New Jersey Woman Triggers Free Speech Case With Profane Anti-Biden Signage

I have previously lamented that we appear to be a nation addicted to rage. There is no greater example than Andrea Dick, a Trump supporter who has adorned her yard in Roselle, Park New Jersey with profane attacks on President Joe Biden. The signage led to a complaint and ultimately a ruling by Judge Gary A. Bundy of Roselle Park Municipal Court that she must remove the offending signs. One of the burdens of being a free speech advocate is that you often must defend the speech of people with whom you disagree, even despise. This is one such case. Dick’s signage is juvenile and highly offensive. However, it is also free speech. Judge Bundy is entirely right in his expression of disgust but, in my view, entirely wrong in his analysis of the First Amendment.

Dick’s offensive signs (which can be seen here) include some comparably mild statements like “Don’t Blame Me/I Voted for Trump.” However, three include displays of the middle finger or simply “F**k Biden.” The signs were purchased by Dick, 54, from commercial dealers. Her lawyer, Michael Campagna, insists that the f-word no longer has a sexual connotation and is simply a common colloquialism. Indeed, anyone driving in New York or New Jersey can hear it used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and even a preposition.

The town’s mayor, Joseph Signorello III, called in a code enforcement officer who cited Patricia Dilascio (Dick’s mother who actually owns the house) for violating a Roselle Park ordinance prohibiting the display or exhibition of obscene material within the borough.

Bundy then gave the owner of property, Ms. Dilascio, a week to remove three of the 10 signs displayed on the property or face fines of $250 a day.

It does not help that Signorello is a Democrat and Roselle Park voted overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020. Yet, Signorello insists “This is not about politics in any way. It’s about decency.” No, it is about free speech.

Free speech is not protected because it is popular or correct. We do not need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. Profanity has long been a part of political discourse in the United States and other countries. Indeed, it has been found in some of the oldest graffiti in places like ancient Rome.

Judge Bundy noted that “There are alternative methods for the defendant to express her pleasure or displeasure with certain political figures in the United States.” Stressing that there is a nearby school, Bundy found that the language “exposes elementary-age children to that word, every day, as they pass by the residence.” He added that “Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right” and “the case is not a case about politics. It is a case, pure and simple, about language. This ordinance does not restrict political speech.”

It is hard to square that ruling basic principles of free speech.  After all, all speech cases are “about language” to some extent. Speech can be not just profane, but political and therefore protected. What Bundy is suggesting is that the state can regulate how you express opposition to politicians or the government. That makes this very much “about politics.”

In 1971, the Supreme Court handed down Cohen v. California in which it overturned the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket declaring “F**k the Draft” in a California courthouse.  Justice John Harlan wrote that “…while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric“.

The Court has repeatedly ruled that the use of this word and similar profanity is protected speech, not conduct subject to government action. Indeed, the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. in favor of the free speech rights of a cheerleaders who swore a blue streak, including dropping the f-bomb, after being rejected for the varsity team. It seems a tad odd that Dick cannot use this word near a school, but one of the students can do a virtual profane cheer with the same word and gestures.

The ruling is reminiscent of the ruling of another judge in Pennsylvania in a case where a Muslim man attacked an atheist who wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume on Halloween. The judge dismissed the charge of criminal harassment against the Muslim and chastised the atheist instead, declaring such a costume falls “way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights.” Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin added “It’s unfortunate that some people use the 1st Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended.”

He clearly is not familiar with some of our forefathers. Thomas Paine could not go into a pub without starting a ruckus, if not a full-fledge riot. And that was often among people who agreed with him.

The ordinance in this case was clearly based on past cases on pornography like Miller v. California rather than political speech cases. It prohibits “appeals to the prurient interest” that “depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined.” It must also  and “lack[] serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The most obvious objection in this case is that this does have “political value” even if most of us find it offensive. Indeed, what is most chilling is the application of what was a pornography test to political speech.

