YouTube Fined By Germany For Removing Pandemic Protest Video

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the rising censorship in the United States is that countries like Germany (with histories of antagonism toward free speech) have criticized the trend as dangerous and wrong. While Democratic leaders and media figures have supported censorship, figures like Angela Merkel (long criticized for her attacks on free speech) have criticized moves like Twitter banning Trump. Now, Germany has fined YouTube for something that many on the left in the United States have supported: the removal of a video contesting Covid-19 limits.

A German court ordered YouTube to pay a $118,000 fine for removing the video of a protest against Covid-19 lockdowns filmed in Switzerland last year. YouTube fought to censor the video because it deemed such protests to be Covid-19 “misinformation.”  YouTube, like Twitter and Facebook, enforce massive censorship operations after taking sides on issues of political, scientific, and social debates.

Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform will be able to discuss the origins of Covid-19 after censoring any such discussion. I previously wrote about how Facebook and other companies are running a campaign to convince young people to accept “content modification” as part of their evolution with technology.  This reframing of expectations has been fostered by Democratic leaders who have pushed social media companies for more censorship to protect people from errant or damaging ideas. Last year, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) warned Big Tech CEOs that he and his colleagues were watching to be sure there was no “backsliding or retrenching” from “robust content modification.”

This censorship craze is not just limited to the lab story or to Facebook. Indeed, last year, House Democrats Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney of California wrote a letter to cable carriers like AT&T to ask why they are still allowing people to watch Fox News. The members stressed that “not all TV news sources are the same” and called these companies to account for their role in allowing such “dissemination.” Thus, it is not just specific stories but whole sources of information that need to be banned to protect innocent, gullible citizens.

In all of these exchanges, the underlying portrayal of the public is the same: they are unwitting dupes who must be protected from harmful thoughts or influences. It is safer for them to have these members and these companies determine what they can hear or discuss.

Facebook’s decision to allow people to discuss the theory follows the company’s Oversight Board upholding a ban on any postings of Trump, a move that even figures like Germany Angela Merkel and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) have criticized as a danger to free speech.  Even Trump’s voice has been banned by Facebook. Trump remains too harmful for Facebook users to hear . . . at least until the company decides that they are ready for such exposure.

We have to get action in Congress to deal with social media companies. These companies should not receive government subsidies or support, including immunity, if they are going to censor debates. I am an unabashed Internet originalist. I have long opposed the calls for censorship under the pretense of creating “an honest Internet.”  It is time for Congress to act.

74 thoughts on “YouTube Fined By Germany For Removing Pandemic Protest Video”

  1. All the commentary about virus and vaxx passes through my own logical filters.
    The first salient issue to resolve before any type of commitment is possible;
    AG Goebbels cum garland issued an edict against all persons of a particular race, ancestry, religion, voting record and any other arbitrary social identity, to be domestic terrorists who must be rounded up and eliminated.
    i happen to fit some of those categories; even if i wanted to i cant undo my vote either, i thought it was private.
    HUNDREDS of govt empl have also said as much.
    my citizenship is cancelled, predetermined a terrorist, automatically barred from public transports, passports, fed bldgs.
    The digital yellow star applied.
    The us/chicom govt. now wants me to accept a medical procedure from them, when i am already immune eh! what.
    Until my citizenship and constitutional rights are restored i will have no truck with them.
    My parents grew up in Germany… i know this story; i will be killed by govt agents eventually.

  2. When I was in law school, the law professor would pose hypotheticals in order to illuminate the exceptions to a rule or law. The exception usually defined the boundaries of the rule or law. Professor Turley complains about the fact that Facebook and YouTube discriminate against certain speech:

    “YouTube, like Twitter and Facebook, enforce massive censorship operations after taking sides on issues of political, scientific, and social debates.”

    As usual, Turkey would have you believe that Facebook is removing differences of *opinion.* I would agree that doing so would be wrong. As regards Covid, however, Facebook is removing *disinformation,* that is, false information, not mere opinion.

    But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you don’t agree that any Covid information is disinformation. Can I pose a hypothetical to see if we can agree whether ANY statement is worthy to be removed by Facebook. Let’s say some organization claims that smoking is not harmful to your health. Since some smokers never get lung cancer and some non-smokers do, it stands to reason that smoking cannot be proven to give cancer; rather, there is a correlation, not causation- the smoking industry scientists were correct all along. Is this a matter of opinion or disinformation? Should Facebook permit cigarette marketers to inform teenagers that smoking cannot be proven to cause cancer? Would not Facebook have a moral responsibility to remove such statements given the overwhelming scientific evidence suggesting that smoking is harmful?

    Is there anything (short of child pornography) that Facebook should refuse to publish? Turley has repeatedly told us what Facebook should not remove, but does he have the courage to inform us what, if anything, Facebook should not publish? He often complains about there not being any “bright lines”. Unless I am mistaken though, he has NEVER provided a single concrete example of some speech which should be prohibited by Facebook. As a law professor, where would he draw the line? Turley must have given this academic problem some thought. You would imagine he would tell us what he thinks. But he won’t. Why not?

    1. The alternative covid information that Youtube censors is not really comparable to false information from tobacco companies lying about the health risks of smoking. This is because the lockdowns and covid vaccines are both experimental remedies, so public discussion of the scientific and public health merits or demerits of these remedies should be a matter of public discussion and debate. Instead, they are censored, which should alert us that something is suspect about the motives of those imposing these experiments on us, and using coercive measures such as lockdowns, fines, arrests, public shaming, and censorship to maintain their hegemony.

      A comparison of censored physicians with the whistleblowers who exposed the motives of the tobacco companies is more apt. Scientists and physicians who bring valuable information to light regarding the public health risks of the lockdowns, the benefits of alternatives such as hydroxychloroquine and intervectum, and the very real risks of the experimental vaccines (which has been known to cause fatalities and illnesses), are whistleblowers of a kind. Many have been fired and their careers ruined for daring to speak out in defense of the public’s interests. Their message threatens the stranglehold that Big Pharma, government authorities, and the complicit media and social media giants have over us. In that sense, the whistleblowing physicians such as Dr. Byram Bridle are comparable to Dr. Jeffrey Stephen Wigand, the doctor who exposed tobacco companies.

      My own research has led me to conclude that the lockdowns and restrictions were unnecessary measures inasmuch as there’s insufficient scientific evidence to support the claim of asymptomatic transmission. Dr. Colleen Huber, in her book The Defeat of COVID (2021), provides detailed scientific evidence that the social distancing mandate (the basis of the lockdowns) never had the necessary scientific support to go ahead: “in a Wall Street Journal article, former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb said there was no ‘scientific basis’ for the six-foot guideline and no ‘randomized controlled trials that show the value of this practice [and] in a WHO news brief from June 2020, infectious disease epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove stated that the spread of the virus by asymptomatic carriers “appears to be rare … Huber found no evidence that demonstrated any transmission from an asymptomatic person. The journal Nature published a study of the Wuhan population, involving nearly 10 million people. They found no positive tests among 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.” Furthermore, as the evidence of the real costs of this vast global experiment filer in, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that the lockdowns caused more harm than good to public health (see the Great Barrington Declaration).

      So why were these severe measures imposed on us, if not for public health? The answer is not something many readers who’ve sacrificed so much will want to hear: the “new normal” gives a small handful of people absolute power over the rest of us, and not for benign purposes. These restrictions are based on “the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness,” according to Iain Davies in his book Pseudopandemic (2021). He comes to a rather dark and unsettling conclusion: the objective of the restrictions, he says, was “to accustom the people to a draconian system of government oppression by familiarizing them with the mechanisms of a biosecurity state. The ‘pseudopandemic’ was based upon an influenza-like illness which, regardless of its origin, was not and is not a disease which can legitimately be considered the cause of a ‘pandemic.’ The only way it could ever be described as such was by the removal of any reference to mortality from the World Health Organisation’s definition … Were it not for political theatrics and mainstream media propaganda, which began in China, no one, outside of the medical profession and COVID 19 sufferers, would have remarked on this disease. The illusion of overwhelmed health services was created by massively reducing their capacity and staffing levels while simultaneously reorienting healthcare to treat everyone who presented with a respiratory illness as viral plague carriers … For the core conspirators of the pseudopandemic this is the realization of their long-held dream of global governance … It is an illusion that they are desperate to maintain … Their plan can only succeed if we believe their lies and comply with their orders. If we don’t there is nothing they can do about it.”

      Now, whether Davies is correct or not (I for one believe he is), it’s certainly a topic worthy of public debate as the stakes are too high not to ask uncomfortable questions and seek relevant information from all possible quarters — not just the state-approved orthodox sources. We are not living in a Communist country – at least not yet! Social media platforms have a duty to provide a forum for valuable information and public debate. We are adults, not children, and can use our own reason to determine the truth, based on the facts. As a rational thinker, I need to hear all the evidence and not blindly fall back on the fallacy of authority. The authoritarians view themselves as benevolent parents who must censor information for our own good, but censorship makes them look like deranged dictators desperately clinging to power by gaslighting us with propaganda. Censorship makes it appear as though the vaccine producers have worked in concert with governments and media and social media to create a mass hysteria over a disease that would ordinarily seem commonplace. Then they censor any mention of inexpensive remedies and promote an experimental vaccine that they profit from, and threaten more restrictions on us if we don’t comply. Surely any information we can get that sheds light on what’s really going on — on why all our lives have been disrupted in this way — should be part of the public debate. If such information is censored, that only confirms my suspicions that something is very wrong with the official narrative.

