It’s a paraphrase of what CTHD said here. Also ” Race is not biological. It is a social construct.” Angela Onwuachi-Willig, NYT 9/6/16, and others.

        Your arguments are non sequiturs.

        1. If you quote what CTHD herself said, we’ll find out whether you’re truly paraphrasing her or are instead putting words in her mouth.

          As for Angela Onwuachi-Willig, she said “Race is not biological. It is a social construct. There is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites. Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries. Yet, a person who could be categorized as black in the United States might be considered white in Brazil or colored in South Africa.”

          She’s correct that “there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites,” and only to them.

          Saying “Race is not biological” (what she wrote) is not the same as saying “‘race’ is … without any relationship to biology” (what you said). If I point out that Ivanka Trump isn’t Donald Trump, that doesn’t imply that Ivanka Trump is without any relationship to Donald Trump.

          1. “Were race “real” in the genetic sense, racial classifications for individuals would remain constant across boundaries.”
            Not true.

            You are allowing ambiguities in language to create ambiguities in your perception of nature. If you thought of races as sets it would be easier for you to understand. The elements of the sets can be selected by different rules but that does not mean they are not valid.

            Try a relatively neutral example. From the larger set of modern humans one could describe a proper subset of those who have Neanderthal genes. Most Africans would be excluded. Would that be a race? As the term is loosely used, as Churchill spoke of the English race, then why not? Would it have a genetic basis? Yes. It was selected by a genetic rule.

            It was recently found that genetic distances between human populations were much greater than previously observed.

            The biggest distance is between Pygmies and Papuans, which in fact, is both morphologically and genetically greater than the distances between acknowledged subspecies of tiger.

            1. I don’t know a lot about the subset of humans who have Neanderthal genes. Agreed that there’s a genetic basis for determining that subset, but is that subset a race?

              A quick search pulled up “The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background,” a quote from a Medline article. Are you saying that “people of European or Asian background” are therefore a single race?

              1. “Are you saying that “people of European or Asian background” are therefore a single race?”
                That’s a good question. The term ‘race’ has been used roughly to describe populations that can be better defined as proper subsets of the general population. For example in the past one sometimes saw Italians and Germans referred to as different races. Some variations in animal species have been referred to as races. In that sense the term race is only an imprecise expression for a proper subset that has a genetic basis. Genetics makes it much more precise. You can choose any rule you like, say presence of Neanderthal or Denisovan genes and call it a race; a proper subset based on a rule that chooses genetic elements for the set. From there you can enlarge it to a wider subset or narrow it down, ultimately to a single individual since each of us is genetically unique. Looked at that way there are as many races as there are combinations that are proper subsets of the whole. Structured that way the information is much more useful for studying human migrations, evolution, and disease risk factors.

                1. “The term ‘race’ has been used roughly to describe populations that can be better defined as proper subsets of the general population.”

                  No it hasn’t. The vast, vast majority of proper subsets of humans have never been described as races.

                  There are currently more than 7.7 billion people in the world, so there are over 2^(7.7 billion) proper subsets. You’re saying that there are over 2^(7.7 billion) races. I doubt you can find anyone who agrees with you about that.

                  1. The vast majority of human populations have never been described in terms of precise genetics until recently. Terms that were once imprecise can be made more precise but far more complex with scientific advances. Once you recognize that our simple use of ‘race’ was a description of poorly understood genetic subsets there is no reason why it cannot be refined to describe other subsets, not to say that it has been to the extent I described as possible. You appear to be stuck on the notion that a race is like a neatly defined Platonic object, a cube or whatever. It isn’t.

                    I am not driven to call those subsets races. I am more interested in them as subsets by whatever name for what can be learned from them. However, it is obvious that there are large genetic subsets that correspond rather well with historic morphological races.

                    Skeletal remains are routinely identified as belonging to one race or another on the basis of morphology and genetics. Subsets that we commonly know as races exist.

