Why Burn Books When You Can Ban Them? Writers and Publishers Embrace Blacklisting In An Expanding American Anti-Free Speech Movement

Hundreds of publishing officials, professors, and academics have signed a petition to blacklist Trump administration alumni from receiving book deals.  It is the latest step in a rapidly expanding anti-free speech movement in the United States. In the wake of the Capitol riot, Democratic members and others are calling for a crackdown on free speech and punitive actions for those viewed as complicit with Trump. What is striking is how censorship, blacklists, and speech controls are being repackaged as righteous and virtuous. Indeed, the failure to sign such anti-free speech screeds is a precarious choice for many.  It is as easy as calling for tolerance through intolerance.  After all, why burn books if you can just effectively ban them?

We are coming out of the most divisive and consequential political period in modern history. Academics would ordinarily want to have insider accounts, even from those who are blamed for excesses or wrongdoing.  You did not have to like Nixon to want to read his account. This is part of the intellectual mission of our profession. However, academics are lining up to silence or bar access for anyone deemed a fellow traveler with Trump. They are seeking to purge books of opposing views or accounts. The letter describes a blacklisting of anyone deemed to have “enabled, promulgated, and covered up crimes against the American people.”

Hundreds signed a letter that compares former Trump associates to seeking profits to those barred under the Son of Sam law, a law named for a serial killer. The letter declares: “We are writers, editors, journalists, agents, and professionals in multiple forms of publishing. We believe in the power of words and we are tired of the industry we love enriching the monsters among us, and we will do whatever is in our power to stop it. that.” Of course, these enablers, promulgators, and conspirators were not charged with crimes except for a hand few. Nevertheless, they are all to be given the Son of Sam treatment and blocked from book deals.  What these academics and writers are unwilling to do is to allow readers to make up their own minds in whether to read the first-person accounts of the controversies of the last four years.

The campaign has been remarkably successful — as has the overall anti-free speech movement.  Simon and Schuster Publishing canceled the publication of Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) book after he objected to the certification of electoral votes.

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.

This is building into the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in modern history. The Red Scare was largely opposed by the media and universities.  This movement has the support of both. The left is proving far better at this than the right in the McCarthy period. They are using companies to achieve what anti-communists only dreamt of in the 1950s. As I have previously written, we are witnessing the death of free speech on the Internet and on our campuses.  What is particularly concerning is the common evasion used by academics and reporters that this is not really a free speech issue because these are private companies. The First Amendment is designed to address government restrictions on free speech. As a private entity, companies like Twitter or publishing houses are not the subject of that amendment. However, private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. It is called the “Little Brother problem.” President Trump can be chastised for converting a “Little Brother” into a “Big Brother” problem. However, that does alter the fundamental threat to free speech.  This is the denial of free speech, a principle that goes beyond the First Amendment. Indeed, some of us view free speech as a human right.

Consider racial or gender discrimination. It would be wrong regardless if federal law only banned such discrimination by the government. The same is true for free speech. The First Amendment is limited to government censorship, but free speech is not limited in the same way. Those of us who believe in free speech as a human right believe that it is morally wrong to deny it as either a private or governmental entity.  That does not mean that there are not differences between governmental and private actions. For example, companies may control free speech in the workplaces. They have a recognized right of free speech. However, the social media companies were created as forums for speech.  Indeed, they sought immunity on the false claim that they were not making editorial decisions or engaging viewpoint regulation.  No one is saying that these companies are breaking the law in denying free speech. We are saying that they are denying free speech as companies offering speech platforms.


135 thoughts on “Why Burn Books When You Can Ban Them? Writers and Publishers Embrace Blacklisting In An Expanding American Anti-Free Speech Movement”

  1. Off subject. Rioters in Portland are saying they hate Biden. No one here should say they are wrong if you want to maintain your reputation. When they hate Biden you should continue to raise funds for their bail. GoFundMe is waiting for your call. Of course, the mayor of Portland is using draconian means to quell the rioters.

      1. Anon, So the new mostly peaceful riots that severely damaged the Democratic headquarters in Portland weren’t as bad and long as the previous mostly peaceful riots. You must be assuring us that now that Biden is in office all riots by Antifa and BLM will just come to a screeching halt. They fizzled out. Maybe they “fizzled out” because this time the Mayor of Portland put a stop to their winter of love. If your premise is correct, it would seem that now that Biden is in power the riots should not have happened at all. They certainly should have not been directed at the Democratic headquarters. Very curious indeed.