      In the 18th century, the philosopher Kant wrote: “The motto of enlightenment is … Have courage to use your own understanding! Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men … nevertheless gladly remain immature for life … It is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.” Kant’s warning is more relevant now than ever: we need to think for ourselves, and not allow these would-be tyrants to do it for us.

      1. Thomas,

        Thanks for your erudite reply. I confess that I am not as well read on the minutiae of the efficacy of the vaccines as apparently you are. However, I do take issue with your conspiracy laden mindset which is revealed by your comment of “maintain their hegemony.” You say:

        “Their message threatens the stranglehold that Big Pharma, government authorities, and the complicit media and social media giants have over us.”

        This statement sounds like the paranoid nonsense I hear on Newsmax or spouted by Tucker Carlson. I don’t buy it. I don’t believe the health authorities and the media have ulterior motives.You claim:

        “My own research has led me to conclude that the lockdowns and restrictions were unnecessary measures inasmuch as there’s insufficient scientific evidence to support the claim of asymptomatic transmission.”

        I’m going with the scientific *consensus* that thinks otherwise. I also believe in the health risks of smoking as I do man-made climate change. I’m no scientist; I’m trusting that scientists are not as you claim:

        “the “new normal” gives a small handful of people absolute power over the rest of us, and not for benign purposes.”

        I have no reason to be so distrustful of science. Science has achieved all the great advances in human civilization. You and I have profound different opinion of this subject. You say:

        “Social media platforms have a duty to provide a forum for valuable information and public debate.”

        An indispensable way to provide a platform for *valuable* information is to filter out misinformation and disinformation. Here are some examples:

        Covid-19 contains Satan’s microchips;

        Interacting with a vaccinated person will cause a miscarriage;

        Vaccines are a Russian and Chinese ploy to spread Communism;

        Covid-19 is associated with neurodegenerative disease;

        Vaccinated people are “biological time bombs” carrying coronavirus super strains.

        You say: “I need to hear all the evidence and not blindly fall back on the fallacy of authority. The authoritarians view themselves as benevolent parents who must censor information for our own good”

        Fallacy of authority? What would you have layman trust? People who are not authorities in their respective field of expertise? Seriously? I got one do want experts who have dedicated their lives to their profession to teach me and to direct me away from quackery! I don’t flatter myself to suppose that I know more than they do. True, there is a risk that they may be wrong, but it is a risk worth taking given the alternative of listening to a person who is dismissed by the establishment for good reason not to “maintain their hegemony.”

        I pity you Thomas that you are so suspicious of authority. I respect it.

        1. Jeff, I suppose I should thank you for so badly misinterpreting what I wrote because this forces me to clarify some important points by way of reply. First point: I am not anti-science! Far from it. I am merely against science being co-opted and distorted for political purposes, as I shall explain. Bear with me.

          There’s scientific evidence that has come to light over the last year, which falls outside the state-endorsed view. It questions the the lockdowns and experimental vaccines. It casts doubt on the claims being promoted by pro-lockdown governments and their partners in crime, the pharmaceutical corporations. For example, we now know that there’s no scientific consensus on the question of asymptomatic transmission:

          There was an epidemiological study titled “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China” (Dec 20, 2020). Asymptomatic virus carriers were tracked. Contact tracing of 1,174 close contacts with these carriers revealed zero transmission. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO”s emerging diseases unit, later admitted that transmission by people who aren’t showing symptoms is “very rare.” Lockdowns that go far beyond what’s necessary and have ended up causing more deaths than covid-19 itself (e.g., “a recent study by Stats Canada revealed that over four times as many people in the under 65 age groups died from causes related to the lockdowns than died from the COVID virus”).

          These draconian measures should be questioned. There are several other important medical studies that point to the unsettling conclusion that measures have been applied that are far out of proportion to what was needed, actually harming people and violating their rights in the process. The mainstream media either underreported these findings or in some cases censored them. Now the White House appears to have been censoring them indirectly via social media.

          There is no actual scientific consensus on these issues, despite the frantic efforts of the media to claim otherwise. As someone who had to study science in grad school for several years, I greatly respect science and the scientific method, which is precisely why I object to it being co-opted or misappropriated in this way. Pushing ahead with lockdowns and widespread use of masks and experimental vaccines without sufficient scientific justification was reckless and unethical. It’s interesting to note that the World Health Organization officials were initially against the lockdowns and the widespread use of masks and that the FDA to date has still not yet approved the vaccines. They were pushed on us by politicians and health officials whose judgment was compromised by their financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

          “Medical science has been almost fully taken over by commercial interests,” writes Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. He quotes Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

          You misunderstand my skepticism of the misuse of science for political purposes as a rejection of science itself, which it is not. Those who refer to “the science” and our duty to bow to “scientific consensus” without question, don’t seem to understand how science works. Scientific fundamentalism, or “scientism”, is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine its values. It’s an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of science in all areas of human endeavor. Fundamentalism of any kind delimits what can be known. It closes off new knowledge. The scientific method relies on the principle of falsifiability. That means it can never claim absolute truth, but is open-ended and may be proven false through new evidence and theoretical insights.

          Dr. Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology used in certain COVID-19 vaccines said, the vaccines were rushed to market, they’re still experimental and we don’t have all the data, and negative results of it are being underreported and/or dismissed. At one time, thalidomide, lead paint and smoking all got the okay by doctors, due to commercialized institutional pressure. In time, this was corrected, due to a few brave souls who spoke up and were sometimes recognized later for doing so – but were maligned at the time. Self-correction in science has a huge hurdle to overcome when there are immense political and institutional pressures brought to bear against physicians who don’t adhere to orthodox thinking. But these unorthodox thinkers are needed, as the history of science has shown.

          There have been reports of miscarriages in conjunction with the vaccine, so why do some medical authorities claim otherwise?! “Given that events are often underreported, with the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ) study stating that less than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events are reported to the FDA, the true number of post-vaccination miscarriages and stillbirths may actually be in the hundreds or thousands.” (“Covid-19 Vaccine Miscarriage Stillbirth Concerns for Mothers” in Vision Times, 2021).

          In contrast, Ivermectin “has a wonderful safety profile. 3.7 billion doses have been given since 1975 and … no pregnancies lost.” So why isn’t it the drug of choice, given its safety record? Why is the statistically less safe (and far more costly) vaccine preferred? Profit is the obvious answer, but greater control of the population also springs to mind. A “vaccine passport” could be used to create a two-tiered society in which the unvaccinated are discriminated against. This might have political value for paranoid government officials who view citizens as potential “extremists” who need to be monitored and controlled.

          You support the White House’s partisan censorship efforts through social media, which would include censorship of physicians who have spoken up against these extreme measures. Would you also have been a cheerleader for the Kremlin’s censorship of scientists who dared to reject Communist-mandated science of that time and place? The Communist distortion of agricultural science and genetics in the former USSR is called Lysenkoism, a term that is now identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories to advance political or religious objectives.

          The physicist Paul Feyerabend, in a famous essay “Against Method,” says, “science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science … In a democracy, scientific institutions, research programs, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science just as there is a separation between state and religious institutions, and science should be taught as one view among many and not as the one and only road to truth and reality.” But what are now witnessing is the appropriation of science by the state, just as happened in the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

          I hate to stoop to Godwin’s Law (sorry), but would you also have rallied to the defense of the censorship of those who stood up against the Nationalist Socialist doctrine of “blood purity” if you’d lived in that time and place? Medical leaders at the time “medicalized” the state’s agenda by focusing on racial hygiene in support of the collective body of the nation, the ‘Volk.’ Individual rights and lives were considered expendable to rid the Volk of the disease of those with ‘impure’ blood. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 gave full state authority to this now debunked medical theory. It received the support of the German people, who bowed to the authority of medicine and the state, either out of ignorance or fear or prejudice.

          When Fauci claimed that to question him is to question science itself, it was evident to me that he’s a demagogue, not a true scientist. Such a preposterous claim is not unlike corrupt religious figures claiming that to question them is to go against God and is thus heretical.

          The philosopher Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argued that science (and by extension medicine) is socially and politically influenced. If we go by Kuhn, Drs. Byram Bridle, Sherri Tenpenny, et al, who dissent in their views from the standard, are outliers, ridiculed by those within the paradigm who are protecting their careers and reputations. Their anomalous views, if proven right, might in time be adopted by honest scientists but right now it’s not politically expedient to do so.

          Medical careers and reputations are being influenced by very powerful economic and political interests. GPs who have doubts don’t want to be fired, so they’ve learned not to question the drastic and often harmful measures being imposed on their patients. There is insufficient scientific evidence that transmission of the disease occurs asymptomatically. There is no consensus on the origin of the virus or the long-term efficacy of the vaccine, which is experimental. Yet the mainstream media did their part to promote fear of the virus and quell any doubts as to these experimental remedies. They’ve taken government money and are now indistinguishable from political propagandists.