                    1. You’re distorting the meaning of “race” to such an extent as to make it meaningless. If every proper subset is a race, the skeletal remains of one person would belong to an astronomical number of races instead of being described as belonging to just one race (and lots of people are mixed race). Skeletal remains are also routinely identified as tall or as belonging to a child, but that doesn’t make “tall people” or “children” races.

                      You have bizarre beliefs about races.

                    2. “You’re distorting the meaning of “race” to such an extent as to make it meaningless.”
                      Then you define race.

                    3. “Skeletal remains are also routinely identified as tall or as belonging to a child, but that doesn’t make “tall people” or “children” races.”


                      No, but they are routinely identified as Caucasian, Asian or whatever. Races that can routinely be recognized by the subsets of genes they have.

                      I suspect this subject is either too subtle for you or you choose to argue for argument’s sake. Maybe both.

                    4. If you don’t know the meaning of “race,” you have dictionaries at your fingertips, and you can look it up.

                    5. Race is real., It may be more or less useful in any particular situation., It may have more validity in some venues as a definable category than in others. But it is a valid concept.

                      In general I find foreigners are pretty realistic about race, and by that I mean non-white foreigners, but white Americans, the more they are educated, the less they understand.

                      I had a longer post to share but the blog cancelled it.

                      Saloth Sar


    Kate Woodson of The Washington Post accompanies the mobs from Trump’s speech near the White House to the U.S. Capitol. During the course of this video we watch the mob develop into a riot. Towards the end Woodson unwisely admits to a rioter that she’s with The Washington Post. This admission is met with such hostility that Woodson’s safety is jeopardized.

    1. “Woodson unwisely admits to a rioter that she’s with The Washington Post. This admission is met with such hostility that Woodson’s safety is jeopardized.”

      It looks like the Washington Post or the poster whoever he is was lying as usual. Someone told her to get the f out of there and then the scene went to something else. Lying comes naturally to these guys.

    2. She keeps on with the ‘insurrection’ line. Glenn Greenwald disputes that. I hope she wasn’t surprised people yelled at her. Why would anyone want a ‘reporter’ on site who is just going to lie about events? The media has been pretty consistent with that, and, now, censorship. Maybe they (reporters) should take that dressing-down to heart.

      “Those who argued in the summer that property damage is meaningless or even noble are treating smashed windows and looted podiums at the Capitol as treason, as a coup. One need not dismiss the lamentable actions of yesterday to simultaneously reject efforts to apply terms that are plainly inapplicable: attempted coup, insurrection, sedition. There was zero chance that the few hundred people who breached the Capitol could overthrow the U.S. Government — the most powerful, armed and militarized entity in the world — nor did they try.”

    1. Project Veritas once again exposes the failing MSM.


      PBS principal counsel Michael Beller, called Americans “dumb” and floated “re-education camps” with PBS available for Trump supporters’ children while unknowingly being recorded by a Project Veritas journalist before the 2020 presidential election.

      “Kids who are growing up know nothing but Trump, for four years. You’ve got to wonder what they’re going to be like,” said Beller. “They’ll be raising a generation of intolerant, horrible people – horrible kids.”

      “Even if Biden wins, we go for all the Republican voters, and Homeland Security will take their children away,” he asserted, adding, “And we’ll put them into re-education camps.”

      Later in the video, he noted, “The re-education camps — they’re nice, they have Sesame Street in the classrooms, and they watch PBS all day.”

      Beller claimed that we live in “unique” times. “I mean, Trump is close to Hitler,” he said.

      Asked what Democrats should do if Trump were to win the presidential election, Beller responded, “Go to the White House and throw Molotov cocktails …”

      Project Veritas

      1. PBS response to Project Veritas:

        “This employee no longer works for PBS. As a mid-level staff attorney, he did not speak on behalf of our organization, nor did he make any editorial decisions. There is no place for hateful rhetoric at PBS, and this individual’s views in no way reflect our values or opinions. We strongly condemn violence and will continue to do what we have done for 50 years – use our national platform and local presence to strengthen communities and bring people together.”

