Facebook Upholds Trump Ban But Admits Permanent Ban Lacked Any Objective Standard

Facebook’s Oversight Board just voted that the company may want to give Trump back his boots.

The decision of the board to uphold the decision to ban Trump but reconsider his lifetime ban may seem transparently convenient for many. However, there is precedent. One of my favorite trial accounts is from Ireland where an Irishman was accused by an Englishman of stealing a pair of boots. The guilt of the defendant was absolutely clear but the Irish jury could not get itself to rule for the Englishman. Instead, it acquitted the Irishman but added a line, “We do believe O’Brien should give the Englishman back his boots.” Case closed.

Few people thought that, after expanding the censorship of political figures like Trump for years, Facebook could ever summon the courage to declare itself wrong in the ban first imposed on January 7, 2021. Instead, the board ruled that it was absolutely right to suspend Trump but it may want to reconsider the permanent ban given the absence of any objective standard to support it. So Trump will still get the boot for now. Facebook in the meantime will continue its insidious campaign to get people to “evolve” on regulations impacting privacy and free speech.

It may be too harsh to expect anything more from a board that literally monitors one of the world’s largest censorship programs. Facebook, Twitter, and other companies now openly engage in what they like to euphemistically call “content modification.” The decision reflects the convoluted logic of censor’s free speech review board. The company – and the Board – start from the assumption that it can and should censor views deemed “misinformation” or dangerous. The starting position therefore is that censorship is justified and that content neutrality is dangerous.

The Board’s position on the standardless policy on permanent bans ignores that its temporary suspension policy is equally standardless. The company cited the response to Trump’s speech by third parties as opposed to a specific call by Trump to commit violence. It does not take the same position when similar words are used by figures like Rep. Maxine Water (D., Cal.) during protests. The board worries that the permanent ban is not grounded in a state policy and that such limitless authority should concern everyone.  Indeed it does. Just as we are concerned by the limitless authority imposed on suspensions.

Recently, Facebook banned not just the postings but the very voice of Donald Trump. In what could be called Zuckerberg’s “He Who Must Not Be Heard” standard, Facebook blocked an interview of Trump with his daughter-in-law Lara Trump.  The company declared that it would censor  any content “in the voice of Donald Trump.” Thus, if Trump whispered his answers to his daughter-in-law, she could say the words. That is not considered what the Board calls an “indeterminate and standard less penalty.”

Even Facebook’s self-criticism of acting without a governing standard is self-contradictory.  If your company banned someone permanently without having a basis or standard, why is the natural response to look for a standard as opposed to lifting the standardless ban? This is not some remand for re-sentencing. The board concluded that there never was a stated basis or policy for the decision to permanently ban Trump. It is like a judge saying that I believe that the police had a reason to arrest you but I cannot see a reason for keeping you indefinitely in jail . . .  so I am going to keep in jail while we try to figure out if we ever had a reason to keep you indefinitely in jail.

Yet, that is the logic when your natural default is “content modification” and speech controls.

What is most alarming is that Facebook, Twitter, and other companies have been defended by Democratic leaders, writers, and academics. Indeed, 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.”

Democratic leaders like Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) have warned Big Tech companies that they are watching to be sure that there is no “backsliding or retrenching” from needed “robust content modification.” Many commentators on the left have become unabashed enablers of not just censorship but corporate censorship.

The common rationalization is that these companies are not subject to the First Amendment so there is no free speech issue.  The First Amendment is not synonymous with broader values of free speech. Private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. This is particularly the case with companies who not only run platforms for communications but received immunity from lawsuit under the view that they would be neutral providers of such platforms. Imagine if your telephone company took it upon itself to intervene in phone calls to object to something you just said or ban you from further calls for spreading misinformation. Some of us believe free speech is a human right that is defined by values beyond the confines of the First Amendment.

The alliance between political figures and these companies is particularly chilling. Big Tech has allowed for the creation of a state media without the state. Recently, Twitter admitted that it is censoring criticism of India’s government over its handling of the pandemic because such views are deemed illegal in India.  Facebook has been accused of censoring the views of Sikhs raising genocide concerns. Governments can now outsource censorship duties to Big Tech which benefits from government support ranging from immunity to taxation laws.

Trump has moved to create his own platform to communicate with voters. However, this is not about Trump. It is about Facebook and its censorship program. Many of us are not impressed by Facebook’s effort to work out its censorship standards because it is based on a premise of censorship. The Internet was once the greatest creation for free speech in history. It is now being converted into a managed space for corporate approved viewpoints. For free speech advocates, it is like going from a rolling ocean of free speech to a swimming pool of controlled content.

In the end, Facebook’s board could not go as far as the Irish jury to say that the company should give Trump back his boots but rather it “might want to consider” giving him back his boots. In the world of corporate censors, that is considered a principled stand.

An earlier version of this column ran on Fox.com.

285 thoughts on “Facebook Upholds Trump Ban But Admits Permanent Ban Lacked Any Objective Standard”

  1. Puck Yeah! What took the courts so long???

    Federal Judge Sides With Landlords, Vacates CDC’s Eviction Moratorium
    May 5, 2021 13:17, Last Updated: May 5, 2021 16:29
    By Jack Phillips

    A federal judge Wednesday vacated a nationwide freeze on evictions that was handed down by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to help some renters remain in their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.


  2. OT

    Thank you, delusional 19th Dumbmendment proponents.

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral” as more Americans die than are born – America’s population is being imported of rabid, parasitic communists.

    Women became men.

    Babies became aborted.

    Americans became missing.

    Women got the vote.

    America got the death sentence.

    “The U.S. Birthrate Has Dropped Again. The Pandemic May Be Accelerating the Decline.”