          It’s no coincidence that some ethically minded people cite the Nuremberg Code, which was a 1947 Allied response to the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, as an argument for why we should resist the new biosecurity state. The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles against experimentation on humans without their consent. They cite this because of the widespread experimentation now being conducted on human beings on a global scale in the name of fighting Covid-19: we are, in effect, the guinea pigs for social engineers and pharmaceutical companies, to test our physical, social and psychological reactions to this unprecedented regime of lockdowns and experimental vaccines.

          Do you not ask yourself why? What’s next? It doesn’t make sense that a disease with a 94 to 99% survival rate should warrant this extreme global response by world governments, health organizations, and the media. There are other communicable diseases that kill people in the millions, but they never got this response: the media never bothered with propaganda measures to induce mass hysteria in this way and governments never imposed lockdowns. So why is it happening?

          You refer to my alleged “conspiracy-laden mindset.” At one time, those who thought that lead in paint was harmful, and that smoking causes cancer, were maligned as conspiracy theorists. Medical doctors on the payroll of the corporations that profited from smoking were used to lend authority to the false contention that smoking is healthy.

          You say that you “don’t believe the health authorities and the media have ulterior motives.” Isn’t that a naïve position to take, since it’s well established that both the medical and media industries are politically and economically influenced by pharmaceutical companies?

          I stated that “there’s insufficient scientific evidence to support the claim of asymptomatic transmission.” Your reply was that “I’m going with the scientific *consensus* that thinks otherwise.” But to repeat, there is no scientific consensus on that issue. Science is necessarily open-ended. All the things the government health authorities have pushed ahead were experimental. None of it was firmly established: masks, lockdowns, social distancing, jabs. They were conducting a global experiment from the start, in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

          You write that “I have no reason to be so distrustful of science. Science has achieved all the great advances in human civilization.” Granted that science has done wonderful things for humanity — though I doubt all but the most fanatical of scientific fundamentalists would credit it with “*all* the great advances of human civilization” as you have done. This, again, is scientism/scientific fundamentalism. Science did not give us the art and culture of the world, or the principles upon which a civil society rests (including freedom of speech); these are also critical to the project of civilization. Science has done a lot of good, to be sure (a technological society, modern medicine, electricity, advanced agriculture and transportation and communications, great advances in astronomy and biology, etc), but science also has a dark side, and can be misused in service to great evils, for which reason an ethical assessment of scientific can technological advances should always be applied before they’re allowed to progress.

          In the 19th century, medical authorities advanced something we now call “scientific racism” through “positive eugenics” – which became the basis of the idea of blood purity later on. Today, those who are behind the new biosecurity state are also “steeped in the mythology of eugenics and population control” (Iain Davies, Pseudopandemic, 2021). Bill Gates is the highest-profile member of a group that started pushing the idea of a worldwide lockdown in early 2020 to the 193 United Nations member governments. A group of billionaires, of which he’s a part, met in 2009. The Times of London reported that at that meeting they took “their cue from Gates” and “agreed that overpopulation was a priority.”

          As you can see there are times when blind obedience to medical authority ought to be questioned. Dissident physicians in the 20th century were accused of not supporting the scientific consensus of the day when the state used medicine to advance ethically questionable ideals. Some were silenced or were murdered or went into exile. Some were courageous whistleblowers. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study of 1932-1972 is another example of an ethically questionable abuse of power by science. People at the time deferred to the supposed superiority of those authorizing and conducting the experiment.

          You support “filter[ing] out misinformation and disinformation” and give examples. But the fact is that legitimate scientific research, some of which has been verified through massive epidemiological studies and experimentation, is also being censored on social media when it is seen as contrary to the push for lockdowns, masks, and vaccines.

          Science, working with the state, is not purely objective or neutral. We don’t tend to see the paradigm we’re in the middle of. As anthropologist Clifford Geertz noted, for a religion or worldview or ideology to be successful it must be invisible to its practitioners: it must clothe its “conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” The political use of scientific authority is part and parcel of these quasi-religious political movements. I believe that in time the truth of what’s really happened will emerge, but humanity will have to pay a very steep price for deferring to politically influenced authority figures too easily.

          Certain actors (Fauci included) appear to have started the chain of events of 2020 several years ago by funding gain-of-function research in order to bring about the conditions necessary for what the World Economic Forum has termed “the great reset.” Some state leaders, such as Canada’s Trudeau even endorse this reset as necessary and desirable. He also admires China’s dictatorship. I predict the reset they have in mind will involve a social credit system like China’s and even more authoritarian rule. The lockdowns have already concentrated power in the hands of a few state actors and “cancel culture” and censorship are already a way of life in the West now (they never used to be until just a few years ago).

          The alarm bell for me was seeing dissenting views censored on social media. Why not allow dissenting points of view? Are we children who cannot decide for ourselves what’s true? Why was Big Tech so frantic to bury any reference to hydroxychloroquine as a remedy, for example? Why did the media insist on gaslighting us all the time? If you look on CNN, they’re inflating this thing beyond any reasonable measure. It’s very suspicious. Fearful people hand over their power.

          Finally, you write, “I pity you Thomas that you are so suspicious of authority. I respect it.” You are a good cheerleader for authoritarians, Jeff. You will do well for yourself in a world ruled by such people, but just recall that such regimes don’t honor such loyalty over time: look at what happened when the Red Guard took over and scapegoated the previous generation of local Communist leaders as ‘counter-revolutionaries.’ The Party faithful can be purged too.

          1. Thomas,

            On the one hand, I thank you for expending so much time on your reply, but I am afraid that you have wasted it on me because I am not qualified to judge the merits of the epidemiological and medical studies you have referenced. Throughout your dissertation (if you didn’t largely clone it from elsewhere), you evidence a palpable paranoia, to wit, “These *draconian* measures should be questioned” as well as, “Profit is the obvious answer, but greater *control* of the population also springs to mind.”

            You may resent my ascribing to you such a motivation, but you yourself accuse government officials of the same, “This might have political value for *paranoid* government officials who view citizens as potential ‘extremists’ who need to be monitored and controlled.” I do not suffer from paranoia nor do I project onto others.

            You claim, “But what are now witnessing is the appropriation of science by the state, just as happened in the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.” That assertion with your analogy to Nazi Germany’s blood and soil is demagogic and, frankly, sickening. You lost a lot of your credibility by violating Godwin’s Law.

            You say:

            “When Fauci claimed that to question him is to question science itself, it was evident to me that he’s a demagogue, not a true scientist. Such a preposterous claim is not unlike corrupt religious figures claiming that to question them is to go against God and is thus heretical.”

            This proposition I would acknowledge, but given your penchant for exaggeration, I would like to see the exact question and answer so I may judge for myself your characterization of Fauci’s reaction.

            You write:

            “You refer to my alleged “conspiracy-laden mindset.” At one time, those who thought that lead in paint was harmful, and that smoking causes cancer, were maligned as conspiracy theorists. Medical doctors on the payroll of the corporations that profited from smoking were used to lend authority to the false contention that smoking is healthy.”

            It’s been a long time, but those scientists who proposed that lead paint caused mental defects and smoking was harmful were whistleblowers. I don’t recall that they were dismissed by the media as conspiracy theorists despite what the chemical and tobacco industry may have smeared them. It’s all too true that industry scientists did not allow the results demonstrating the harmful effects of their products be made public by virtue of their employment. But the industry paid a very heavy financial price when lawsuits finally exposed their internal documents and knowledge. As a lawyer, I want to believe that industry learned a painful lesson.

            You claim:

            “You believe that in time the truth of what’s really happened will emerge, but humanity will have to pay a very steep price for deferring to politically influenced authority figures too easily.”

            The lockdowns, masks and getting vaccinated is a small price to pay to end a devastating pandemic which has claimed over 600,000 American lives. I’m sure medical professionals will learn from their mistakes, but most Americans would take the view- better safe than sorry!

            You warn:

            “The lockdowns have already concentrated power in the hands of a few state actors and “cancel culture” and censorship are already a way of life in the West now (they never used to be until just a few years ago.”

            Unlike you, I applaud so-called “cancel culture.” Conservatives used to approve it too. Don’t you remember the “Moral Majority”? Conservatives mocked liberals for wanting “safe zones.” I agree there should be none. People should face consequences for their immoral, uncivil and socially unacceptable behavior.

            Finally, you state:

            “The alarm bell for me was seeing dissenting views censored on social media. Why not allow dissenting points of view? Are we children who cannot decide for ourselves what’s true? Why was Big Tech so frantic to bury any reference to hydroxychloroquine as a remedy, for example? Why did the media insist on gaslighting us all the time? If you look on CNN, they’re inflating this thing beyond any reasonable measure. It’s very suspicious. Fearful people hand over their power.”

            Why have the FDA to regulate advertising and pharmaceutical labeling? Are we children who cannot decide for ourselves what’s true on the label and in advertising?

            You are I see things very differently. I am not suspicious of my government. I rely upon it to protect my health, safety and livelihood. Sure, it can overstep, but I believe in the rule of law, an impartial judiciary, sworn civil servants and dedicated government scientists, whistleblower protections, and the Fourth Estate to keep everyone honest. Have no fear.