      2. Yes, magically peace has burst out all over through the application of magic fairy dust.
        I would suggest that you look up the period between Sept 1939 and the defeat of Poland through May 1940 and the invasion of western europe – the period called the “phoney war”

        The only open question right now is who gets pissed enough at the Biden admin to restart the violence first.

    1. I believe an important distinction needs to be made between free speech and the right to burn, threaten, violate. Surely you can see this.

      1. BetsyL, of course their are limits against burning. Recently the ex FBI Director James Comey said “ The Republican party needs to be burned to the ground”. I hate this kind of speech, but I am not calling for a ban on his right to say it. Once we go down the road of picking and choosing which speech is to be allowed we put ourselves at the mercy of the choosers. Do you want your speech to be surveilled when the Republicans come back in power. Do you want your livelihood threatened if you step out of line. If you limit speech now you will have no right to complain when the Republicans regain power and tell you what you can or cannot say. Are you ready to take that risk.

      2. There is a distinction. The right to free speech is near absolute.
        The use of force must be justified. Sometimes it can be.

  2. So will conservative and religious publishers be issuing book contracts to Communists and pro-choice advocates? Publishing houses have brands and values. If Simon and Schuster do not want to be associated with hacks it makes sense. Would you read an S & S book in the future knowing that they typically publish hacks? The only thing suspect about this case is that S & S had already signed on with Hawley. If that had not been the case and Hawley had approached them with a deal and got rejected no one would think this matter warranted notice. After all, I don’t have a deal with S & S and no one seems to care. But since signing the deal time has gone on and events have transpired that make the deal suspect. Boo hoo. He no longer makes for a book they should want associated with their library.

    1. Hey The Hang Nail. There are plenty of books out there by Marxist, and Socialist (Bernie Sanders). You would have us believe that their are no Republican employees at the publishers who are accepting these books for publication. Could it possibly be that they just might believe that free speech is more important than limiting the expression of an ideology? Not according to your book of daemons.

    2. You’re pretty dim. These people are trying to organize a cartel. The appropriate response to them is that if they don’t want to read a book by Steven Mnuchin, they’re not forced to do so.

    3. You can make choices with regard to what you will and will not publish.

      Some niche publishers do have very clear brands.

      But any publisher that wishes to grow beyond a few authors must publisher for more rather then less of the market.

      One of the problems with censorship is that it is unconstrained.

      Today you will not publish Hawley, Tomorow it will be someone else.

      First they came for the Communists,
      and I didn’t speak up,
      because I wasn’t a Communist.
      Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak up,
      because I wasn’t a Jew.
      Then they came for the Catholics,
      and I didn’t speak up,
      because I was a Protestant.
      Then they came for me,
      and by that time there was no one
      left to speak up for me.

      This started with Der Sturmer and Alex Jones.
      Who would speak up for Alex Jone’s or Der Sturmer.

      Now it is 70,000 conservatives including the president of the united states,
      Now it is a current Senator,
      Now it is much of big Tech silencing its competitors.

      Next it will be you.

      Most of the “cancelled” – are on the left not the right.
      The left does an excellent job of coercing its members into orthodoxy, by destroying its own members who dissent – even a little.

      1. John Say, what happened to Sen. Hawley was different from what Turley is saying. Turely likes to litter his columns with exaggeration and hyperbole to “spice” up his points. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. In fact eve the left does it too. This is nothing new. What is notable is that Turley, being a free speech advocate doesn’t make the important distinction that the right to free speech incorporates. It’s not just the ability to say whatever you want, to express your opinion. It’s also the being aware of the responsibility that comes with it. The latter is often ignored because most of those who complain or are outraged about being “cancelled” or censored by companies such as Twitter, or Facebook, or Amazon, etc. Don’t accept or refuse to recognize that expressing their ideas or saying things have consequences that can and do come back to bite them. This shouldn’t be a surprise, but it is to them or more precisely it is an unwillingness to accept responsibility for what their speech or expressions can cause.

        The first amendment does not protect anyone from the consequences of exercising their free speech. It does not protect them from censorship or “cancelling” by private entities such as publishers or online forums. You or anyone can still say whatever they want publicly or online, but when that creates consequences such as being dropped from a publisher or forum online the first amendment does not protect you or give you the right to have it delivered by such entities. No single publisher or platform such as twitter or facebook is required by the constitution to carry anyone’s message. even the president. This is not about free speech being attacked, it’s about those exercising it not accepting responsibility for it. It’s treated as an absolute privilege when it comes to having others deliver their speech. The constitution does not force anyone to deliver someone else’s speech. period. That is what these folks are not recognizing because they think their privilege is being denied by an entity that is not required to carry it at all. That is simply due to being constitutionally illiterate.