  3. For an entire year the Democrats sponsored terrorists ANTIFA set our streets on fire and rained helllllll. Americans will never forget

      1. Paint Chips, I respond to correct what you have said. A person like you has nothing to offer and is a waste of time. This video is not a conspiracy. The video was taken on site during the action. It was analyzed and demonstrates communication between one and another, one who has already been identified as Antifa elsewhere though I don’t remember his name. It notes one breaking through the windows and shows him changing his shirt to appear to be a different entity. It shows the Antifa member trying to create riotous behavior with others that are there.

        We saw this activity by the leftists in the 60’s and against the Tea Party movement starting in 2009. It’s been seen all over the world. Leftist fascists are most frequently responsible.

        I have known for a long time how stupid you are, but that doesn’t mean you have to go into competition with Anonymous the Stupid. Most intelligent people are aware of this from what you write. Goodbye.

        1. “one who has already been identified as Antifa elsewhere though I don’t remember his name”


          why don’t you try to find it

    1. Trump privately blamed ‘Antifa people’ for storming U.S. Capitol – Axios

      By Reuters Staff

      (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump has privately blamed ‘Antifa people’ for storming the U.S. Capitol last Wednesday, even though clear video and documentary evidence shows the rioters were overwhelmingly his supporters, Axios reported.

      Trump made the remark in a 30-minute-plus phone call Monday morning with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Axios reported, citing a White House official and another source familiar with the call.

      However, McCarthy told Trump in the call, which according to Axios was tense and aggressive at times, “It’s not Antifa, it’s MAGA. I know. I was there.” -Reuters

      1. “President Trump on Monday privately — and falsely — blamed “Antifa people” for storming the Capitol, even though clear video ”

        Trump was right. Antifa was involved in agitation and creating some of the riotous behavior, maybe all of it. In the end we might find that this riot never would have taken place but for Antifa. We see Antifa being perhaps the first to break a window.

        Anonymous the Stupid can’t see past his nose. Do you know why? Because Anonymous the Stupid is stupid.

        1. I guess House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is stupid, too:

          From the Axios article:

          Behind the scenes: In a tense, 30-minute-plus phone call this morning with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Trump trotted out the Antifa line.

          McCarthy would have none of it, telling the president: “It’s not Antifa, it’s MAGA. I know. I was there,” according to a White House official and another source familiar with the call.
          The White House official said the call was tense and aggressive at times, with Trump ranting about election fraud and an exasperated McCarthy cutting in to say, “Stop it. It’s over. The election is over.” -Axios

          1. Again with anonymous sources. When will Anonymous the Stupid ever learn.

            Further, did McCarthy look at the videos? Did he have time? As a witness what would he know? We are now seeing a known Antifa person colluding with another member and I think the same member inciting riot. Trump is much smarter than McCarthy when it comes to one’s gut feelings.I agreed with Trump before I heard what he said.

            Anonymous the Stupid, can stay in the stupid mode but others can see the video themselves. The MSM will try to hide the truth and spin it to what they want people to hear. I’m tired of your anonymous sources. We have been hearing from them for over 4 years and on the important issues they were almost always wrong. Anonymous the Stupid can be hit over and over again without learning a thing.

            1. You sound pretty stupid, and you’re posting anonymously, so perhaps you’re talking about yourself when you talk about Anonymous the Stupid.

                  1. I see that the response to comment above — the link — was deleted. Someone gave it a +10.

                    Now that’s incendiary and well, just wrong — to give another comment a +10.


                    1. The response to the link was deleted.

                      Jonathan’s got a little fox in his henhouse.

      2. “McCarthy told Trump in the call, which according to Axios was tense and aggressive at times, “It’s not Antifa, it’s MAGA. I know. I was there.”

        Being there and hiding under his desk did not afford McCarthy the advantages that the videos show.

        There is absolutely no doubt that Antifa infiltrated the pro-Trump protest at the capitol. A lot of them barely even bothered to try to dress like they were Trump supporters.