    2. Jeff, putting the words ” Facebook” and ” moral responsibility ” in the same sentence is laughable. Child porn is out. As is anything that would call for violence. It is about WHO DECIDES what should be censored. I think it is factual to state the until very recently Facebook censored anything that even allowed for the possibility that the virus’ origin was the Wuhan lab. Which to me was entirely plausible. And the fact that Danzig was Facebook’s Covid factchecker is concerning to say the least. Talk about the wolf guarding the hen house. Now all of a sudden it is ok. And for the purposes replying to your supposition no, on principle Facebook should not censor anything except for what was previously stated. I just don’t understand the penchant of some to try to save others from themselves. People have the right to educate themselves and make their own decisions. They also have the right to be stupid. Although there have been Surgeon General warnings on cigarettes since the 60’s, some still choose to smoke. That was mandated by the government. And Psaki’s recent comments on censoring “misinformation” involving Covid is terrifying. She is basically calling on a private company ( Facebook) to act as a censoring proxy for the Administration. This latest development may cross the Rubicon separating free speech ( 1st Amendment ) and the right to Big Tech to enforce their own rules.

      1. Paul says:

        “Child porn is out. As is anything that would call for violence.”

        Just today 2 Trumpists were arrested for allegedly trying to blow up a Sacramento Democratic Party office. When Trump says the election was stolen, is it far fetched to presume that lie will lead to violence? While *Government* should NOT censor such a reckless lie, a responsible private publisher should. Even Fox News has eschewed broadcasting the Big Lie after being sued for defamation (although Newsmax, OAN and Infowars continue to push it). And Fox News is now being attacked by those fringe networks for throwing Trump under the bus. Is now Fox guilty of censoring Trump?

        You ask: “It is about WHO DECIDES what should be censored?”

        The private broadcaster of course. Does Fox News broadcast news about the New York DA’s investigation into the Trump Organization? Barely. That’s it’s prerogative. I don’t fault Fox for ignoring that story; it’s a business decision. Fox covers story the MSM gives short shrift, e.g., Hunter Biden. All networks make decisions what narratives to follow. Do you object to their making these discriminations? I don’t because they are free to do so though they can be rightly criticized, of course, for their emphasis on certain narratives but not others. We might as well get used to the fact that we are going to have news platforms which will not agree on the important narratives. There is no point complaining about it. I don’t complain what Infowars publishes; I simply ignore it.

        You say, “I just don’t understand the penchant of some to try to save others from themselves. People have the right to educate themselves and make their own decisions. They also have the right to be stupid.”

        You don’t listen to your pastor? You didn’t listen to your parents, your doctor or your significant others who tried to give you good advice? What people would wish to remain stupid by choice even if they have that right?Are you referring to Trumpists? People also have a right to expect truthful information so they can avoid being made stupid! And companies have a civic obligation-as good corporate citizens- not to spread demonstrably false information. Now you and I may disagree on what is demonstrably false, but surely you don’t disagree with the general proposition that it would irresponsible for a company to deliberately pass along false information which is harmful, e.g., Trump’s Covid bleaching suggestion.

        As long as Big Brother does not *force* Little Brother to take disinformation off its platform, there is no problem. It is merely presenting its opinion to Little Brother- it’s not a legal obligation with penalties for non-compliance. Trump never told the MSM what information it should or should not broadcast. Rather, he told his Trumpists that the MSM was “fake news”- ignore the MSM altogether- because they are the “enemy of the people.” He was telling his followers that EVERYTHING the MSM published was disinformation! You don’t think Trump’s statement was not threatening to the MSM? You don’t think the MSM would not have changed its tune were their viewership drastically to decline on account of Trump’s demand to ignore it? Trump’s “fake news”declaration threatened media censorship far more than Biden’s suggestion to take down misinformation on Facebook.

        Please don’t evade my question- except for child porn and speech inciting violence, is there no disinformation which you will acknowledge should be restricted from Facebook? I specifically asked about claims that cigarettes are not harmful (or not as harmful) as establishment science claims? You would object to Facebook deciding to ban such claims because a few scientists can be found who reject the overwhelming scientific consensus? Are we going to hear Trumpists soon reject claims that second-hand smoke is a health hazard? Will they complain that their liberty is being infringed by not being able to light up in public places? That these public spaces are not “safe zones”? If one is triggered by smoke, they- not the libertarian smoker- should leave the premises? After all, what right does the government have to make me protect the health of another by either insisting I get vaccinated before I can enter a public space of force me to exit it if I want to light up?

        1. Jeff, a lot of questions. If some idiots think that Trump was calling for violence because of ” stolen election ” that is on them. Now we are going to need the ” interpretation police” in addition to the ” speech police”? What Trump said dwarfs what Maxine Waters has called for on two separate occasions. The ” you form a crowd and get in their faces and tell them they are not wanted here” is way more confrontational than calling an election stolen. And what she said before the Chauvin verdict was worse. Basically calling for violence if the verdict did not ” go the right way”. I would say the first statement was reckless and although I think the second called for violence in my opinion, it should not be censored and was not.
          Yes, private entities have the right to make decisions on content. My greatest concern was realized this week when Psaki said that Facebook should censor ” misinformation” about the vaccine. Is this not the government using a private entity as their censoring proxy? Is this not Big Brother at least influencing Little Brother? Biden just said that Facebook was killing people. When I hear people call out Fauci about initially saying masks were not needed then basically saying that in certain circumstances even the fully vaccinated should wear masks and how that is not a flip flop, the answer always is , ” science is evolving”.
          So because this vaccine is not FDA approved, who can really say what vaccine ” misinformation” is?
          Yes I did and do listen to my pastor, doctor, parents and significant others. But not to the exclusion of all others. I get to decide what is pertinent. And at times I still chose to be stupid. That is my right. And In my opinion lack of certain information cannot MAKE you stupid. The propensity to avoid information is STUPID. I purposely watch cnn, msnbc and read the NYT and WaPo. Not because I agree with their obvious left leaning slant, but because they put forth information that I would not get on Fox, Newsmax etc. Then I make my own decision.
          I thought I did answer your question. But in case I didn’t I will try again. Now you used the word SHOULD not CAN. Your supposition about cigarettes companies using
          ” misinformation” to market to teenagers. Now I know that marketing works, but if the law was upheld, with the exception of one year ( 18) all the misinformation should not matter because those under 18 should not have access to cigarettes.
          So again I say that no, unless it is someone is posting something against the law ( child porn) or using the platform to incite someone to break the law ( calling specifically for violence) OPINIONS should always be allowed. I hope that I have stated my position succinctly.
          Good to hear from you again.

          1. Jeff, one more thing. Newsmax covered the story about blowing up the Democratic headquarters in Sacramento. If there was a plot to blow up the Republican headquarters in Tallahassee by supposed leftists msnbc would have mentioned it at all?

          2. Paul,

            Thanks for your reply. You say:

            “What Trump said dwarfs what Maxine Waters has called for on two separate occasions. The ” you form a crowd and get in their faces and tell them they are not wanted here” is way more confrontational than calling an election stolen.”

            This is a matter of opinion of which we will never agree. I don’t applaud approve of what Waters said. Will you agree that you don’t agree with what Trump said?

            1. yes, I do agree that Trump saying that the election was stolen hurt the country. But I think it is a major stretch to say that that statement alone called for violence.

              1. Paul,

                How do you explain the attack on the Capitol then? You wouldn’t storm the Capitol if it were PROVEN by smoking gun evidence that the election was stolen? I would. The problem is that there was no evidence. It reminds me of the quotation: “a gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar standing on top of it.” In this case, it was Trump lying to his gullible flock.

          3. Paul,
            I hit by mistake! Regarding your point about Psaki, I have written two posts addressing my views on that matter. Please read them at your leisure and get back to me. I agree that Biden misspoke about Facebook “killing people.” We agree that Biden- from all appearances- is mentally challenged. Have you agreed with me likewise that Trump is intellectually challenged or are you still digging in your heels insisting that he is an honest person? You say:

            “And at times I still chose to be stupid. That is my right. And In my opinion lack of certain information cannot MAKE you stupid.”

            Here, too, we have to agree to disagree. I never choose to be stupid. That does not mean I am not! I just don’t want to be stupid unlike you. It is odd that anyone would demand the right to be stupid! I would think that you would demand not to be made so! I do believe that the lack of truthful information can render someone ill-informed or “stupid” if you prefer. When people swear an oath, they promise to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Nothing but the truth means no disinformation! That is all the MSM is trying to do- to squelch scientifically disproven information. If you want conspiracy theories, go to Newsmax OAN, Infowars or the Dark Web. Who is stopping you?

            It’s amazing that Conservatives defend a cake maker who refuses to decorate a cake in a manner which contravenes his religious convictions, but demands that a private company hosts and spreads harmful medical disinformation which violates its good corporate citizen policy, explicit terms of service as well as the moral convictions of the company office holders.

            Mere opinions, yes. False statements of fact posing as opinion, no. The law of defamation makes such a distinction between non-actionable opinion and actionable statements of fact. And the law does not excuse an intentional fake statement because the speaker claims it is merely his opinion- a judge will make that decision as a matter of law.