    4. It is really hard to make money by reducing your market.

      And contra the left – businesses exist to make money.

      “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

      ― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1

  3. This is America!
    It’s you and me.
    We’ve got Commies here.
    And Nazis too.
    It’s time to pull out.
    Like our fathers should have.

  4. After the 1st 2days under Commie/Fascist type Tyranny of god Biden & co can anyone point to anything positive they’ve done so far to either help the world, this nation or of more in importance the Citizen they’re supposed to represent?

    100’s of 1000’s workers to be laid off, wide open borders welcome in everyone from their 3rd world sh*thole country & the return of letting pedo men back into school girls rest rooms, etc., etc…..

    1. Well, typing fast is not advised.
      At least we know who the real Nazis are . . . .
      Apologies for the error.
      I was raised to consider book burning and censorship what the bad guys did, and the self-righteous and the intolerant.
      Of course one can always go to another publisher, but demands that publishers not accept certain manuscripts is an imposition on the publisher, who normally makes decisions to accept or reject a manuscript based on whether they think it is well written, contributes something to the general knowledge, and will sell enough copies to cover the costs of printing it and still make a profit. Most large publishing houses issue a variety of titles on a large number of subjects by various authors. Smaller publishers specialize, some serve a particular public or niche, and others serve the public good (the government, university presses). But what is being demanded here is very different; it is the censorship of whole groups of people who do not accept what some people insist is akin to revealed truth. In that sense, it is no different from past inquisitions. . . .

  5. I just can’t understand why more Democrat voters won’t acknowledge, let alone check, their party.

    They say Republicans are fascist. But look at how widespread this behavior has become.

    1. Because it’s a racket. It only serves itself. And only cynical people are allowed to have power among Democrat underlings and at the top they are working for Bill Gates, Dorsey, etc. anyways.

      But you see, Silicon Valley only hires the best. So that strikes Republicans off the list.

    2. The party of Kennedy has become the party of Khrushchev.

      Republicans are not fascist… that is a -projection- by the Left, from which fascism arises. In fact, there is no ‘right wing’, other than the orthodox religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim). The fact is, Nazis were leftists (national -socialist-). The reason Democrats and so-called liberals consider Nazis ‘right wing’ is because liberal democrats are so -far- to the left, that everybody else is indeed to their ‘right’.

      Today, JFK would be considered a ‘far right white nationalist’ by Democrats.

    3. Because increasingly they do not know of the behavior of those they voted for.
      The media either will not tell them or they claim it is all “russian disinformation” or a left wing conspiracy.

      But this is still a losers game.

      Trust in the press and trust in government is at all time lows.

      I hope that Biden is actually successful – for all of our sake’s.
      But the odds against a sucessful Biden presidency are near zero.

      1. John Say,

        “Trust in the press and trust in government is at all time lows.

        I hope that Biden is actually successful – for all of our sake’s.
        But the odds against a successful Biden presidency are near zero”

        I disagree. Trust in government was eroded during the last term by Trump. That much is clear. The irony here is that it was Trump who promoted the distrust from the very beginning. When he claimed in 2016 that the election was rigged, fake news, and undermining his own administration by issuing contradicting claims. All that continued well into the end of his term. Claims of fraud that turned out to be lies and still claiming elections were stolen and inciting his supporters to ignore their own governors and legislators. That loss of trust lies squarely at Trump’s feet. Biden will have to build that trust back up, but the millions of Trump supporters who have been duped by him will be a much harder job. Even those who stormed the capitol are now citing the betrayal of the president for not pardoning them for the insurrection they tried to commit.

        Sen. Ron Paul continues to push discredited claims of fraud and lawlessness that have long been debunked and properly ridiculed. It’s that damaged mentality that will require a longer approach. A lot of people were lied to and duped by the president. It’s not going to happen overnight. Biden can be successful only if some republicans abandon the failed ideologies trump created and is seems it will take another election to put it back in the fringes were it belongs.

  6. I wonder how these self-appointed censors would react if they were censored. The closing of the mind is a scary proposition. The fact these people are willing to do so and call themselves academics is even scarier.

    1. Academics have lost much of their former luster, as anyone speaking with one of their recent products can easily determine. There is little substance to much of the academy and its public facing products; the collapse of confidence in this imploding, self-serving edifice is inevitable. And of course, they need our support for funding, which will begin to dry up.