        Anyone with any street sense that looks at the videos can see them using the same tools and methods to break windows at the capitol that they used all of last year in the nationwide riots.

        In addition, there is lots of footage of Trump supporters physically stopping them from breaking windows.

        Further proof is that there were no anti-Trump protesters there, and the capitol police allowed them in through the door.

        It was a classic set-up. And you know that.

        1. “Anyone with any street sense that looks at the videos can see…”

          Rhodes, do you know why Anonymous is blind to these things and doesn’t think? Because Anonymous the Stupid is stupid. We can’t expect him to do more than copy and paste.

    2. Allen, this is a Chinese-owned website and the main reporter here is a Japanese woman. And they’re explaining to ‘you’ what happened at the U.S. Capitol.

      Let’s just go with this theory, though. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Antifa people mixed in with the Trumpers. That fits the definition of a ‘riot’. Riots are chaotic and any lunatic can participate. We saw that at all the riots last summer.

    3. She says that the guy in the fur hat is not a Trump supporter. Her reason is that he changed his clothes. That’s not evidence of him not being a Trump supporter.

      She claims that Andy Ngo claims that the videographer, John Sullivan / Jayden X is Antifa. He is not –
      He’s not a Trump supporter, but he also does not identify as Antifa.

      She says she looked at views from 2 videos. There are more than 2 videotapes. Here’s video that coordinates views from 4 videos –

  4. While I share Turley’s concerns about censorship, his comparison to McCarthyism is not without irony. Some of his blog’s biggest fans routinely call Democrats communists. Mark Levin typically depicts anyone on the left as a communist. Trump & his media allies proclaim Trump supporters to be patriots & anyone who doesn’t support Trump is depicted as an enemy of freedom & democracy.

    JT noted that 40% of Americans don’t believe election results despite Bill Barr confirming that the Justice Department hasn’t found evidence of voter fraud to overturn election results. Barr made that statement last month. If the Trump Justice Department uncovered any evidence of widescale voter fraud after that date, does anyone believe they wouldn’t quickly publicize it?

    The violent mob which stormed the Capitol undoubtedly believe conspiracy theories about election fraud. Dan Crenshaw summed it up: “These people have been lied to en masse by the millions…they were led to believe Jan. 6 was anything but a political performance for a few opportunistic politicians to give a five-minute speech. That is all that it ever was. People were lied to.”

    JT seems unmoved by criticisms from Crenshaw & other Republicans about Trump supporters being stirred up with inflammatory rhetoric & false claims in the lead up to January 6th. In JT’s zeal to accuse Democrats & the media of McCarthyism, he is sidestepping the consequences of baseless & destructive conspiracy theories having free rein to fuel the violence at the Capitol. The FBI is currently on high alert for further violence at our nation’s capital & elsewhere yet this conservative law professor is more preoccupied with First Amendment rights which allow inflammatory & destructive conspiracy theories to flourish.

    1. What a screed!

      The leadership of BLM gleefully espouses Marxism, and the Democrats gleefully espouse BLM, so what conclusion do you expect us to draw?

      Regardless of who is or isn’t Marxist, nobody is saying they should be censored. You’ve made it quite clear you want to censor us.

      As to the election, reasonable people can disagree. Even high levels of circumstantial evidence are not enough to overturn elections. That doesn’t mean we’re wrong to raise doubts.

      1. I’m ten times the Marxist of these Democrat big corporation bootlickers carrying water for Amazon and Google some of the biggest corporations in the entire world

        If they are Marxists or communists, then the words Marxist and communist have no meaning

        Saloth Sar

    2. As to the FBI, how many times do you have to be lied to by government leaks to stop trusting everything you hear?

    3. The MSM lies and distorts quite frequently itself. They are no longer trustworthy. It is no surprise people will start considering conspiracies, especially when it seems MSM outlets appear to be conspiring to distort any semblance of truth regarding the president, the pandemic, etc, this, going back decades.