            1. I have not been as attentive to this blog as usual. I will try to find your posts and reply . Could you please point out the blog titles to save me some time?
              Being intellectually challenged and being a liar are two totally different things. I never said that Trump was honest. What I have said previously, which I am sure that you do not want to re- litigate, is that he was exposed to way more scrutiny ( WaPo lie counter) than any other President. And I know you don’t want to re-litigate the veracity vs. amount of lies thing again. As you have stated we can agree to disagree . Would you agree that is both Biden and Trump were given a cognitive test tomorrow that Trump would pass and Biden would not? Here is a hint, Trump already passed one. I am not asking whether you agree with Trump I already know the answer to that. Unfortunately Biden is both a liar and in mental decline. I am not going to tabulate them because that would take too long. Unfortunately we have come to expect that politicians will lie. We don’t expect them to be unable to navigate a Teleprompter.
              When I said chose to be stupid I was referring to looking back at a decision I made retrospectively. I did not mean that I weighed all the facts at the time of my decision and chose to do the opposite of what the facts told me to do .Retrospectively that bad decision usually involved me being selfish. I don’t DEMAND the right to be stupid. The Constitution ALLOWS for it.
              Back to Truthful information, and I know I am beating a dead horse here but, the fact that Facebook banned anything that would even insinuate that the virus came from this lab is the absolute best example that something that was arbitrarily( not really) designated as disinformation, is now not held in the same regard. On a side note in my humble opinion that is EXACTLY what happened. But because Trump said it was a possibility ( and for in my opinion other nefarious reasons) that HAD to be labeled disinformation. So we are back to who decides what is disinformation? My opinion is the same as hate speech for disinformation. There is no such thing. People are going to lie. They have since man first appeared. ( that’s not sexist is it?) People are going to say hurtful things, always have. I don’t need to be protected by ANY entity governmental or private from either thing, do you?
              I agree that there is a BIG difference between opinion and false statements of fact posing as opinion. But remember, ” science is constantly evolving”.
              And I know this is a major oversimplification but doesn’t virtually every defamation case swing on opinion vs. false statement of facts?
              Be well

              1. Paul,

                On the point of Trump being an inveterate liar, you forget that I do NOT agree to disagree. The fact that you cannot or will not agree with that statement is my *definition* of a Trumpist. I fully understand that Trumpists will NEVER concede that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar because that would entail they too are liars for defending that he is not. Trumpism IS lying. That is its essence! This is why I don’t befriend Trumpists because no one would knowingly make friends with a liar. Trumpists will live in denial and go to their grave denying that Trump is a conman. I can admit that Biden has lied, but not nearly to the extent of Trump. That is no more debatable than claiming that Bernie Madoff was a conman.

                Regarding Facebook banning Wuhan conspiracy theories, I will take your word (despite the fact that you are a Trumpist) that Facebook removed ALL such claims. I would agree that this was improper since I don’t see the harm to people’s health by allowing such rampant speculation. I would not remove any nonsense, e.g., UFO’s are alien spacecrafts, unless it is hazardous to health. Lies about the efficacy of vaccines are dangerous and should be taken down. Not unlike the FDA banning certain harmful treatments and prohibiting false or deceptive labels and advertising. Unlike you, I don’t fear government. I expect my tax dollars to protect me: police, fire fighters, and health officials. I depend upon the government to protect me from medical quacks, snake oil salesmen and anti-vaxxers injecting misinformation and disinformation into the public bloodstream.

                Defamation cases are made against factual statements not opinion, but you can’t shield a defamatory statement by wrapping it in an opinion. If you state that “Turley is a hypocrite,” that is an opinion. If you state, “In my opinion Turley stole $100k from his university on July 7, 2019” that would be an actionable defamation. Of course, science evolves, but some scientific facts are immutable. And society cannot progress unless we can dismiss and ignore idiocy like bleaching will cleanse the system of Covid-19 (or Trump’s suggestion to that effect).

                1. Ok so we are back to YOUR definitions which you have the right to. And your logic is flawed. What I may see as self defense you might see as murder. That does not make me a murderer. I never said Trump didn’t lie! I guess we will never be friends because I fit your definition of a Trumpist. And if you are going to qualify every statement I make with ” I will take your word ( despite the fact that you are a Trumpist)” you can go to hell. I never insulted you. I always showed respect. Calling me a liar by proxy crosses the line. I AM NOT A LIAR!!

                  1. Paul, I cannot respect anyone who cannot admit that Trump is a pathological liar. It is not enough to dismiss Trump’s conduct by simply saying that “all politicians lie.” Do you or do you not agree that Trump is in a class by himself? That is the acid test. I hope I have misjudged you because you are one of a handful of Conservatives on this blog with whom I can who hold a rational discussion. It’s imperative that you understand that I cannot agree to disagree about the nature of the threat posed by Trumpism. It is a political malignancy which will spread virulently unless it is confronted head-on in unmistakable terms.

    3. The one problem with removing disinformation you do not mention is simple: who gets to decide what is truthful? That is a slippery slope. Especially in light of Jen Psaki’s statement that the White House was flagging posts for Twitter to censure. Is politics having an impact upon what the White House views as disinformation? Is the White House violating the First Amendment by proxy?

      1. A slippery slope is generally speaking a fallacious argument. Google it. It’s a slippery slope to make the age of consent 16. But the fact that 16 in terms of maturity is hardly any different than 16 1/2 a good argument not to draw the line SOMEWHERE even if it is a slippery slope?

        Who gets to decide what Infowars thinks is truthful? Alex Jones. Who gets to decide what is truthful for Tucker Carlson’s show? Tucker Carlson. You got a problem with their decisions of truthfulness? You got a problem with the FDA keeping unproven medical remedies from being marketed to unsuspecting consumers who might risk their health by ingesting them? Answer me.

        I’m not as concerned about Biden’s health authorities trying to weed out health disinformation and misinformation on Facebook’s news feed as I am Trump stating the MSM are “enemies of the people” and their reporting should be ignored ENTIRELY as “fake news” in favor of Newsmax, One America Network and Infowars, etc. Trump’s statement is no less troublesome to a free press.

    1. Opposition of doing, is exactly what they do. The sad part is that the complicit media condone this by their silence.

  3. I’m going to add this thought. I’m just home from work so will be a rambling thought but its one I can’t shake.

    Most who know me personally know I am not political. I do not see either party as having any answers, just facilitating the problem. But this sentiment I just can’t seem to shake this week.

    There are lots of people commenting in here, many on the left and many on the right it seems. And I skim some of their comments occasionally, some seem pretty good, some pretty bad, some just outright wacky, but all valid in that its their opinion and their right to express it openly. And we all would agree with that. Or so I thought.

    But reading comments by some of those identifying as liberals or progressives, I’m literally shocked to hear their twisted contorted arguments arguing in favor of mass media censorship. As if Facebook is not the public town hall its become, and literally hiding behind the sad, tired and spineless argument that they are “private companies so they can censor who they want”. Its insanity. Orwellian insanity in my own lifetime. Guess I’m “woke” now too. Woke to the fact that there is a strong movement from the left to turn this country into the Orwellian dystopia we have all warned about for the past 75 years. I don’t know how people are falling for it but these people are literally handing away our freedom. Dismantling the freedom of speech right before our eyes. Its like professor Turley often says, its a crime hiding in plain sight.

    As for Covid, I’ll just say this. I believe I have a right to a second opinion on any matter to do with my health. I wanted to hear that opinion. I was listening to Sen Scott Jensen, a Physician and State Senator who was on the local news in his state reading a memo from the Health Dept coaching him on how to label deaths from various causes as Covid 19 deaths. I wanted to hear about it. I shared the video and Facebook removed it.

    I watched a video from an ICU Nurse who was also a Sgt in Iraq. A nurse in Iraq who rose to the rank of Sgt. She was there at the “Covid Central” hospital, Queens NY I think if I remember correctly, and she had actual video of her at work, where she treated dying Covid 19 patients on Ventilators. She showed their charts. There were several patients in the room, only one had Covid positive results though. She showed how all the others had tested negative repeatedly, said it right on their computer charts, you could see it on the video. But they were listed as “presumptive positives” and stuck on ventilators. She even challenges a duty nurse why they read negative but were listed as positive. The duty nurse was surprised and didn’t have an answer. The ICU Nurse in the video explained how she thought the ventilators were “blowing out their lungs”. Literally the ventilators were killing the patients she felt. She explained how nervous people would come in with the cough, they’d get treated as if they were infected with people wearing bunny suits, etc and they’d panic. Say they had trouble breathing then the hospital staff would get them to sign a paper permitting them to be ventilated “should the hospital feel its necessary”. Then they’d give them a megadose of sedatives, enough to put them into a chemical coma, and stick a ventilator on them and that was it. Within a week or so of blasting oxygen into the lungs the lining of the lungs gives out and the patient dies. She even told how the only patient she had that lived was a drug addict, who was so used to opiates that their cocktail of drugs didn’t keep him out, and he woke up on the ventilator, pulled it out and literally made his escape. He is alive and healthy now. This according to this ICU nurse, who says this on camera.