    Over all, the birthrate declined by 4 percent in 2020. Births were down most sharply in December, when babies conceived at the start of the health crisis would have been born. The birthrate in the United States has fallen by about 19 percent since its recent peak in 2007. A few days ago, the U.S. government revealed that the country’s population is growing at the slowest rate in nearly a century. Today, Astead Herndon spoke with our colleague Sabrina Tavernise about why that is and just how profoundly it could shape America’s future. Births declined by about 8 percent in December compared with the same month the year before, a monthly breakdown of government data showed. December had the largest decline of any month. Over the entire year, births declined by 4 percent, the data showed. There were 3,605,201 births in the United States last year, the lowest number since 1979. The birthrate — measured as the number of babies per thousand women ages 15 to 44 — has fallen by about 19 percent since its recent peak in 2007.

    – NY Times

    1. The world is overpopulated by a factor of eight, so a slow down in the birth rate could be a good thing.

      Don’t worry about the smart people, they’re all here on the west coast, having fun in the California sun, getting rich, having babies.

      The worldwide death rate is around 140,000,000 so if the world went infertile for 20 years – like in Children of Men – world population would decrease by 2,800,000,000 and the world would still be overpopulated.

    2. “delusional 19th Dumbmendment proponents.”

      I bet you’re involuntarily celibate because you’re such a misogynist.

  3. Blah, Blah, Blah. I only read a few lines of this predictable piese, and stopped when Turley used the word “censorship”. Facebook is a private company that offers a service for which participants sign “terms and conditions” that they must agree to in order to avail themselves of the service. Trump violated these “terms and conditions”, so he breached his contract. They terminated his account. All perfectly legal.

    On the merits, they did the right thing because Trump just won’t stop putting out the Big Lie, which has torn the Republican Party apart, and which is threatening our democracy. If there was something, anything, behind his claims of election fraud, that would be one thing, but there isn’t. The Big Lie is the product of his malignant narcissism. His massive ego cannot handle rejection. Did you Trumpsters who believe the Big Lie wonder why Republicans who assisted in staffing the polls, in securing and counting the ballots, would allow cheating to happen? Why would Republican Secretaries of State go along with massive fraud, either? Did you ever wonder how Trump could win by a landslide when he lost the popular vote in 2016, set a record for low approval ratings, and was predicted by every single poll to lose? I’d really like to know why you all believe the Big Lie. Please explain it to me. Do you have anything to back up your belief, other than Trump’s lies, and why would you believe anything he says, given his history of endless lying? I don’t get it.

      1. If that’s what you think, boycott it.

        I’m a liberal who simply doesn’t like how much information they gather about their users, so I never created an account in the first place.

    1. Natacha. There was a time in this nation when commerce was controlled by big steel and railroad monopolies. When an attempt was made to break them up they used the private businesses defense. They said that no restrictions should be allowed because they were private companies. They were called Robber Barron’s. They also controlled a large portion of the press who defended them as private businesses. These were monopolies. The monopolies of today want to tell us that some of us should not be allowed to speak on an open platform. The sanctity of businesses under the “private business” argument was decided by law long ago. We should find it interesting that EB and Natacha are defending today’s monopolistic billionaire oligarchs of communication. Defending today’s Robber Barons of communication. Helps to know a little history.

      1. FB is a private company than can regulate itself. They should be broken up because no company should have as much power as it does…, but that’s a different issue, TIT.


      2. “Defending today’s Robber Barons of communication. Helps to know a little history.”

        “Robber Barons” was a Marxist slur then, and it’s a Marxist slur now. It helps to know a little history, and a little political philosophy and economics.

        That slur is an attempt to seduce the unthinking into believing that there is no difference between wealth by production (the American industrialists) and wealth by plunder (robbers and barons). It is a vicious attempt to punish a wealth creator for his virtues — his knowledge, dedication, productivity. It is the condemnation of a successful businessman for his success. And that slur evades the fact that a free market transaction is based on a *voluntary* trade between the creator and customers.

        It is shocking to see so-called defenders of capitalism mindlessly condemn its greatest practitioners: American industrialists. (And, yes, that includes Dorsey and Zuckerberg. Whatever one thinks of their content moderation policies, the fact remains that they both built and manage very successful commercial enterprises.)

    2. Did anyone get censored, suspended or banned from Facebook or Twitter for spreading disinformation and spewing nonstop lies about the Russia hoax these past four years? For the lies and disinfo campaign about Russia Russia Russia and the 2016 election? Anyone suspended for that garbage?

      1. There was not and is not any “Russian hoax”. That is a shorthand phrase dreamed up by the Hate Network to get the disciples not to listen to or believe Mueller’s findings. The Trump campaign did work with Russian hackers to spread lies about Hillary Clinton in key precincts where support for her was soft enough that it could sway the Electoral College results. Dan Coats, a Republican appointed by Trump, was fired for refusing to lie about this. Russia’s disinformation project worked, but Trump still lost the popular vote. He never captured the support of the majority of the American people.

        1. Mark Warner is from Virginia. He is smart. He knows what’s up.

          WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released the below statement on the release of the fifth and final volume of the Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation titled, “Volume 5: Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities”:

          “After more than three and a half years of work, millions of documents, and hundreds of witness interviews, I’m proud that the Committee’s report speaks for itself.

          “𝐀𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝟏,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬, 𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐞 𝟓 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 – 𝐚 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. I encourage all Americans to carefully review the documented evidence of the unprecedented and massive intervention campaign waged on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump by Russians and their operatives and to reach their own independent conclusions.

          “This cannot happen again. As we head into the heat of the 2020 campaign season, I strongly urge campaigns, the executive branch, Congress and the American people to heed the lessons of this report in order to protect our democracy.”

          1. Take note how the loquacious Bug provided a quote that said absolutely nothing. Bug you are impressed where nothing impressive exists.


            1. While I’m happy that you’re impresed with Ben’s talents in the realm of bolding text, Allan — I can’t take credit for it personally. I mean, the Intelligence Committee did an in depth report on the true extent of Russian election interference and all, but important to know the bolded portion is a synopsis of what’s in the report. A log line if you will. A teaser to foreshadow what the report contains. Best to familiarize yourself with this logistical reality before rushing in to sound foolish. I think we all know how intimidating factual text is for you to navigate…, but be brave and venture in.