        1. S. Meyer,
          “Watch and share it quickly, because I expect it to be “taken down” by Youtube any minute.” –from the link

          Except, I do not expect it to be “taken down” by Youtube any minute. It serves a purpose. 🙁

            1. S. Meyer,
              I watched the video at the link you shared. Beneath the video on that page is the quote I included above. I am doubtful that the video is under any threat of being taken down. It serves a purpose being up. I see someones aiming to increase the heat, the vitriol, and the sense that things are very broken (people get to watch a video like this here and there), while, simultaneously, removing or targeting for removal certain outlets or certain voices (purging FB, Twitter, blocking folks like Ron Paul or others), thereby channeling people’s perceptions and emotions towards fury. Maintaining composure or objectivity in spite of such provocations is challenging, especially with the added problems that group psychology can throw into the mix (which, it seems is being consciously exploited by the someones). For what end, I’m not sure. I think I can see several possibilities.

              1. ” I am doubtful that the video is under any threat of being taken down.”

                Maybe maybe not. We have seen videos taken down many times so I am not sure of your point.

                “I see someones aiming to increase the heat,”

                Are you trying to say the video is untrue or this has not happened? Do you think that our FBI is as pure as snow? Has Antifa been adequately investigated. Based on what some say has been $2Billion in damage plus lives and jobs lost do you think that cities and states did a good job of preventing this type of violence?

                Antifa is bad and they have created incidents at Trump rallies that were peaceful. Additionally we have seen the streets burn all over the US so if you wish to talk about vitriol you can point to Antifa as a major cause.

                1. S. Meyer,
                  I’m not talking about the specific contents of the video at all. The video shows rather alarming information that will upset people. The goal of the someones is to upset people by allowing them to see some upsetting things and then to pull down, censoring, other, somewhat related, posts/videos/block people. It is an emotional double-whammy designed to increase fury.

                  It’s high-octane manipulation. For what purpose I’m not entirely sure. I see several possibilities.

                  Makes me think of Vizzini in The Princess Bride, though.

                    1. As you peer “through a glass darkly” It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.

    4. RacePace7. Let’s think about it. Do you support the quashing of free speech in China? The same reason for controlling speech in China is the reason given by the left in the U.S. It is a danger to the people! If it walks like a duck and it quakes like a duck you must not be allowed to say it’s a duck under the speech code of the new RacePace7 regime.

  5. “Yet, most law professors and media figures in the United States remain silent.”

    Are they silent or are they censored? Have they been shadow-banned?

    If they are indeed silent, they need to find courage and their voices. If not now, when?

    1. PrarieRose, you are correct. We live in a nation where even the professors are afraid to voice their opinion. I’m sure that the same fear in their gut is felt by the people in China. Everything will be alright just trust your gut. Welcome to the USA branch of the USSR, brought to you by the American Left. You don’t know how lucky you are boy. You don’t know how lucky you are. Back to the USSR.

      1. ah but at least in the USSR the political leadership did not pretend that it adhered to “freedom”

        this country’s elites are all craven liars and fakes

        Sal Sar

      1. “Try to focus on the here and now.”

        What a perfect statement of the culture’s anti-intellectualism. History (6 months ago?!) is too abstract. Man’s mind should be reduced to staring at part of an image on this-minute’s Twitter feed.

  6. The real issue here is “unconstitutional authoritarianism” and moving further down the authoritarian-totalitarian road will make things far more dangerous. The current strategy will enflame the situation further. The solution must be restoring a “constitutional rule of law system”.

    We need to hold constitutionally-subversive persons accountable but not by using constitutionally-subversive remedies.

    Congress should convene a “21st Century Truth Commission” addressing “unconstitutional authoritarianism” starting with the Bush Administration’s torture, warrantless domestic spying, Cointelpro style blacklisting and other actions that betray the American Oath of Office.

    Years ago, Senator Patrick Leahy suggested a “Truth Commission” model that would offer immunity from criminal prosecution to Bush torture attorneys at DOJ and torture doctors – in exchange for truth-telling used to mandate reforms. Cointelpro style blacklisting, still happening in 2021, should be the primary torture topic to uncover.