  7. All quite ignorant people. Trump’s policy initiatives were quite mainstream and generally advocated by prominent Democrats at one point or another over the last 35 years or so. A more combative stance in trade negotiations (especially with China), efforts to bloc Chinese infiltration of academic institutions and technology companies, enhanced enforcement of the immigration laws, scrapping Obamacare, reductions in marginal income tax rates, revised strategy and tactics in the Near East, and efforts toward rebalancing military expenditures between western countries. This is what they call ‘crimes against the American people.’

    Another thing you notice is that about 95% of them are nobodies. There are a few who do occupy gatekeeper positions in a couple of publishing firms you’re likely to recognize. It does tell you something about the lower ranks of our word-merchant class.

      1. Damn Paint Chips! DSS said, Trump’s policy initiatives were quite mainstream and generally advocated by prominent Democrats at one point or another over the last 35 years or so.

        They were.

        Every time you post, you remind me of this guy:


  8. No, we are not “coming out of” the most divisive and consequential period in our history (the 1850s were worse), we’re just entering what may turn out to be just that. Don’t those left-wing idiots know what’s in store for them in the event of revolution? And it’s coming. As for publishers being censors, they always have been. Publishers publish whatever they want to and whatever they think will make them the most money. Bear in mind that there are publishers who will publish conservatives. Now, book stores and Amazon may not sell them but they’ll still get out there. Actually, the country hasn’t gone crazy -the crazies are revealing themselves.

  9. Professor Turley and the readers here. You write with a sense of surprise at what is transpiring in America considering the attack on free speech. Amazingly, you somehow could not see the writing on the wall. I believe you saw the writing on the wall but you placed yourself in a state of denial. With the new administration it didn’t take long for your rights to be trampled. It seems that your warnings are too late because you have been afraid. Soon you will be sitting at the dinner table and your daughter will tell you about the girl in her locker room who had an erection. Of course, you better keep your mouth shut. It’s been a long time coming. You walked into the voting booth and you allowed the continuance of the deterioration of your rights. You endorsed it in a matter of one day. An undoing will take much longer than one day if it is at all possible. You gave it all away because of your deranged hatred of one man. A look around the world should have made you realize that freedom doesn’t always win.

    1. Sal Sar, thank you for directing us to needed information about the attack on free speech. I don’t agree with Jimmy Dore on a lot of things but I can see that he understands that prohibited speech will silence the voices on both the left and the right. He knows that America has not always done the right thing but our core values must remain.

      1. He is a sincere and funny expositor of much of what’s happening now. He reminds me of the Democrats that taught me in the salad days of my education.

        The type who now are sorely missing from that party’s leadership.

        Sal Sar

  10. Facebook and Twitter have led the way in their banning certain accounts. This is not a First Amendment violation because they are not the Government, they are a private enterprise. ” no shirt, no shoes, no service ” ?? But we’re a couple hundred years away from the ‘ rabble-rousers ‘ being muzzled for speaking their mind in the public square, aren’t we? If ethnic ‘ minorities ‘ can gain access or receive services from private concerns in the name of discrimination, one would think that lowly minority Conservatives could also demand the same?

    1. The rise of the Oligarchy ” being complicit with the Media, Big tech, and the “Socialist” party would have been inconceivable to the to the Founders of this Republic. John Dahlberg – Acton said, ” Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This power has now been condensed into a ruling elite that will extinguish any threat to its position including the 1st Amendment, the opposition party, and any citizen who would dare speak up against it. The 1st Amendment was written as a protection against the government, but in reality the Oligarchy has become the government and it is very scary indeed.

  11. Free market. If you are a despicable person then you risk companies not wanting to do business with you. If you as a company does business with despicable people then the public has the freedom to choose not to buy your products. People also have the freedom to publicize what businesses or individuals they think others should not do business with. All as it should be.

    1. Molly, you conflate what they can do with what they ought do. You’ve left out a whole ‘nother part of the discussion. And that is the central problem of both the Left and the Right. Banning and censoring, in this context, may not be legally sanctionable, but that does not mean all “…is as it should be.”

      1. This is no different the a standard boycott. If you don’t like what a company does the you publicize it and allow others to decide if they want to be a customer. The business can then decide if they want to change their practices or not.

        1. It’s entirely different from a standard boycott. A boycott by a monopoly is murder, and an attempt to orchestrate a universal boycott of dissidents is attempted murder. Good people say live and let live (peacefully and separately); totalitarian misanthropes like you say, submit or die.