              1. Trump’s people were communicating with members of the GRU using coded messages.

                And that’s just the start.

                Guilty as hell but it doesn’t matter.

                It’s all for naught.

                Trump was one of Putin’s most effective intelligence coups, but we survived.

                1. It would’ve been almost impossible for American intelligence not to know that Trump went right to Putin with information…, he was the perfect vehicle to move false intelligence. Trump came in as a Russian asset but effectively ‘double agented’ himself through his idiocy. By being a Russian asset coming in he became an American asset in response. Might be what’s keeping him from being charged just yet in NY. Still double agent potential there. When he times out…, well, he times out. Lol.


                  1. Bug, “It would’ve been almost impossible for” Ben to have committed pedophilia without you being at his side. If your claim is considered, this claim would have the same level of proof. Therefore the two of you engaged in pedophilia or all of these comments represent innuendo. One is as true as the other.


                    1. Allan, help me out with a logistical question…

                      A friend of mine reads your posts and she swears your IQ is in the range of 80. I tell her no, that you’re at least pushing 90, to give you the benefit of the doubt and all. What say you?


                    2. EB,
                      You should probably go with the rising tide lifts all boats theory in you and your friends assessment of SM’s IQ. Given your contributions on this blog, yours is clearly well below his. At least bump him up to the 130 range to give yourself a chance of reaching triple digits.

                    3. “she swears your IQ is in the range of 80. I tell her no, that you’re at least pushing 90, to give you the benefit of the doubt and all. What say you?”

                      Bug, I say that demonstrates how stupid you are. How proud you must be to not even uphold your side of the debate with a person with an IQ between 80-90. You would look a lot better if I, the person you have been debating, had a much higher IQ than most. At least then you would have an excuse for your horrible performance.

                2. While, “Trump’s people were communicating with members of the GRU using coded messages.” You were committing sexual acts on children. “And that’s just the start.“

                  The first sentence’s implication is as true as the second. It’s known as innuendo. They both carry the same weight.


                  1. Even you might understand this:

                    WASHINGTON — President Trump’s 2016 campaign eagerly capitalized on Russia’s efforts to meddle in the U.S. election four years ago, according to a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report that raises new concerns about connections between his top aides and Moscow.

                    As Russian military intelligence officers were releasing hacked Democratic Party emails through WikiLeaks, the report said the Trump campaign “sought to maximize the impact of those leaks” and “created messaging strategies” around them.

                    The report, released Tuesday, found that the Trump campaign “publicly undermined” the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia was behind the email hack and “was indifferent to whether it and Wikileaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.”

                    The 966-page document describes Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign chairman who is serving prison time for financial crimes, as a “grave counterintelligence threat” because of his relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik, a business partner in Ukraine who is conclusively described as a “Russian intelligence officer.”

                    Although Kilimnik has been the target of scrutiny before, the report adds a new wrinkle, saying the committee “obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU’s hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.” GRU is an acronym for Russian military intelligence; no such allegation has previously been made, and details are redacted from the report.

                    𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐊𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐧𝐢𝐤 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐲𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐭𝐞𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐠” 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞” 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝. 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬 “𝐛𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬,” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬.

                    The report is the fifth and final volume from the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian election meddling. It arrives soon after Trump’s own intelligence officials warned that Moscow was revisiting its playbook ahead of the 2020 election by trying to undermine Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

                    1. Sounds like whoever you copied that piece from had a lot of information wrong. It sounds like they are twisting data along with data that has since been proven false.


                    2. You are a waste of time.

                      You just say in your double-wide and poach WiFi from Starbucks and let the smart people run the world.

              2. ” I mean, the Intelligence Committee did an in depth report on the true extent of Russian election interference”

                You are out of date. The facts that came later from the FBI conflict with many of the facts from the report. Unfortunately, the Committee was not permitted to see all the information at the time the report was written. Much of the Democrat opinion was gratuitously entered without any regard to what was known then or now.

                Today the report is without meaning except we now know that the report isn’t true.

                You might not realize this. You are too busy trying to prove something that isn’t true and in the process you have forgotten to think.


  4. Facebook is zealous in its aberrant, totalitarian support of censorship over freedom of speech, thought, belief, opinion, promulgation, assembly, etc.

    Facebook is antithetical, anti-Constitutional and anti-American in its ardent support of tyranny and censorship over freedom of speech.

    Facebook is the face of the enemy.

    Facebook IS the enemy.

    “The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend.”

    – Marcus Tullius Cicero

    America; Americans must begin “contending” with vigor and extreme prejudice.

    1. Wrong. Facebook is one of the best platforms for Freedom of Speech since moveable type.

      But they have rules, and one of those rules is against incitement of violence.

      Trump thinks the rules don’t apply to him, but he’s wrong.

      He got banned for lying through his teeth about a stolen election and sparking a riot in which people were killed.

      1. Four people died of natural causes. One person was murdered by a Capitol police officer.

  5. Don’t give the Englishman back his boots. “Take” Facebook under eminent domain and cause it to be privately operated under the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights – freedom of speech, thought, press, promulgation, religion, belief, opinion and every other conceivable and applicable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the 9th Amendment.

    5th Amendment

    No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  6. In my mind the Internet is like the town square and anyone who occupies as much space as Facebook should not be able to deny free speech, especially of a political nature. I think there have been Supreme Court cases upholding freedom of speech in town squares.

    1. S. Meyer,

      You’re right that the internet is like a town square, the internet. Facebook is like a private bulletin board, a big one, in a town square where any bulletin board is welcome. If you want to post something on that board you are required to agree to their rules and conditions. Anyone who violates those rules can have their messages taken down or revoke the privilege to the offending person. That’s what happened to trump.

      You have free speech in the public square (internet), but you don’t have a right to use the private bulletin board as your personal soap box if you end up being kicked off because you broke the rules.

      You would be violating the owner of the private bulletin board (Facebook) freedom of speech in the town square by forcing it to post messages and behavior that is against their rules.