The Miller standard has long been criticized by legal scholars, including myself, as hopelessly and dangerously vague. The Court has been mocked for its ham-handed efforts to define pornography. In earlier cases like Jacobellis v. Ohio, the Court could not even agree on a clear reason why a porn film was not so obscene as to allow prosecution. Instead, in one of the most ridiculous statements ever penned by a member of the Court, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his concurrence that “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

The First Amendment could not long survive if the same absurd approach was taken to political speech. Yet, that is what Judge Bundy effectively did. He did not try to define protected political speech but simply declared that this is not it.

Dick is the price we pay for free speech. Fortunately, free speech allows us to respond to bad speech with better speech. Of course, that does not make this easier for parents who must deal with their children who walk past Dick’s yard. However, they may want to start by teaching them not about the meaning of her speech but the meaning of free speech under our Constitution.

93 thoughts on “New Jersey Woman Triggers Free Speech Case With Profane Anti-Biden Signage”

  1. Trump’s PAC Not Contributing To Bogus State Recounts

    Former president Donald Trump’s political PAC raised roughly $75 million in the first half of this year as he trumpeted the false notion that the 2020 election was stolen from him, but the group has not devoted funds to help finance the ongoing ballot review in Arizona or to push for similar endeavors in other states, according to people familiar with the finances.

    Instead, the Save America leadership PAC — which has few limits on how it can spend its money — has paid for some of the former president’s travel, legal costs and staff, along with other expenses, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of the anonymity to describe the group’s inner workings. The PAC has held onto much of its cash.

    Even as he assiduously tracks attempts by his allies to cast doubt on the integrity of last year’s election, Trump has been uninterested in personally bankrolling the efforts, relying on an array of other entities and supporters to fund the endeavors, they said.

    Edited from:

    Trump’s PAC collected $75 million this year, but so far the group has not put money into pushing for the 2020 ballot reviews he touts

    Today’s Washington Post

    The article goes on to say that Trump’s PAC is saving its funds to sponsor Trump toadies in next year’s midterms.

  2. I voted for Trump but I would not like obscene language displayed in my neighbor’s yard even if I agreed with it. On the other hand, my mom’s neighbors have an excessive amount of pure junk in their yards including several pink flamingos, a fake bear, a dozen or so small American flags and a BLM sign. Some neighborhoods have rules about eyesores which the signage would definitely fall under. However I A) don’t believe the judge and B) agree that free speech outweighs good taste and “decency.”

  3. If the signs were against the orangehaired man Bundy would have ruled differently. It’s become quite obvious that Democrats are allowed any behavior they want. But conservatives will be gone after in communist America.

  4. Couldn’t agree more. During the Trump years I saw much, much worse from my liberal friends around my neighborhood, signs that had basically no regard for anyone that passed by them, and i will never understand that level pf hatred.

    A conversation with a child about these things might be extremely difficult, but those conversations need to happen. i do not begrudge anyone their views, and although i think it dubious at times, I do not begrudge them their angry feelings. Twisting the minds of children is another matter, and the height of selfishness, IMO. Most often I see adults projecting onto their children whatever they think are their own insecurities, frustrations, rage rather than than more universal priciples of inclusivity and love. That upends a society. And that does not come from a sign they may have seen walking down the street, particularly when the children in question can not yet read This is parental selfishness at its worst.

    Someone posted recently that it seems human decency may very well be dead, and I hope very much that that is not the case. This is the job of parents, not institutions, not of the government. What my forebears, who were involved in the civil rights movement, would think of this boggles the mind. Do not believe that the Dems are the party of right for a second, and do not believe that you ‘voting against’ is the proper stance, either. Stand FOR something. Something that wasn’t spoon fed to you by a college professor. Hopefully that thing is human decency.