    This didn’t begin with Trump and censoring, guilt-by-association (or other constitutionally-subversive responses) will make matters more dangerous. Congress should subpoena Bush officials then work their way up to Trump officials.

    1. How about suborning the offices of the federal government to spy on an opposing campaign? Maybe you didn’t mean to skip the Obama administration?

    2. AshcroftZ, a great idea. The formation of new Ministry of Truth. What if the Republicans win back control and take over your Ministry of Truth? I can hear you now. Abolish the Ministry of Truth!! Abolish The Ministry of Truth!!. It amazes me that one so erudite as you would call for such government oversight. Then again, the use of erudite in your description may be improperly placed.


    Amid the censorship by big tech, rabidly stupid rubes have Johnathan Turley’s blog to promote insane conspiracies. Yesterday we saw endless posts claiming that damage to The Capitol was limited to just ‘a few broken windows’. Never mind that no official damage estimates have been released. ‘A few broken windows’ sounds like a college town after a homecoming victory. And that’s the level that Trumpers seek to frame these riots: “A few broken windows on the bar strip after homecoming night’.

    The Trumpers, of course, have a strong incentive to minimize damage as much as possible. Even the stupidest yahoo can sense these riots did indeed look like a coup attempt. It ‘was’, of course. So now we have all these conspiracies about Antifa having infiltrated the mobs to make them look bad. This scenario is insultingly stupid from the outset. It shows that all those older sacks sacks of lard who took part in the riots think they could be mistaken for 20-somethings. Or they imagine that 20-somethings blended in with ‘them’.

    The most disturbing part of these riots is that Johnathan Turley keeps minimizing what happened. Like the threat to free speech far exceeds national security. Like the rioters are entitled to plan ‘more’ insurrections on the pages of social media. Like big tech has an obligation to let Q’anon become a giant sinkhole. It makes one seriously wonder about Johnathan Turley and ‘his’ allegiances. A discerning parent could have good reason to question if they want their son or daughter in Turley’s classroom.

    1. Anon, just like your mostly peaceful riots in Seattle. Please inform us of your thoughts on this article. Do you justify the censoring of Rand Paul? Are you saying that Professor Turley should be shut down for allowing hate speech? Tell us your plan. You owe it to us not to be evasive but to put out your exact solutions to your moral outrage. We look to you Great Leader. This Turley tragedy must be addressed. Your contribution to his silencing must be explained in detail.

      1. Thinkitthrough, I have no idea who you are but your comment is appreciated. That Peter Shill thinks you are me tells us 2 things:
        1. he badly wishes he were a man (Estovir is Latin for “be a man”) since he keeps mentioning Estovir daily, hourly
        2. His many sock puppets do not afford him any joy considering his screeds attacking everyone on here reveal his misery

        Keep up the good work

  8. Hello Mr. Turley, I’m a nobody middle class worker with no political affiliations to any party, just keeping my head down and working while all of this goes on. I just want to thank you for continuing to write these articles. I have been reading your blog since May, when I discovered it, and it has been a source of reason and sensibleness that I can turn to. I know others here will read my comment and laugh at me because they believe you are a Trump-apologist, but I can see you are not. I admire your faith in the Constitution and objective approach to analyzing the nonsense that is going on around us, in terms of the Constitution (or in this case, the intent of the Constitution). Thank you for doing what you are doing, I would not be surprised if other silent people who are baffled by everything also read your blog and feel the same way.

      1. Anon, half your comments are calling someone you don’t agree with a troll. It happens often enough that one might deduce the presence of a fetish. Bowing down to dreamworld trolls on your dresser, in the dark , lit by candles at exactly the same time every night. We can picture it.

        1. Think, though that anonymous isn’t Anonymous the Stupid he has most of the same characteristics. His contribution to the blog are articles from the NYT and Washington Post both of which will lie and spin the news. Neither provides any political news that isn’t tainted.On top of those lies he places his own headlines which are outright lies and sometimes conflict with the content below.