      1. It is obvious, Svelaz, you do not understand legal principles in relationship to the public square in America. Maybe you are thinking of the public square that existed in the Soviet Union. I think these concepts fly too high over your head.


        1. Anonymous Sm. No. You’re the one who is not understanding what the concept is.

          You’re conflating “internet” with “Facebook”. The internet is the medium in which Facebook runs it’s platform (the bulletin board). Anyone can create their own (bulletin board) on the internet and create their own rules. That’s where free speech is unrestricted. Private entities such as Facebook created their (bulletin board) and offers free access to it provided you agree to certain rules and conditions. Facebook controls everything that happens on that bulletin board because everyone who wishes to post anything on it agrees to abide by the rules they put in their agreement.

          It’s really very simple. Government cannot control Facebook by forcing it to post messages of anyone because they would be violating Facebook’s freedom of speech. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.

          1. “Government cannot control Facebook by forcing it to post messages of anyone”

            Svelaz, you don’t even have the ability to understand and word the problem correctly. No wonder you don’t understand the answer. No one wants to force FB to post anything.

            FB can be considered the town square based on numbers alone. You again didn’t understand what the discussion was with regard to the town square. The Internet is like the country. The town square is a gathering space.

            You are a silly person who draws a lot of uneducated conclusions without knowing the facts or the law.


            1. Once again, Facebook has rules which are very clearly spelled out, about Inictement of Violence.

              Amtrak has rules. Southwest Airlines has rules.

              If you get drunk and start a fight on an Amtrak train, or smoke in a bathroom on a Southwest flight, you will be kicked off and possibly banned for life.

              For breaking the rules.

              Trump broke Facebook’s rules.

              Simple as that.

              Trump thinks the rules don’t apply to him, but Facebook says otherwise.

              He got banned, hopefully for life.

              If you don’t like it, don’t use Facebook.

              They seem to be doing well despite the ban.

              1. Yep.

                (And as a reminder to some — not you, Ben — JT/Darren banned Art Deco “for life.”)

            2. Allan, you are a tough one to deal with. There are indications of rather severe learning disabilities with you, and at the same time you resort to insulting anyone trying to explain something to you immediately. Probably best to realize your condition and work around it in a way that isn’t so foul and unproductive and then try to re-engage with people after you’ve done some work on that end.


              1. “There are indications of rather severe learning disabilities with you”

                Bug, yet despite the learning disabilities you claim along with the 80-90 IQ you claim you cannot go toe to toe. You lose every time and can’t keep up with the data the learning disabled person provides for you.

                What does that make you? Really ignorant.

  7. Going further on my previous comment, what we have here is a legal loophole which is being exploited to allow the censoring of public free speech. Laws written previously never factored in such a megalith as Facebook or Twitter controlling national dialogue. Our last Presidential election was decided on social media. We know that. Russia apparently knew that. Our govt certainly knew that and they called in the head of these two megaliths into Congress along with others to blame them for not being able to identify the Russian operators on their sites, apparently in an effort to downplay the fact that the intelligence community that they oversee failed to do so in the first place. They then coerced these social media giants into censoring free speech on their own platforms. Remember up until the hearings Facebook and Twitter were fairly open about allowing all sorts of dialogue on the platform and it was only AFTER Congress called them in, mostly democrats but republicans as well, to try to hold them accountable for their own intelligence communities failures. The fact is Congress knew and Russia knew and knows that these are the new platforms of public discourse and like it or not they are how we communicate and how elections are decided. They are shaping how our government is formed. Other laws have adapted and updated to address changes not predicted by the framers of the Constitution so as to preserve the integrity of the amendments particularly to the Bill of Rights, so it seems these platforms can now be reclassified as the state actors they have become. Its a loophole. The govt is exploiting it by controlling the social media giants through new regulaton and oversight then hiding behind the private entity loophole You’re a lawyer. Its a loophole. Close it.

    1. We’ve been though this already.

      Trump broke Facebook’s Community Standards against Incitement and Violence.

      I was banned for a week just for using the expression “shoot them” referring to bicycle thieves.

      Trump incited a riot that raided the Capitol buildnig, destroyed government property and got people killed.

      That’s why he was banned from Facebook.

      Simple as that.

      Have someone with sense read this to you:

      . Violence and Incitement

      Policy Rationale

      We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook. While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety. In determining whether a threat is credible, we may also consider additional information like a person’s public visibility and the risks to their physical safety.

      In some cases, we see aspirational or conditional threats directed at terrorists and other violent actors (e.g. Terrorists deserve to be killed), and we deem those non credible absent specific evidence to the contrary.

      Do not post:

      Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) targeting people or places where threat is defined as any of the following:

      Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence. This includes content where a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament or method to represent violence
      Calls for high-severity violence including content where no target is specified but a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament or method that represents violence
      Statements advocating for high-severity violence
      Aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence
      Content that asks or offers services for hire to kill others (for example, hitmen, mercenaries, assassins) or advocates for the use of a hitman, mercenary or assassin against a target.

      Admissions, statements of intent or advocacy, calls to action, or aspirational or conditional statements to kidnap a target.

      Content that depicts abductions or kidnappings if it is clear the content is not being shared by a victim or their family as a plea for help, or shared for informational, condemnation or awareness raising purposes

      Threats of high-severity violence using digitally produced or altered imagery to target living people with armaments, methods of violence or dismemberment.