    1. James, there are no liberals in your community. You live in the outer suburbs of a small, Red State city.

  5. Americans enjoy absolute freedom of speech which is not qualified by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

    All good citizens enjoy the freedom of advocacy.

    The resolution to unacceptable speech and decorum is overwhelming public shaming and ostracization.

    Restrictions on public displays exist in HOA rules and could be incorporated in all CC&Rs.

  6. Slavery – Bad

    Racist Opinions – Bad

    Xenophobia – Bad

    Closing Borders – Bad

    Abortion – Good

    Riots – Good

    Profanity (WAP) – Good

    Public Depictions of Mayhem – Good

    Disorderly Conduct – Good

  7. Some of us are old enough to remember when the left defended the showing of P*ss Christ at an “art show”. Of course P*ss Christ was also force funded by the NEA which took the hard earned money of Catholics and others and gave it to the “artist” to create P*ss Christ. How would Natacha and other fake lefties like EB the Anonymous feel if the F*ck Biden signs were funded by their tax dollars?

    1. Hullbobby, the P*ss Christ work didn’t require funding. It was just a cheap plastic Jesus in a jar of actual p*ss. What’s more, most people outside New York art circles never heard of the project. So this idea that legions of Leftists were ‘defending’ it is ridiculous.

      1. Are you kidding, it was national news and much political debate transpired in Congress about the funding NEA.

        1. George W, it was ‘national news’ in rightwing media which used the project to demonize the NEA.

          1. I usually don’t respond to such stupidity but you’ve really left on choice. I assume in 1989 you were a figment of your fathers’ imagination ——————————-
            In 1989, the 60x40in red and yellow photograph of a crucifix plunged into a vat of Serrano’s urine ignited a congressional debate on US public arts funding;—————————-
            1989 Congress amended the law that created the National Endowment of the Arts to bar the use of NEA funds “to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which in the judgment of [the NEA] may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The NEA required all grant recipients to certify in advance that none of the funds would be used “to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which in the judgment of the NEA … may be considered obscene.” In addition, Congress eliminated $45,000 from the NEA’s budget.—————————
            The changes to the law came about as a reaction to two controversial works that were being shown in various U.S. cities in 1989. The first was the infamous “Piss Christ,” a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine, by Andres Serrano, who had received a $15,000 grant from the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art which in turn received funding from the NEA. The second was a retrospective exhibit of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe titled “The Perfect Moment.” This exhibit was arranged by the Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania using $30,000 of an NEA grant. The exhibit included homoerotic photographs, images of sadomasochism and, according to critics, child pornography. Parts of above came from; PUBLIC FUNDING OF CONTROVERSIAL ART By Bill Kenworthy, Legal Researcher Updated June 2006—————————-There were lawsuits and ultimate Supreme Court resolution on Free Speech.

            1. Yeah, George W, it was a ‘manufactured scandal’ to demonize the NEA. Just a bunch self-righteous Republicans creating a big, stupid distraction.

              1. And more stupidity from Anonymous. —————HR 4825 – Humanities and Museums Amendments of 1990, (House Amendment 851 and 850 passed by voice vote, Amendment 849 passed by recorded vote totaling; Democrats: Yes 240, No 11—Republicans: Yes 142, No 31, Amendments 848 and 847 failed by recorded vote. Just in case you’re uncertain what HR stands for its House Resolution.

                1. George W, as Hullbobby you said,
                  “Some of us are old enough to remember when the left defended the showing of P*ss Christ at an art show”.

                  But now you’re telling us that Democrats voted overwhelmingly to put restrictions on NEA funds. It seems you can’t keep your narratives straight.

                  1. No, you stated that the issue was the Republicans. That I took issue with. You should remove your foot from the mouth, and learn to read with comprehension.

                    1. George W, the “reading comprehension” snipe has been so over-used in this forum that one’s eyes just glide right off it.

      2. You know about it so considering who you are that says a lot.. Are you from NY? Most people haven’t heard of Basquiat,.even though one of his paintings sold for over $100,million.