    Hard to find this video now. I posted it on Facebook but they removed it and gave me a violation for spreading disinformation. I thought it was important. I mean I suppose she could be lying. I suppose a decorated combat nurse who rose to the rank of Sgt in the Military then came home to work in the toughest emergency rooms and ICU’s in the country ….could just be lying. Not sure why. And of course Dr Scott Jensen said the exact same things a month earlier about the ventilators, and I suppose he could be lying. I don’t know. But I’d like to at least “hear” his opinion”. And I have a right to. Or so I used to. Now I don’t apparently, as the liberals apparently don’t believe anymore in the free speech they touted for so long. Because they (the liberals, etc) believe they are lying they believe they have a right to censor what they say, and what I get to hear. And who knows, maybe they are lying. But one things for sure. The undercover video she shows us, was not. That we see for ourselves. Or could see, until Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, all removed it. So I can’t even see actual video evidence for their “disinformation” as it might harm me.
    Seriously how is this defensible? Who are these new nanny-state liberals and what bottle weaning world did they grow up in to so casually hand away the freedoms so many including members of my family fought for?

    Free speech is not a quaint tradition that needs updating. Its not a privilege you or anyone gets to dole out when you feel it convenient. Its a right. One that used to be the cornerstone of liberalism, or so they claimed. Both sides are guilty on this (Flag burning amendments don’t come from the left, so don’t bother….) but right now its the liberals out of control. The censoring has reached some serious levels, and its going to snowball now as us olders move on and the youngers who are growing up comfortable with no rights, move in. So I’ll leave the liberal leaning and progressive commenters with this rhetorical thought and a poignant quote.

    When Covid 19 first came on the news, it was a cruise ship. It had been quarantined, and the passengers stuck on it. And I will never forget the interview (that you cannot find anywhere now) one news station did with a British couple who had been told they tested positive for it (weird they had a test back then but we “needed a test”) .

    The couple were seated in deck chairs and being interviewed and they explained how it all looked “staged”. They said half the “emergency response team” were wearing protective gear, the other half were not. They said the half that were, half of them had it on backwards or only half of it. Some had gloves, others had facemasks, etc. They were said they felt nothing, they said that they got lots of conflicting information and I’ll never forget how the husband ended his interview. He looked at the interviewer sternly, and said these memorable words. He said, “I smell a rat”.

    I know Carl Sagan identified as liberal, along with his life partner Ann Druyan and I know the liberals love to quote him as i see it all the time in these things. And I loved Carl. I read many of his books, from Broca’s Brain to the Demon Haunted World to name a few of my favorites. I didn’t agree with him on God, but I do agree with him on so many things. And he was spot on with this timeless quote and I admonish anyone supporting this not so brave new world of censorship to ponder these words.

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.

    Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

    ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

    1. Chris: “As if Facebook is not the public town hall its become, and literally hiding behind the sad, tired and spineless argument that they are “private companies so they can censor who they want.”

      You raise an interesting point. Have a look at the Pruneyard Shopping Center cases.

      Shopping malls are private property but in some circumstances their ability to restrict speech and other public activities can be limited. The big tech companies may have opened themselves to just this interpretation of the law.

    2. I saw that that nurses video also. It was chilling. but got little press attention. Make Orwell fiction again.

    3. “Dismantling the freedom of speech right before our eyes.”

      Please cite the passage in the Constitution where it states that your right to free speech includes your “right” to compel others to provide you with a platform.

      The right to property does not include the “right” to force others to provide you with property. Ditto for all of the other legitimate rights, include free speech.

      I don’t like what Facebook, et al. are doing. But it is *not* censorship. They are exercising their right to refuse service — just as it is any business’ right to do so.

      1. Jared Taylor, commenting on the lawsuit his group started against Twitter in 2018, after being censored by Twitter, said that “just as an electric or telephone company can’t refuse to do business with someone because of his or her views, social media companies shouldn’t have the right to censor anyone with unfashionable or controversial opinions” and that “something as big as Twitter has become, essentially, a public utility.” See Taylor v. Twitter, 2018. The case was heard in 2020, and thrown out then. Judge Harold Kahn in the Superior Court of California called Taylor’s complaint “very eloquent” and said it was “hard to imagine a clearer public interest lawsuit,” and that “it goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution.” Jack Dorsey even had to go under oath initially.

        The case was to go forward but Twitter used its considerable legal resources to file a “writ of mandate and immediate review” at the Court of Appeal, which ended up in the case being dismissed, without a chance for reply or appeal. It’s hard to imagine that Twitter, Google, Facebook et al were not active behind the scenes in influencing this decision, politically. At lot was at stake for the Democrat party after all, since social media proved to be very influential in the 2020 election.

        Judge Kahn took the opportunity to write a decision referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which social media companies have used as justification for censorship well beyond the scope of the law’s original intent. In the decision, according to Taylor, “Judge Kahn was all but saying that he was right and the California Court of Appeal was wrong. He hinted that the US Supreme Court might eventually agree with him and pave the way for litigation like ours …By the time Judge Kahn reversed himself, Twitter was banning conservatives for increasingly frivolous reasons. I decided that if, in the current hysterical climate over “racism,” the identity of the plaintiff can be as important as the legal arguments, it would be better to withdraw so that plaintiffs who had a better chance of winning could carry on the fight. And so, I decided not to appeal” (see “What finally happened in our suit against twitter” by Jared Taylor, July 15, 2020).

        In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to side with Big Tech on the question of the 1st Amendment in the case of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. It was not a case against Big Tech, but the judgement favored their position with regard to their right to censor (use “editorial discretion”). See the story “Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech” by Mike Masnick. But as journalist Mark Meckler notes, “The Silicon Valley triumvirate has maintained a stranglehold on information in our country, and everyday Americans are tired of their speech being censored, deleted, and ‘given context’ by leftist elites who claim to know better” (see “Trump’s lawsuit against Big Tech has legal merit: Case could represent the beginning of the end for our Big Tech overlords”, Washington Times, July 12, 2021).

        Trump now has a lawsuit that could provide the decision that Taylor was seeking. While these are privately owned companies, the implication of their actions has huge public ramifications, including influencing elections. And that is where they have undone themselves, because as Meckler notes: “Trump’s legal team lays out a fascinating theory that’s been gaining ground in academic circles for several years. In simple terms, they argue that private companies like Google become subject to First Amendment restrictions as soon as they begin to act as state agents … when Twitter acts under the authority, influence, or pressure of the government, the theory goes that it becomes a state actor and forfeits the right to ignore the First Amendment protections that Americans expect in the public square. So until the court renders its decision, the question of whether the 1st Amendment to the Constitution applies to Big Tech censorship is up in the air.

        I, for one, hope Trump wins, because I was censored on social media unjustly, as were many others who made political arguments favoring the GOP prior to the 2020 election. The use of private companies to do the dirty work of imposing a state autocracy on us is something we’re seeing more and more. Wall Street and big corporations seem to support our country becoming more like Communist China, where social media censorship is de rigeur. Apparently, Facebook has over 30,000 workers dedicated to policing “hate speech.” Twitter must be comparable. They have a small army of censors to keep the world from hearing views and facts that don’t accord with the dominant ideology and political narrative of the ruling elite. And no matter what the courts say, any reasonable person can see why that’s wrong.

    4. Just a brief reminder to trolls, particularly whiny liberal trolls who support censorship on public platforms.

      If someone wants to talk to me, about anything, then they’d better have an actual name, first and last, and it better be linked to something verifiable like a social media page, website, …telephone book….etc.

      I don’t waste what little precious time I have engaging with knuckleheads and chuckleheads hiding behind screen names and fake identities. For all I know they’re talking to me from an office bldg along the Moskva. One things for sure. They’ll say things they’d never say if their actual name were attached to their words. And I won’t waste my time on them.

      If they can’t put their names on their own words, then as far as I am concerned they aren’t worth the time it would take to read them.

      So don’t bother.

  4. $118,000 fine is petty cash for Zuck – not much of a financial penalty, but the message behind the fine is more meaningful.

    1. An international arrest warrant would get his attention. I suspect some countries may be thinking of that already.

    1. Big Tech is now the outsourced propaganda and censorship to the Big Tech companies. Will Sugarmountain be the first Secretary of the Department of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, following Joseph Goebbel’s catchy name for his ministry?

    2. Been having discussion elsewhere and the Liberals don’t see the recent Saki’s statement as the government directing censorship by tech companies. Just the government looking out for us.

  5. I study math and science,
    I hate my classes.
    I got a crazy indoctrinator he wear CRT patches.
    Things are gettin sad and their only getting bleaker,
    The future looks so bad,
    Says my woke teacher.
    Says my woke teacher.

    With such great role models what’s the point of trying?

  6. Big tech needs to be sued, and lose, and often. Better unreliable Germany than none – maybe more in the US once they start losing in Germany.

    1. Big Tech is private property.

      Only the owners have the right to “…claim and exercise dominion…” over the properties concerned.

      Americans are free to establish free enterprises, enter the free markets of the private sector and compete with or against like private properties.

      The first resolution is for the complainants to freely create similar entities.

      True competition produces the highest quality goods and services for the lowest prices.

      In this egregious case, Congress must “take” the relevant private properties for the “public good,” under the principle of eminent domain, and operate them, per the U.S. Constitution, as state-regulated monopolies, having justly compensated the owners.