      Threats that lead to serious injury (mid-severity violence) towards private individuals, unnamed specified persons, minor public figures, high risk persons, or high risk groups where threat is defined as any of the following:

      Statements of intent to commit violence; or
      Statements advocating violence; or
      Calls for mid-severity violence including content where no target is specified but a symbol represents the target; or
      Aspirational or conditional statements to commit violence; or
      Content about other target(s) apart from private individuals, minor public figures, high risk persons, or high risk groups and any credible:
      Statements of intent to commit violence; or
      Calls for action of violence; or
      Statements advocating for violence; or
      Aspirational or conditional statements to commit violence
      Threats that lead to physical harm (or other forms of lower-severity violence) towards private individuals (self-reporting required) or minor public figures where threat is defined as any of the following:

      Private individuals (name and/or face match are required) or minor public figures that includes:
      Statements of intent, calls for action, advocating, aspirational or conditional statements to commit low-severity violence
      Any content created for the express purpose of outing an individual as a member of a designated and recognisable at-risk group

      Instructions on how to make or use weapons if there’s evidence of a goal to seriously injure or kill people, through:

      Language explicitly stating that goal, or
      Photos or videos that show or simulate the end result (serious injury or death) as part of the instruction
      Unless the aforementioned content is shared as part of recreational self defense, for military training purposes, commercial video games, or news coverage (posted by Page or with news logo)
      Providing instructions on how to make or use explosives, unless there is clear context that the content is for a non-violent purpose (for example part of commercial video games, clear scientific/educational purpose, fireworks, or specifically for fishing)

      Any content containing statements of intent, calls for action, conditional or aspirational statements, or advocating for violence due to voting, voter registration or the administration or outcome of an election

      Statements of intent or advocacy, calls to action, or aspirational or conditional statements to bring weapons to locations, including but not limited to places of worship, educational facilities polling places, or locations used to count votes or administer an election ( or encouraging others to do the same).

      For the following Community Standards, we require additional information and/or context to enforce:
      Do not post:

      Content that puts LGBTQI+ people at risk by revealing their sexual identity against their will or without permission
      Content that puts unveiled women at risk by revealing their images without veil against their will or without permission
      Violent threats against law enforcement officers
      Violent threats against people accused of a crime. We remove this content when we have reason to believe that the content is intended to cause physical harm
      Misinformation and unverifiable rumors that contribute to the risk of imminent violence or physical harm
      Additionally, we have specific rules and guidance regarding content related to COVID-19 and vaccines. To see these specific rules please click here.
      Coded statements where the method of violence or harm is not clearly articulated, but the threat is veiled or implicit. Facebook looks at the below signals to determine whether there is a threat of harm in the content.
      Shared in a retaliatory context (e.g., expressions of desire to do something harmful to others in response to a grievance or threat that may be real, perceived or anticipated)
      References to historical or fictional incidents of violence (e.g., content that threatens others by referring to known historical incidents of violence that have been executed throughout history or in fictional settings)
      Acts as a threatening call to action (e.g., content inviting or encouraging others to carry out harmful acts or to join in carrying out the harmful acts)
      Indicates knowledge of or shares sensitive information that could expose others to harm (e.g., content that either makes note of or implies awareness of personal information that might make a threat of physical violence more credible. This includes implying knowledge of a person’s residential address, their place of employment or education, daily commute routes, or current location)
      Local context or subject matter expertise confirms that the statement in question could be threatening, and/or could lead to imminent violence or physical harm.
      The subject of the threat reports the content to us.
      Threats against election officials
      Implicit statements of intent or advocacy, calls to action, or aspirational or conditional statements to bring armaments to locations, including but not limited to places of worship, educational facilities, polling places, or locations used to count votes or administer an election (or encouraging others to do the same). We may also restrict calls to bring armaments to certain locations where there are temporarily signals of a heightened risk of violence or offline harm. This may be the case, for example, when there’s a known protest and counter-protest planned or violence broke out at a protest in the same city within the last 7 days

        1. “What did that fellow say, in short?”

          He posted Facebook’s policy, oh ye with the short attention span.

          1. Thanks that’s what I was gonna say.

            This dingaling can’t read anything longer than the directions on his Lithium prescription.

        2. He posted a wish list of acts dreamed, imagined, and manufactured that Facebook hopes will mitigate legal liability for denying civil rights and redress.

          1. No they are just Community Guidelines that Facebook posts to prevent people from using the platform for vulgar, hurtful or chaotic speech.

            Trump broke those rules and he got banned.

        3. Anonymous, and after scrolling through all that boring stuff everyone clicks on “I AGREE”.

          Then get mad because they got banned for violating the rules…they agreed to. That’s the problem. People being stupid by complaining about something they agreed or acknowledged could happen if they broke the rules.

      1. Ben, you must be referring to the time Trump called for peaceful protests. Your very long post disputed by two words. Peacefully protest. No call for banning of Maxine Waters for telling people to get up in their face. What does she think could happen if someone gets up in your face. Please inform us of anytime you have condemned Maxine’s call to violence. We are waiting in great anticipation for any past unbiased proclamation

        1. MAxine Waters is lame, too, but Maxine Waters is not the president of the United States.

          And five people did not die because of Maxine Waters.

          1. Ben , we saw people getting up in other peoples faces across the nation in the summer of love. People were beaten, robbed and indeed killed. Maxine waters is a longtime high government official and she never once uttered the words peaceful protest. Maxine Waters has a great deal of influence on the black community. You write as if she was a menial figure and that her words might not be taken as a call to arms by some in the black community. I give you two phrases. 1. “Get up in there faces”. 2. “Go and peacefully protest”. Which of these statements would be more likely to incite violence. You don’t have to tell me. Just go into your quite place, be honest with yourself and decide which of the two statements you would consider a call to insurrection.

            1. Did Hitler every directly incite the German people to round up the Jews and the gypsies and other undesirables and exterminate them in ovens?


              Did the German people read between the lines and react to the tone?


              Maxine Waters could be full of crap too.

              There’s a great deal of stupidity on both sides.

              But Trump said a lot more than “peaceful protest.”

              Stop the Steal, etc.

              He was up there for weeks like Mussolini, telling huge lies about a stolen election.

              Those lies incited a riot.

              Trump doesn’t take responsibility for it, but he knows what he did.

              This below was his response was his response to the decision.

              He is completely full of crap in every way, the shame is how many Americans believe and follow him.

              No American should be that gullible and dumb.

              He’s a fine one to talk about “embarassment to our Country.”

              “𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤, 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐋𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭! 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬.”