    1. Ninagram, wonderful sentiment, and I agree. The Professor doesn’t get the respect he deserves. “A prophet is never honored in his own house.”

      Never mind the trolls like the anonymous knucklehead above. They’re just showboating so they can get hired as concentration-camp guards.

  9. Good news about Twitter

    Yesterday, the company’s stock dropped some 12%, a loss of about $5 billion.

    Pretty soon, Dorsey — the creature who makes the Unabomber look dapper — can pursue his true calling: growing organic kale.

        1. ‘If someone is in pain, I am in pain’”

          You left out the rest of that creed: “And if they’re not in pain (Trump, et al.), I cause them pain.”

  10. So if Trump supporters are right then, you should have the right to deny service to gays because it should be your right being a private business. But if a private business tells you that you must must wear a mask to be served, then your rights are being violated. And if a private business tells you that there are rules to using their platforms, again you say it’s going against your rights. Which is it? Kinda like they read the Bible and the constitution, just pick out the pieces they like?

    1. Fishy, You must mean that people on the right are cherry picking the Constitution when they bring up the idea of free speech. You can count me in on the harvesting of that cherry orchard. A strange way for you to stand in defense of our freedoms. Then again, to be expected.

    2. Fish good question.

      Difference is, there is no market power in a tiny little bake shop that would be lucky to gross $200K in a year

      Amazon-google-etc are worth TRILLIONS by market cap

      you are talking about the difference between an ant and an elephant!,20%2C%20according%20to%20Joint%20Venture.

      Sal Sar

  11. Professor Turkey, since Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. are for all practical purposes monopolies, can the Sherman anti-trust act be used to shut them down or split them up, or at a minimum curtail their activities?

    1. YES is the answer. If the DOJ orders it

      Trump was too chicken.

      Maybe Biden will have a pair and do it

      He should. It may be him in their crosshairs next

      Saloth Sar

  12. In light of the unlikelihood of any changes in the Law, the only recourse is for there to be alternatives to the repressive Social Media sites we’re currently stuck with. 

    1. farleftwatch com

      Kamala Harris said an Antifa extremist who encouraged people to kill cops, “represents our future”

      Ismael Chamu is a Berkeley antifa activist who was charged with vandalism for allegedly spray painting people’s cars and fences with “F— White People,” “F— the police,” “F— frat Boys,” “Kill Cops”, “Kill Yuppies,” “Eat the Rich,” “Class War”, etc. This story is especially important to us because our reporting was instrumental in these charges.

      Here is a refresher for those of you not familiar with Ismael Chamu:

      On June 27th, 2017 Ismael was arrested with a knife in the same location and on the same night that 30 instances of slashed tires and graffiti occurred. After spending 39 hours in police custody he was released without charge where he immediately claimed that his arrest was the result of “racial profiling”. This was followed by an outcry of public support for Ismael and condemnation of the Berkeley Police Department. The ACUS Senate and even Berkeley Mayor, Jesse Arreguín, publicly condemned Ismael’s “unlawful detainment”.

      After we originally published the above information about his blog and public calls for criminal activity, we contacted the Berkeley Police Department and encouraged our readers to do the same. Shortly after, he was arrested and charged for these crimes.

      So why are we talking about him again? Well, it was just confirmed that Kamala Harris has been selected as the Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. And like many prominent Democrats, Harris has openly supported violent far-left extremists. In this particular instance, Harris tweeted out support for Ismael (archive) after the Los Angeles Times ran a piece titled “He attends elite UC Berkeley but lives in a trailer with no heat or sewer hookups. Soon, he’ll be scrambling to find new shelter“.

  13. Professor Turley, when will they come after you? You are the most prominent free speech advocate I know that still has platforms– USA Today, The Hill, Washington Post. Not clear to me if you have a Facebook Page.

    Do you think they are afraid to block you because such a move could unseal the lips of prominent liberals?

Leave a Reply