      1. Big Tech can no longer hide behind the flimsy excuse that they’re private companies when they so obviously affect the public domain in adverse ways due to their political bias and partisan censorship practices. A comment on Facebook or Twitter is in the public domain, even though it is a private company providing the technology, and that’s why those who act on behalf of the public have a right to defend the freedom of speech of citizens in a free country. When tech companies become more powerful than the government itself, they can abuse that power — and they have clearly done so. It’s time to break them up and stop the censorship of conservatives. I was kicked of both Facebook and Twitter for comments that were perfectly reasonable but not in agreement with the Leftist narrative. The comparison with the tragedy of the commons is apt. Funny that Leftists will virtue-signal their defense of the environmental commons but not the public discourse commons. Diversity of opinion doesn’t meet with the approval of the ideologues. At the very least, I hope there is some shareholder activism and their stocks go down, in response to the controversy — and that they get displaced by social media companies that respect freedom of speech more.

        1. Congress and you have ZERO legal and constitutional authority to confiscate private property.

          Competition is the solution in a free country.

          Congress may “take” Big Tech for the “public good” after compensating the owners of Big Tech.

          Are you an American or a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrats, RINO) wannabe despot, tyrant and dictator, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln II?

          America is a nation of laws.

          1. George, spare me the pro-American act. If you’re for Big Tech censorship of conservatives and against free speech, are you sure you’re not the Communist? Communists love to censor. They’re getting away with it in the USA by hiding behind the façade of private ownership. A very clever tactic. It’s also cute when they claim that true patriots are “traitors” for opposing their tyranny.

            Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act was passed with the intention to crack down on pornography, but is now being used by Big Tech to censor “offensive” content. Meaning conservative opinions. “The companies themselves claim to be unbiased in their editing” says Dan Gainor of Media Research Center, but “these are liberal-run companies with committed liberals on the payroll, and hence their “community standards” lean left.”

            I can attest to the truth of that. They allow Leftist views to stay up, but censor conservative views, routinely. The problem is that are influencing the entire culture adversely, including swaying millions of voters through deliberately biased algorithms.

            Btw, “liberal” is widely used to mean Leftist/socialist, but it should be “illiberal” because censors are against classical liberal values such as free speech.

          2. Bexar Sez: Autorv.Pritzker CIRCUITJan 17, 2014
            740 F.3d 176 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
            Not overruled or negatively treated on appeal
            United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
            Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 104 S.Ct. 1058, 79 L.Ed.2d 299 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that “the Constitution does not grant members of the public any particular right to be heard by public bodies making policy decisions.” Autor v. Blank, 892 F.Supp.2d 264, 273–74 (D.D.C.2012) (citing Knight, 465 U.S. at 283, 104 S.Ct. 1058).

  7. The Big Tech censors need to be sued, and lose. And lose big, and lose often – like other abusive power centers. They act like private companies, they deserve NO immunity from promotion of what they don’t censor.

  8. Yes, Trump’s way of censorship is mush more acceptable….don’t fine them just “execute” them! I’m sorry professor but your support for the First Amendment is almost always content based.

    Whether we like what Facebook does, the platform is private and it has the right to decided rules regarding use and membership. Isn’t that what the right is always screaming about?

    1. Justice Holmes, so now the guy who beats two people to death with a hammer gets to live. Or the guy who rapes and strangles an eight year old girl gets to live. Or a man in Germany who was responsible for the death of millions gets to live. Or are you just sometimes against the death penalty. Facebook is a private business but even private businesses have been held to account for public damage and discrimination. Facebook is guilty of both public damage and discrimination.

    2. If censorship of certain political views is a result of collusion with the Administration in power, then private or not, they are acting as agents of the state, and as such responsible for creating a serious impact to 1st Amendment rights. Their immunity from liability granted by congress should be revoked. As it is it acts in the same way as sovereign immunity.

  9. Addressing both supporters and detractors of (xxx — add name of any public figure here): If said figure’s speech and activities are censored, who benefits? In the case of supporters, it is easy to understand that they would not wish their favorite to be “cancelled” in the public arena. But perhaps less obviously, detractors as well should oppose any censorship of the public figure in question. Why? Because censorship removes access to the words and actions of the person, and without such information, how could anyone form a negative or positive opinion in the first place? Blocking access to such information can also serve as a screen behind which a politician or other public figure is free to conceal his/her undesirable intentions and actions. If you don’t trust what someone is up to, would you rather avert your eyes or keep careful watch?

  10. The American Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom Through Self-Reliance.

    “Freedom” not “free stuff.”

    All men were created equal – after creation you’re on your own.

    The rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities provided by the Founders were said by the Founders to be natural and God-given.

    That which is given by God in universal.

    Germany and every country on Earth are in the universe, the universe referenced by the American Founders.

    Ergo, all citizens of every country enjoy the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities provided by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Various and sundry communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) and some national despots and dictators have not yet received the memo.

    Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the “manifest tenor” thereof sans even a scintilla of censorship – that’s the ticket.

  11. Totalitarian regimes rely upon propaganda and censorship.

    Social Media is behaving like Pravda, in service to the Democrat Party. Censorship, intolerance of dissent, targeting political dissenters, trying to impoverish political dissenters by getting them fired, making them lose their business, making sure they can’t work again, harassing people in restaurants until they pledge their loyalty to BLM or whatever slogan…that’s all coming from the Left. It’s also aspects of totalitarianism.

    If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays eggs like a duck…it’s a duck.

    The Left behaves like a totalitarian movement, hence it is a totalitarian movement.

    Judge it by its fruits. Like all the looting and burning that’s gone on for months in Democrat cities across the country while Democrat politicians told police to stand down.

    1. Social media are private businesses, and when you sign up for their service, you agree to “terms and conditions”, which don’t include using the platform for spreading lies and disinformation. Social media is NOT in service to the Democratic Party. Trump can start his own social media company if he wants to. Democrats do not support and did not incite rioting or looting. That’s just a lie.

      “Judge by its fruits”: apply this to Trump before you speak of the “evil Left”. What did Trump leave us: an economy in shambles, a pandemic out of control, no plan for vaccine distribution, no organization of resources to store, transport or administer vaccines, an insurrection with one dead and hundreds of people charged with crimes because they invaded the Capitol after being exhorted to “fight like hell” by Trump and to engage in “trial by combat” by Giuliani. How about attacking scientists for daring to contradict his lies, pushing for unsafe and unproven drugs, lying about the seriousness of the pandemic, and indoctrinating people to disbelieve the CDC and Dr. Fauci? How about the alt-right media continuing to foster the Big Lie and continuing attacks on the CDC and Dr. Fauci? People are worried, uncertain and don’t know what to do. So, COVID is not conquered, we are not at herd immunity, people are listening to quacks and junk science, and refusing vaccination. COVID is raging again in some states, and even little children are on ventilators and are dying. You have military leaders who compare your hero to Hitler and who feared he would set off a nuclear bomb or try to retain control by force. Yes, let’s judge Trump by his “fruits”.

  12. Turley– “We have to get action in Congress to deal with social media companies. These companies should not receive government subsidies or support, including immunity, if they are going to censor debates. I am an unabashed Internet originalist. I have long opposed the calls for censorship under the pretense of creating “an honest Internet.” It is time for Congress to act.”

    I couldn’t agree more with that statement.

    Unfortunately we have a debased Congress that favors censorship it likes and it appears at times to collaborate with Big Tech to censor unwanted views.

    I wonder, too, how many big Tech-Bucks somehow float into congressmen’s bags.

    The only bright spot is that everybody of every political stripe who hasn’t been suborned by Big Tech is beginning to hate it.

  13. Turley ignores the huge bombshell news about military leaders fearing Trump would try to possibly set off a nuclear bomb or try to use the military to stay in power after losing the election. Some military leaders compared him to Hitler. That is huge news, but Turley, instead,once again uses his platform to attack social media for banning Trump after he incited an insurrection. Turley speaks of FB allowing discussion about the origins of COVID. Since this is under investigation, and has been heavily-politicized by Trump to attack President Xi after Trump couldn’t bully him into a trade deal, such “discussion” would be nothing but speculation, aided and abetted by alt-right media, and could likely fuel further anti-Asian hate crimes. Just read some of the posts on this blog if you don’t believe me.

    1. Natacha, it could fuel more anti- Asian hate crimes committed by black people.

    2. Natacha, as usual from you we only get half the story. This is the response by the military to Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the military said Trump was dangerous. Colonel Dave Butler, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs, said only that Pelosi initiated the call with the chairman and “he answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” Note the word only.

      1. Military leaders concluded Trump was dangerous and desperate and so they devised a plan on what to do if he tried to do something foolish long before Nancy Pelosi called Gen. Milley to ask whether the military had to follow some harebrained order to nuke some place. Gen. Milley reassured her, but the plan for action had already been devised long before the call.

    3. Are these the same military leader(s) who shamelessly promoted anti-American race-baiting propaganda, otherwise known as CRT? Gen. Mark Milley’s endorsement of CRT indicated to me that he’s little more than a traitor to his country. As for comparisons with Hitler, they are a dime a dozen on both sides of the aisle. Look up Godwin’s law. I could just as easily compare the Biden-Harris administration to Nazis for their shameless anti-American antics. Though I think the better comparison is with Communists — keeping in mind that both Nazis and Communists were big-government state socialists who believed in censorship and banning firearms. Reminds me of a certain U.S. political party.