              1. Ben, Hitler did not beat around the bush. In his speeches and his book Mein Kampf he directly attacked the Jews. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/excerpts-from-mein-kampf#1. The Generals and leaders of his party knew exactly what he wanted. With your logic when Martin Luther King Jr. said “peacefully protest” he was really calling for violence. It’s called putting words in another persons mouth and it is the most dishonest form of argument. There were bigots of that day who said Martin Luther King Jr. was actually calling for violence and there are bigots of today who are saying the same thing about Trump. It’s not hard to spot them.

          2. Ben, Maxine Waters encouraged the summer riots. Here’s a link to attribute her “Get up in their faces” to actions that follow. https://www.policemag.com/585160/more-than-2-000-officers-injured-in-summers-protests-and-riots. How you can take the words “peacefully protest” and somehow say that the man who said these words caused people’s death and then never mention inciting words like “their going to put you all back in chains” is truly beyond understanding.

            1. Trump said a lot more than “peacefully protest.”

              And “get up in their faces” isn’t necessarily inciting violence.

              According to Wiktionary: (slang, African-American Vernacular) To dramatically confront or initiate an argument with someone.
              After he called me that, I couldn’t help myself from getting up in his face.

              So she incited people to argue, protest, but not riot and break shit and get people killed.


      2. President Trump invited an assembly of people, thanked them for their support, and wished them to return peacefully to their homes.

        There was no insurrection. There was one elective abortion (“murder”) of an unarmed woman who posed no immediate, imminent, or even probable threat, surrounded by security personnel. Most of the hundred people who were and were not “Trump supporters” did not riot, did not act violently, did not “protest”, were invited into the Capitol by Capitol police, and stayed inside the lines drawn for them. Allegations of diversity were merely projections of people with a compelling interest to stoke diversity, inequity, and exclusion.

        The incitement to violence was made and sustained by Democrat politicians, the press, social platforms, and search engines through direct (e.g. misinformation, disinformation including impeachments) and implicit (e.g. steering) support over more than 16 trimesters. The disorder of a minority progressed from Congressional leaders and DC mayor who refused federal aid (think Katrina controversy) to perform crowd control.

        1. Did she? Did she incite violence on Facebook?

          Waters said something about “get in the face of” but that just means to argue with people.

          Argument is okay.

          She’s kind of uppity and maybe has a big mouth, but did she incite violence?

          On Facebook?

    2. Shouldn’t be too hard to do. One way is to declare the social media giants “agents in fact” of the democrat government administration in their censoring activity. Note that the Supremes seem to understand this concept very well:

      American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corporation, 456 U.S. 556 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case where a non-profit association, for the first time, was held liable for treble damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act due to antitrust violations.

      In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held an association liable when its agents appeared to be acting under the authority of the association. Such action is called apparent authority. The court determined that a non-profit association is liable when it fails to prevent antitrust violation through the misuse of the association’s reputation by its agents (including lower level staff and unpaid volunteers).

      I would love to lead the discovery effort into the relationship between Facebook/Twitter/Google and the DNC and the Deep State (aka “The Swamp”).

  8. Personally I think you lawyers are to blame. Particularly constitutional law professors like yourself who are the vocal proponents of free speech yet when it is under assault what do you do? You blog about it. But you sit on your professional hands. It seems to me that a good Constitutional law scholar such as yourself should be able to make a case that social media giants who possess an effective monopoly on the national dialogue have moved beyond the “private commercial business” defense they’ve been hiding under for years in censoring the publics right to free speech and correctly identify them as what they are. Public meeting places. Virtual albeit, but where the public comes together to meet and talk. There are no membership requirements. Filling out the online membership form is akin to turning a door knob. All who can type can enter. And our official government and law enforcement agencies on both a local, state and federal level use these platforms now routinely to address the public about official matters. Law enforcement and health and safety officials use these platforms to report important information to the public often during local and national disasters and emergencies. These few giants, Facebook and Twitter in particular have moved beyond being some entertainment platform and as such should be held to the Constitutional standards of free speech. In Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, the scotus ruled that, “private property does not `lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes”. But that was about YouTube. The court went along with the precedent decisions that a private entity doesn’t lose its private status by inviting the public to use its home or whatever. But Facebook has gone much further as has Twitter than any of them and has become a platform used by official State agencies and federal govt agencies as well as local agencies on an ongoing and routine basis to address the public on official matters of state as well as state and federal emergency agencies who use it to convey official information during emergencies routinely, and therefore it seems to me a good Constitutional attorney ought to be able to make the case that Facebook and Twitter, have become “state actors” and not just some entertainment site.

    You’re an attorney. Blogging is fine but you’re an attorney. If men like you don’t use the tools at your disposal to try to slay these two huge dragons than how can we hope to stop it? I’m not an attorney. I can’t do anything about it other than write and complain. You’re writing and complaining about it too. But you have tools, connections, resources and skills I do not possess. Nor do most people. If you don’t fight the dragon, who will?

    1. I think you’ll find Mr. Turley does considerably more than sit on his hands, not least of which is publishing in other venues, and testifying on this issue on a regular basis. What is it you want him to do?

      1. What do I want Turley to do? Stop selling his credentials and whatever credibility he has left to support a malignant narcissist unfit for public office who is tearing apart our country because of his massive ego.

    1. Could the censorship or content modification by Twitter, Facebook et al be considered akin to Nazi book burning?

      Just sayin’.

        1. Anon, at the time of the Third Reich the only means of communication was through the printed word. When they burned books and destroyed newspapers they ended any form by which those of different opinions could speak to the citizenry. The actions of today by Twitter and Facebook lie in direct parallel to those of the Third Reich. Today no fire is necessary. Just flip a switch and any resistance to what you believe is the ultimate truth is instantly turned to ashes. Ashes, and no books necessary.

          1. The Third Reich also took over radio stations, one by one, primarily because they wouldn’t stop pointing out Hitler’s lies and speaking against anti-Semitic hatred. Think about Germany after WWI. Jews and Gentiles lived together in peace, traded with each other, there were Jewish storekeepers, authors, lawyers, physicians, dentists, university professors, talented musicians, designers and other professionals and artists that were respected. In a few short years, due to lies and propaganda, Gentile Germans either began hating their Jewish neighbors, were indifferent to the abuse doled out by the Nazis or were afraid to band together to defend them. Now, Trump is demanding that he be allowed to lie and raise money via Facebook after using their platform to incite the Capitol Insurrection and violating the terms of service to which he agreed.