          1. Willam_jd,

            “A boycott by a monopoly is murder, and an attempt to orchestrate a universal boycott of dissidents is attempted murder.” What are you talking about. Any boycott is about the freedom of people to choose. Free speech allows one to publicly say this company or that business is bad because they support such and such. That still leaves others the choice to support that or not by choosing to do business with such entities. Any business that sees a potential loss of income or bad publicity because of it does business with a questionable individual has the choice to decide whether to continue or not with that individual. No law or even the constitution forces any company to do business or cater to anyone it does not believe is in their best interest. That’s it. Markets are flexible and there are millions of other customers who will still do business, especially when it comes to online sales. Your concerns are completely overblown.

        1. Molly, real progressives, like my grandfather, supported antitrust. Today’s “progressives” mock antitrust so they can do one-stop-shopping for all their tyrannical needs.

          You are not a progressive. You are a Marxist. Statists who don’t trust free speech are always and necessarily Marxists.

          1. ha ha she sounds like an Ayn Rand liberterian doesn’t she? What a bizarro world we live in now.

            Sal Sar

            Here let some real leftists who understand the billionaires explain some of what’s happening now. This is about billlionaires consolidating control over the mass media market to amplify their power and control of public debate.

            I dont fully agree with these guys but I have enjoyed their moments of wisdom and insight many times the past few years. Chris Hedges on Jimmy Dore

            1. Even some of the nakedly socialist critiques that Hedges makes have some legitimacy.

              For example. How Biden has always served the credit card companies and the mass media

              Pointed out how Hunter Biden used to have a job on tv network too. “they only paid him a couple hundred thousand” Joe said

              Sal Sar

          2. I would contend she is simply a fool. Marxist analysis should make this consolidation over the mass media market by the billionaires an obvious insight.

            The question is, what would you want to do about it. Marxist economic analysis often has good insights, but few good policy prescriptions to solve them.

            My opinion is, a moderate and effective policy response to this is a coordinated antitrust action against these mass media and social media censorship behemoths.

            I have more radical notions and ideas too but people would probably consider them immoderate so I won’t lay into them now.

            Sal Sar

    2. Isn’t it preposterous that all these Democrats are such free-marketeers when it comes to billionaire owned operations like Twitter or Wash Post but they expect small business to comply with every little arbitrary “public health” dictate emerging from governors?

      Which by the way, have been a top level cause among others, of creating a trillion extra dollars of wealth in the pockets of billionaires the past year?

      Neo-liberalism is actually neo-feudalism,. lead by Democrat party “aristocrats” and their backers

      Saloth Sar

    3. Moly g, well you better not stumble girl and you better not fight cause when you are called a despicable person the sherif he will get you girl and his boys will pull you down and before you know it your penitentiary bound. Injustice is no respecter of persons. If you think you are exempt from the rules you call for you are no student of history.

    4. Free market. If you are a despicable person then you risk companies not wanting to do business with you.

      They’re trying to set up a cartel you dimwit.

  12. We are coming out of the most divisive and consequential political period…

    Out of? Pffft. They have only gotten started.

    My university is now offering this gem:

    “Becoming an Antiracist Educator”
    “Discuss and crowd-source possible solutions to the challenges of bringing anti-racist teaching into a STEM classroom”

    NB: blacks comprise 13% of the US Population, Hispanics comprise 18%
    And yet look who is demanding all of the attention.
    Divisive never looked so pernicious and it is metastasizing.

      1. It’s everywhere. Instead of university administrators focusing on issues that would improve STEM scores for graduating students, they throw millions of dollars at “strategies” that do nothing for learning employable, marketable skills.

        I often tell peers that men and women who came out of World War I, WW II, Korean and Vietnam Wars were in their 20s, started careers, got married, had families, and by their 30s were responsible adults. Today…not even close and universities are making them worse

        You can’t expect a society to be healthy given these trends.