        Funding in today’s dollars $35,000

        1. Hullbobby, George W, Gray Anonymous, you’re all the same dirty trickster dedicated to making this forum as stupid as possible.

    2. Hullbobby- Notice that for some reason there never was a grant for a pi**Mohammed and nobody goes into Muslim bakeries to demand gay wedding cakes.

  8. Below on this blog today there was discourse about certain profane words, I’ll just say “Profanity is the crutch of the inarticulate MFer”! As Red Skelton famously stated “I don’t think anybody should have to pay money at the box office to hear what they can read on restroom walls.” should apply to the supposed intellectuals here on this blog.

  9. Jonathan: “F— you!” is a common expression these days. It no long carries the sting it used to have. You can’t watch a movie on Netflix or Hulu these days without hearing the phrase used over and over again. Even my wife uses it with me. I try to diffuse the situation by replying: “Promises, promises!”. That always gets a laugh. Now the ruling by Judge Bundy will probably be overturned. So if I lived next door to Patricia Dilascio and her daughter Andrea, I might be tempted to put up my own sign in the front yard that would read: “Patricia and Andrea: Biden wants to come over and take you up on your offer. How about a 3-way?” Satirical ridicule is the best disinfectant for signs like those displayed by Patricia and her daughter.

    1. Dennis,

      I agree with your suggestion. Better yet, get a group to stand on the sidewalk in front of her house with a bullhorn to publicly shame her. More and better speech is Turley’s antidote to vile speech. LONG LIVE CANCEL CULTURE.

  10. These virtue signalers are outraged by signage while just to the northeast, Newark’s crime rate is out of control. While in California, the San Quentin prison is relocating to a sleepy community outside of San Diego…Valley Center, using Covid relief funds. The plan is for the prison to teach prisoners how to grow and cultivate marijuana, just down the street from Valley Center High School.

    1. Olly, show me an article from a credible source saying that San Quentin Prison is moving.

      About a third of its inmates were transferred south in response to Covid. But it’s not like a ‘new’ San Quentin is opening to replace the old one.

  11. I usually go with “the shoe on the other foot test”. Considering that I have seen a lot of obscene language directed at Trump and his family as well as those in his administration that no one ever complained about I determine that the world we are in is definitely FUBAR.

  12. The judge was right, and you are wrong, Turley. The judge made clear that the basis for his ruling is that the f-bomb flags were in such close proximity to a school that children couldn’t help but be exposed to this offensive language enroute to and from school. The basis for the ruling wasn’t that the language was vulgar, it was to protect children. Ask yourself: could a teacher walk around school wearing an “f-Biden” t-shirt? How about on the sidewalk in front of the school? Could someone other than a teacher wear a t-shirt saying this at a grade school soccer game, or get on a megaphone and yell this in front of little kids? How about some vulgar cartoon on a t-shirt, showing something like Biden having sex with a dog? Would that be acceptable? No. We don’t allow that, and freedom of speech doesn’t extend that far. And, the fact that the subject of her tirade is political makes no difference. We protect small children from profanities, vulgarities and adult material because they are impressionable. As the judge pointed out, there are less-vulgar ways to express political positions, especially when the location of the political speech exposes young children.

    When I was a kid, if someone put up a sign or flag like this near a school, my father and the neighborhood men would simply take care of the problem….and it wouldn’t reoccur.

    And, the cheerleader case is not on point because the cheerleader’s tirade was on social media, not on public display near a grade school. The issue isn’t free speech at all, but the limits to vulgarities displayed in the presence of impressionable young children. Doing nothing about it endorses it. Who is in favor of that?

    More red meat.