            Twitter and Facebook are private companies. Enforcing the contractual terms Trump agreed to is their right, which is what they did. They have every right not to allow their service to abused by a chronic, habitual liar who uses the platform they created to incite insurrection, leaving people dead and Congress threatened. Others can start their own companies that welcome liars like Trump if they want to.

  9. Watch the Lefties defend censorship because it relates to Trump.

    Watch them scream (rightfully) when people propose censoring Lefties.

    Lefties posting here are unprincipled opportunists.

    1. Trump incited a riot within a mob of impressionable mulletheads who stormed the capitol, attacked cops and got people killed.

      Should Facebook encourage someone like that?

      Congress didn’t have the balls to censure him, so Facebook and Twitter are censoring him.

      Trump can still squawk in other places.

      The support for Trump helps me understand how the German people could have supported Hitler and Nazism out of arrogance, ignorance, fear, stupidity, hatred, racism and self interest.

      Hopefully Trump will have the same effect on the Republican party that Hitler had on the Nazi party.

      1. “Trump can still squawk in other places.”


        He’s creating his own platform. Let him ‘squawk’ there.

      2. Ben Marcus, the only person who was killed at the Capitol was a Trump supporter. Do you know the difference in the words people and person.
        Concerning your comparison to Nazis. The Nazis took men, women, and yes children into the woods and shot them in the back of the head. Your frivolous use of the word Nazi shows your lack of a knowledge of history and disrespect for the victims. You somehow think that your calloused attempt to prove your point will be accepted in the changing of our minds. Despicable.

        1. We’ll never know for certain, but Brian Sicknick would probably still be alive, today…

          1. Anon, exactly. You will never know for certain. One thing we do know is that he was never hit in the head with a fire extinguisher as was reported by your high priests and priestesses at your temple of CNN and MSNBC. You must get dressed, prayer time is quickly approaching.

            1. If you really think Sicknick’s death was coincidence and not related to the riot, I have a Chemtrails-spraying Deep State UFO I’d like to sell you.

      3. “The support for Trump helps me understand how the German people could have supported Hitler and Nazism out of arrogance, ignorance, fear, stupidity, hatred, racism and self interest.”

        Ignorance exudes from every pore of this simpleton, Ben Marcus. Trump did not impair freedom of speech, freedom of worship. Trump demonstrated significant transparency. Trump did not use the FBI, CIA, or IRS to spy or punish his opponents. Trump did not purge the military. Trump did not push for more military involvement outside of America’s borders. Trump did not control the press.

        All those things mean that Trump believed in the American dream, liberty, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

        Compare that to Ben’s beliefs which most definitely conform to a lot of what we saw from the Nazis. You don’t recognize it because you are ignorant.

        Now, look at what the left has done that mimics Nazi behavior. The left wishes to impair freedom of speech and the left even impaired freedom to worship as one pleases. The left is devious, not transparent. The left under Obama/ Biden used the FBI, CIA, and the IRS to spy on opponents and punish them. The left recently attempted to purge the military. The left under Obama was militarily aggressive and later critical of Trump trying to limit our military involvement. The left does everything it can to make sure they and the MSM maintain a lockstep approach to producing the same false news.

        Anyone that thinks Ben Marcus knows anything about world affairs should, by this point, realize he is nothing more than an arrogant ignorant fool. I’m sure some on the left here on this blog will be more than willing to join Ben because they too belong to the ignorant class of American society.

        1. Trump is a bloated, lying narcissist who craves power and glory. He has failed at virtually everything other than “The Apprentice”, which was based on the lie that he was a successful self-made billionaire. In truth, he was supported well into his forties by his father. When his father’s Alzheimer’s caused his finances to be turned over to a guardian, the support stopped and the bankruptcies started–six of them so far. Trump is deeply underwater now, and several of his properties are for sale. I find it laughable that you Trumpsters believe there is any patriotism in a proven draft-dodger who mocked a true American war hero–John McCain because McCain couldn’t be bullied into voting to overturn Obamacare. Trump has called those who volunteer for military service “suckers”, threatened to disown Don, Jr. when he expressed an interest in going into the service, but you believe he is a patriot who supports the military.

          I find your comment about Trump’s alleged devotion to “The American Dream, liberty, the Constitution and the rule of law” to be hilarious. You must be a devotee of the Hate Network to buy this garbage. Trump doesn’t even understand our Constitution or the “rule of law”. He thought the Attorney General was his personal attorney that he could use to carry out any agenda he wanted, and that he had the right to direct the DOJ’s prosecutions. He fired Sessions for not going after people, because he not only doesn’t understand checks and balances, he doesn’t care. The ego is everything, you see. Your writing suggests you might be Karen S.

          1. “Trump is a bloated, lying narcissist who craves power and glory. He has failed at virtually everything other than “The Apprentice””

            Natacha, try not looking in a mirror when describing Trump. I stopped reading at this point. Do yo have any proof of the second half of the above quote. If so, provide. Lots of words but you never make any sense.


    2. Right they are. And they will never be stopped by “reasoning” or “ideas.”

      They do not accept reason or ideas. They presume that they own such notions with all the arrogance of a landlord demanding his rent

      They are only stopped with organized force. Time has come to crush them physically.

      But not just them, their masters, the billionaires who paid to launch them into motion.

      The only good news on that front, is that Bill Gates’ wife will be keeping him distracted for the next year or so as she siphons off some of his billions. LOLZ

  10. Music
    These boots are made for walking.
    And that’s just what they do!
    One of these days these boots are going to walk all over you!

    Are ya ready Boots?

    “Boots” was a Coyote.

  11. How about Facebooks own rules and conditions. Trump has and will violate those rules again, as his MO will attest too.