        1. The global billionaires don’t worry about STEM. They are working on AI and they plan on not even needing imported programmers from India before long

          As for public health, they want us sick. In fact they want us dead. So expect the “new normal” to be a never ending series of “public health crises” that justify our ongoing “public health” dictatorship. And one that masks their efforts at the most effective “means to control global warming” — DEPOPULATION

          Sal Sar

  13. “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” George Orwell

  14. In an effort to further flesh out the oft and nearly everywhere confused conflation of Free Speech over against the First Amendment…Free Speech is a human right and not simply a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. Free Speech precedes and exists prior to the Constitution. Free Speech and the First Amendment are not the same thing. Free Speech is the right itself. The First Amendment is merely the mechanical and written guarantor of the right here, in the US, and only in cases of government abuse. The right to Free Speech is all-encompassing in its application. It applies everywhere even if men choose not to honor it. It applies to public and private relations. It is endowed on all and everywhere by virtue of their humanity – it is “given by their creator” and is “unalienable.” In our right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness it is the key to the one in the center – Liberty. You don’t have Liberty without Free Speech.

    And, as a human right, it existed before the Constitution was ever imagined.

  15. Monopolies and oligopolies that collude against free speech are not private entities in any meaningful sense. BREAK ‘EM UP!!

    1. Private entities may restrict the speech of voluntary members (like employees or party members), but the more the entity resembles a monopoly, the more it can restrict the trade and speech of unwilling members. Monopolies are regulated or broken up for that reason.

      Since the radicals want to regulate the monopolies precisely so that they can restrict speech, the only honest remedy is breaking up the monopolies.

      1. As with most monopolies and oligopolies, there are barriers to entry and economies of scale that make viable alternatives difficult to come by. The remedy has to come from the courts.

        After being nurtured by the law for too long, the tech monopolies have become social monsters, peddling confirmation bias and now censorship. They must be broken up.

        1. Jack Dorsey, et al, wants regulation by the radicals so he can lock in the control of his industry and use the government to silence his political opponents and competitors. Does it need to get more dangerous than that?

            1. Sal Sar, so your against the banning of speech but you are for banning the accumulation of wealth. That brush also includes to many breaches of our freedom. When the steel cartel was regulated it did not require that steel woul no longer be made.

              1. I am against the abuse of accumulated wealth by billionaires like Jack Dorsey, or his Silicon Valley pals, to suppress free expression, that’s for sure.

                Scale matters. If a billionaire can buy entire nation-states, then they are not sovereign. I am interested in preserving the very concept of national sovereignty from globalism

                This will absolutely require limitations on their socalled private property rights. I was a liberterian about 25 years ago and I got over it. I am certainly not one now.

                Sal Sar

                1. Sal Sar. We have had this discussion before. I have asked exactly where you would draw the line. Please be more specific as to your plan. I to am opposed to monopolies and the dangers they represent. I am not willing to attack wealthy people who are creating products that fulfill a need with a superior product. Even the billionaires who operated Montgomery Wards, And Sears refused to understand what the public wanted and suffered the consequences. I would also like to point out that when the billionaires at Twitter. Facebook, and YouTube were blocking Trump your hatred of those billionaires was conspicuously absent.

          1. “Jack Dorsey, et al, wants regulation by the radicals so he can lock in the control of his industry and use the government to silence his political opponents and competitors.”

            Apparently, good old-fashioned propaganda and manipulation Bernays-style isn’t completely sufficient anymore… I have been seeing that sort of thing a lot lately (and probably a lot I’ve missed–if it’s really good, you aren’t supposed to see it) but maybe it isn’t enough. 🙁

      2. Diogenes, ” Monopolies are regulated or broken up for that reason.” The problem for you is that these publishers and platforms like twitter and facebook are not monopolies. There are several platforms to choose from if you don’t like them. A true monopoly would be one single company that controls every platform and publisher in the country. There are literally thousands of publishers Sen. Hawley can choose from. Twitter is not the only platform that people can use. Facebook is not the only one who can provide such a platform. These are not monopolies. these are what everyone chooses to use because of it’s popularity.

        These companies can restrict speech because the very people who chose willingly to use their services agreed to abide by the terms and conditions the companies imposed. As we all know nobody really reads through all of those terms and conditions and just click on the “I agree” button.. The very second you do that you are willingly giving up certain rights. So you can’t really blame them for censoring your speech when you gave up that right by signing up. This is why these arguments against these companies are pointless, everyone willingly agrees to their terms and conditions. Why should you or anyone else be surprised? Oh it’s because nobody reads the contract which nobody forced you to sign. Amazing isn’t it?

    2. utilities at best. break them and regulate their restrictions on the public assets which they hog unto themselves, ie, the “information superhighway” of the internet

      Sal Sar

  16. Pinkos wrap themselves in vitriolic virtue while attacking our country.

    Yes, they have the right, but they are still damaging our country and must bear responsibility.

    Ugly people.

Leave a Reply