      As for false the claim that Trump “incited an insurrection” — first, it was not an insurrection. It was a political protest that went awry after agent provocateurs from the FBI led people into the capitol building and police were ordered to stand down. The most those people there are guilty of is trespassing and affirming their 1st Amendment rights. They should have been let go ROR with notice to appear in court for a misdemeanour. Instead, they became political prisoners for the sake of the Democrats’ own version of a Reichstag fire, due to the 24/7 lies from CNN and the rest of the corrupt mainstream media.

      CNN downplayed violent riots that burned down American cities for over 100 days in 2020, calling them “mostly peaceful” and using every opportunity to twist facts into lies in service to their TDS. The riots of 2020 were led by revolutionaries who really were trying to incite an insurrection. They burned the flag and called for the overthrown of the government! They attacked federal buildings and called for the murder of police and Republicans. All Trump did was give a political speech in which he used the word “fight” figuratively to mean “fight for your rights” and at one point he actually called on demonstrators to be peaceful. This is why the 2nd impeachment attempt also failed, despite frantic efforts by traitors in Congress to scapegoat him.

      Then you mention Trump “attacking” Xi. Actually it was his job to stand up for a fair trade for the USA. Biden meanwhile is little more than a puppet for China. It all started with Bill Clinton giving away our manufacturing jobs in 1995 through NAFTA and this slow hemorrhage of American jobs continued for decades under traitorous presidents from both parties until DJT finally stood up to China, to put America First. This slow death of the USA is why Trump was elected, as a populist, to stand up for the USA, against the globalists and socialists trying to wreck our great country. And that is why he’s been relentlessly attacked in the media, and scapegoated: for doing his job. China has been engaged in asymmetric warfare against the USA for years but our president is not allowed to stand up to a murderous regime now engaged in a genocide against millions of people?

      “Anti-Asian hate crimes” – you mean the ones perpetrated by BLM terrorists? Why is the media hiding the fact that most attacks on Asians are from black activists? Because it doesn’t fit the anti-white supremacy narrative the Left loves so much it’s willing to create hate crime hoaxes. The worst thing for Asian-American people (and black people and Latinos) right now is the Democrats, with their incessant race-baiting, trying to amplify and exploit racial divisions. The only real systemic racism in the USA right now is affirmative action, which openly discriminates against Asians for college admission.

      You are deluded if you believe the Leftist anti-American propaganda. Go live in Venezuela for a year and find out how wonderful socialism is, then comment. Once our Republic is gone and its freedoms erased, if the CCP and DNC and CNN get their way, most Democrats voters will see the errors of their ways and regret ever being so naïve and deluded. They remind me of Boxer in Orwell’s 1984 who worked hard for the revolution but was sent off by the pigs to the slaughterhouse in the end. We are on the edge of the USA becoming run a dictatorial biosecurity state.

      Trump is not the problem. He is just a scapegoat for Leftists to use to create panic and fear – which is then used to rob us of our rights and impose state despotism. And the media is a crucial part of that. I don’t know what Faustian bargain the media owners struck with the CCP, but it should be clear to anyone with a brain that they’re trying to destroy the USA – and are doing a good job of it.

      1. Just a short correction to my last submission. I mentioned Boxer in 1984. I meant to say Animal Farm.

      2. You Trumpsters have problems with your thought processing. Gen. Milley put Matt Gaetz in his place by responding, when asked, about what the service academies teach in regard to race relations and history. He pointed out that first and foremost, West Point and the others are universities, and they all teach a variety of subjects, including presentation of and sensitivity to the views of others. He, himself, has read numerous authors, including Karl Marx and Communist ones, and, as he pointed out, that doesn’t make him a Communist. It’s pointless to try to explain to a Trumpster that CRT is only taught in colleges, and it is not what your alt-right media claim it is. Freedom of thought and expression is celebrated in colleges and universities.

        Trump did incite a riot: “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more; Giuliani: “trial by combat”. This was after going on “Stop the Steal” campaign-style rallies. These Trump disciples invaded the Capitol to try to prevent the lawful ascension of Biden to the presidency, to defeat the will of the American people, and intended to lynch Pence. They were literally hunting for Nancy Pelosi, and spread excrement in the Capitol, defaced John Lewis’s memorial, stole property and defaced other property, all because of Trump cannot accept the truth of his defeat and because they are gullible followers who believe his lies. The photographic and video evidence is overwhelming and no amount of alt-right devotees or media liars can change the facts. These criminal defendants ADMIT that they went there because Trump told them to “fight”, plus he lied about going with them.

        Trump wasn’t “standing up for” anything in dealing with President Xi. He tried the technique people use to manipulate him into getting what they want: flattery, but that didn’t work, so he went on the attack like he always does with anyone he can’t bully. Instead of President Xi doing a “wonderful job” with COVID, the story changed to China launching a biological weapon. If that were true, then why did the Chinese allow their own people to get infected, and why did they report COVID to the WHO?

        Trump was NOT validly elected for any reason. The majority of the American people voted against him because they see him for the serial bankrupter, showy womanizer, braggadocious blowhard and shallow failure of a person that he is. He was able to manipulate the Electoral College with help from Russians, whom he defended publicly, siding against American Intelligence. He got into office by cheating, and will never be viewed as anything other than illegitimate.

        How would you know what CNN does or doesn’t “downplay”? You don’t watch CNN, but, like Karen, you repeat their attacks on real media that you heard on the alt-right media you watch.

    4. Natacha, do you remember when Adam Schiff said he had proof in writing that Trump colluded with the Russians but when forced to testify under oath he failed to produce the proof. Just like Pelosi he says such things to keep sold out constituents like you in line. You fall for it every time because it is a demand of your religion. Colonel Dave Butler, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs, said only that Pelosi initiated the call with the chairman and “he answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” Notice the use of the word “only”

      1. Bexar Sez: America at cross-roads because of trolls like Natasha et als…the true history is suppressed at every opportunity by the likes of Natasha et als…America found Trump and he did it all right, the country was turning around (after years of warmongering political Military Industrial Complex manipulations with trillions of dollars missing=Rumsfeld day before 911 and Eisenhower’s Farewell Address) and will continue to do so into the future once the stolen election is exposed to those who can think in America… it is not to be brought down by the likes of Natasha – or other political trolls, but it could be brought down by Socialism = Communism neither of which ever have shown to work to the benefit of freedom loving Americans…it is time for sweeping changes to political two party system by adding third party, creating end to manipulation of voting platforms, and to encourage more people to learn about what entrainment has taught…complacency to care enough to get involved and to see both sides of an argument with facts, not hyper-bole of those who dominate meetings by design and implement destructive legislative acts by payment from GLOBALIST BANKSTER BLOODLINES

        Whale seems to understand deeply vetted history…out there if you want to find it…
        Series on COLD WAR HOAX Communism Funding of Communism Major George Jordan

        Cold War Hoax I
        War Inc  Great Hoaxes and Conspiracies  Nuclear Hoax
        [Hitler and Communism were funded/created by Illuminati bankers.  China and Russia are one and the same at the top, as you see in the pic here, NASA Flat Earth Moon hoax.]
        Cold War Hoax II
        Nuclear Hoax
        China, USA and Russia are one and the same at the top
        See: Communism  The War Racket  Hiroshima and Nagasaki
        The $5 Trillion Cold War Hoax by Eustace MullinsThe $5 Trillion Cold War Hoax by Eustace Mullins
        MAJOR JORDAN’S DIARIES: Proof the Cold War was a Hoax?
        NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY by 1971 by Gary Allen
        The Secret History Of The Atomic Bomb by Eustace C. Mullins

        1. Bexar Sez:

          Natasha is political activist who has not commented on this forum however, is someone I mentioned because I have debated these same issues with her that I have read on this forum. People who have a very one sided/half truth attitude in that they do not seek both sides of issue in how they vet data. They are in both parties as activists and in the end they really do not want to listen to reason. This exemplifies (in my opinion) some of the youth today who have been indoctrinated by Socialist professors and who in order to pass with high grades sometimes take on socialist causes that are leading them down a rabbit hole into the future. Typically when you ask them
          questions backed by evidence and fact vs. lies of the media or what others told them…they become vicious and offensive. I believe this can be attributed to educational system, unionization of teachers who promote socialism=communism ideologies that could result in long term loss of all rights and freedoms because critical thinking skills are not being taught any more.

    5. Yeah, but it’s “okay” for Biden to ABUSE the military for his own selfish aims, such as populating cities with illegal aliens using military resources (with funding being illegally diverted, undoubtedly) and to indoctrinate racism towards each other, etc. Yes siree!!

    6. Yes, totally believable that Trump was like Hitler and we were on the verge of a nuclear war.

  14. Hard to not want to see FB pay some bucks for theor actions. But not this one. Germany once again shows it is not reliable

  15. Some people want to stop You Tube and Facebook et all from failing to censor false statements. Here critic want to punish You Tube for censoring hate speech or lies.
    Who Flung Foo?

Comments are closed.