    1. So you’re fine with Chinese style internet censorship? And that leads where? Oh how frightening you enablers are.

      1. Im ok with it, if I’m in the CCP, lol.

        that’s how it always was and always will be

        lose the free speech insanity folks. what matters is power, and power comes from control

        gain control and gain power and forget about all the shibboleths

        Im not fighing for vain ideas, Im fighting for people like me, related to me, people of flesh and blood, not mere phantom ideas

    2. FishWings, here’s some free speech that you allow on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yhov3EAizM. Every time that you say Trump should be censored you will be reminded of your lack of concern for speech that really calls for violence. In charity, maybe ensconced in your little bubble you just don’t know.

      1. I didn’t say I wanted trump censored, Facebook did. he broke their rules and conditions.

        1. Fish wings, you have defended facebooks censoring of a President of the U.S. In so doing you have approved of their act of censorship. And yet somehow you say that you have not called for his blocking by Facebook. You were in the crowd cheering but you never actually said the words “hang him”.

          1. Trump broke Facebook’s rules against Incitement of Violence by lying abotu a stolen election that incited a bunch of idiots to storm the Capitol, disrupt a legal election and get people killed.

            Trump should be in prison, but at least he’s off social media and we don’t have to listen to his vulgar, ignorant BS.

            1. True, Ben, but another use for FB is to raise $$$$. Pundits have pointed out that the donations to Trump since he was voted out of office do not have to be used for campaign purposes. There was nothing in the disclosure to donors that limited the use of the funds. Trump can use the $ to pay his personal bills, or give to other candidates or for whatever he wants, since there is nothing in the disclosure that says the money will be used for campaign purposes.

              It’s bad enough that the disciples believe Trump’s lies, but now, he’s taking their money. How many of them read the disclosures, anyway?

  12. Just once, JT should moderate a post like this and remove comments that defend Big Tech censorship. The Marxists here would go into vapor lock. 🙂

    1. It’s not Big Tech censorship. It’s Good Taste censorship.

      There are endless channels for Trump to spout off all he wants.

      Twitter and Facebook are run by progressive west coasters and they know Trump is a schmuck.

      The guy incited a riot that got people killed.

      Facebook does not want to encourage someone like that.

      Marxists? Which one? Zeppo? Harpo?

      You wouldn’t know Karl Marx if he jumped into bed with you.

      1. “It’s Good Taste censorship.”

        Keep up the defense of Big Tech’s censorship. I happen to find most rap music and the Iranian call for death to America and Israel way outside of good taste, but people continue to defend that as either First Amendment rights of the disgusting, misogynistic and racist lyrics and the right of FB et al to allow the calls for violence from America’s enemies because they are “private companies.” Oh God, but we are so done in this country now populated by so many useful idiots. The Chinese are loving this!

      2. It’s not Big Tech censorship. It’s Good Taste censorship.

        Your propaganda doesn’t sell on this blog, Ben Marxist.

        1. I like Zeppo Marx, the best.

          Funny things is, my great great grandfather Mathias Schafer was best friends with Karl Marx at Kaiser Wilhelm Gymnasium in 1835.

          They exchanged letters for years and Mathias had STACKS from one of the 10 most influential people in American history – like him or not.

          But at some point Mathias didn’t dig what Marx had to say and he burned all the letters.

          Too bad as they go for 20,000 pounds each at Chisties these days.

          I could have bought you some common sense.

    2. Remove comments? So you are for censorship on anything you personally don’t want to read or see right?

      1. You completely miss his point. The left, as always, is happy with censoring those with whom they do not agree, but censor them and they go nuclear.

        1. That’s right Suze. And people like that are not tolerable in society. They do not have any concept of procedural fairness.

          Accordingly, they are perpetual adversaries of law and order and they themselves, should be locked up,. and decisively silenced.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, though I have no problem with what Anonymous at 12:12 said, it was someone else. You are not smart enough to figure out who is who. You are just a dummy pis-sing into the wind and peeing on yourself.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid you are right on one and wrong on another. That is 50% which probably exceeds most of your grades in school.

                  1. Anywhere you find this character that S. Meyer dreamed up, you can bet you’ll find Stupid Meyer.

      2. Nope. I have no problem reading and responding to the garbage you spew…on this blog. Never have and never will. You Marxists on the other hand need the censorship Big Tech provides so those like me can only read but not respond. It’s high time Turley made an example of you and your ilk and gave you a taste of your own medicine. Let’s play by your rules and watch you howl.

      1. No Ben you loser, trolling website writing for free because nobody will pay you anymore, FACEBOOK SUCKS

        1. Incorrecto. Polishing a screenplay right now set in California in the 1850s – California is about to become a state and all is on the hazard.

          Got my friend’s mom a book publisher and now I’m trying to get her on Ellen.

          And now I’m talking to AC abotu Mr. Hughes and the Kentucky Derby.

            1. Nope I was just talking to AC- the guy who was driving the white Bronco for OJ.

              He went up to San Francisco to see moms and says SF is starting to open up again.

              And I helped a woman get a book published call Crossing Bayou Teche which is about her growning up in Louisiana and marrying a Jewish guy,

              Ellen is from Louisiana so I sent her a copy of the book with a long cover letter because you never know.

              And the screenplay is pretty good.

              I gave it a polish, wrote narration, punched up the dialogue True Grit style and cleaned it.

              Almost done.

              La vida loca, baby.

              1. Marcus

                Love your name dropping.

                You are almost certainly a liar, but I enjoy your fantasies.

                1. Sorry but it’s all true.

                  Now I’m at Kaiser in Woodland Hills taking an elderly woman for her second Covid shot.

                  I’m trying to finish that damned screenplay and hoping I see Keanu Reeves at the place where I hang out at work.

                  I know some people who were in Point Break and he would be perfect for the main character in this story.

            2. Liar might not be the best response to Ben’s posting though you are correct. His life is meaningless so he lives a fanciful one to escape reality. He also lies, is ignorant and all the rest

Leave a Reply