    1. Good post Natacha, what should occur is that you should form a patrolling force to censor any profanity spoken or writing within 500 yards of a school yard. You should be in charge of writing the law that prohibits such actions with the inclusion of the penalties therein. Don’t leave out your rules of apprehension. Has anyone noticed that when logic won’t do it always becomes all about the children. The leftist youth use this kind of language whenever they like children present or not. We know that Natacha will be the first to post any bad language that she hears spoken within earshot of a child. Feigned outrage would be better left unsaid because it reveals the real character of the offended.

      1. I wonder if Natacha would apply this rule to the obscenities’ that they are forcing “the children” to read within the school walls. Can’t get much closer to “the children” than that.

    2. I am in favor of that, even though I find it repulsive.

      The proximity of the school does not impact the analysis as to whether something is protected speech, because it is clearly political speech. The cheerleader’s case is absolutely “on point” because social media IS a contemporary public display.

      The rights of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

    3. Natacha thinks the way to combat vulgarity is to have the vulgar person beaten???? Now of course Natacha is fine with her daddy being the arbiter of what constitutes vulgarity and she sees no issue with the “Daddy Panel” being the enforcer.

      Now how does Natacha feel about drag queens lecturing 8 year olds about “lifestyle” What would Natacha’s daddy and his bruising buddies thought about it? Could they enter the school and pummel the drag folks?

      Think ahead Natacha…for a change. Natacha isn’t really very bright, she plays checkers while others are here playing chess.

      1. My father and the other neighborhood men wouldn’t have needed to beat up anyone to make their point. One reason I know this is because there was a family with 7 boys in our neighborhood who were bullies. They beat up and abused other kids (boys only–they routinely beat up my brothers and their friends, but they left me alone). My father and other men went to the parents and had a little chat. The bullying stopped.

        1. Natacha

          “My father and other men went to the parents and had a little chat.”

          I heard that Brownshirts used to visit Jews and “have a little chat”.

          They didn’t have to beat anyone up to make their point.

          1. My father, like most fathers I knew of back then, protected their children from bullies and those who behaved offensively in the presence of their children, including using profanity or telling off-color jokes. That’s what a father or even the community at large should do–stand up for children to protect their innocence because they are impressionable and look to adults to learn about appropriate adult behavior. Of course, back then, and where we lived, people would not have put up signs or flags containing obscenities.

            1. The Democrats fail to do that in their large inner-city areas filled with minorities. They must be racists. Look at the number of kids killed in these areas. They don’t educate them or prevent crime and drugs. Democrats must make lousy fathers.

              1. How and why are the problems of large inner-city areas solely the “fault” of Democrats? More alt-right garbage.

                1. So it is only a coincidence that homicidal crapholes like Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Chicsgo, Detroit and the rest have been run by Democrats for years?

                  They were nice when Republicans were in charge.

                  Oh yes, they are full of garbage, too, but not alt-right garbage.

    4. Too many words to say what? That you don’t believe in free speech? Funny the Democrats can tell people to go after conservatives and it’s dandy. But the orangehaired man caused riots on January 6th. Sadly liberals think in a vacuum and everything is all about them.

      1. The orangehaired man lies to people about a “stolen election”, stirs them up by pandering to their patriotism and tells them “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”. Giuliani suggested “trial by combat”. Democrats never told anyone to go after “conservatives”, and you have to stop believing the alt-right drivel that you Trumpsters are “conservatives”. Elevating the Cult of Trump to the status of “conservatives” is an insult to conservatives. Real conservatives find Trump, his incompetence, his arrogance, his misogyny, his marital infidelity, his xenophobia, his racism and his lying repulsive. Trump is all about Trump: needy for attention, praise, flattery and adulation. I don’t understand why you can’t see this.

        I have always respected real conservatives even if I didn’t always agree with their positions. They are sincere, honest and truly patriotic. Trump is not a conservative, and neither are his followers.

    5. Would you have her punished if she used that word on an open podium after being reminded that minors were in attendance?
      See Tom Perez

      Or if like Rashida Talib she referred to the President as a M’fer in the presence of her minor child?

      Sorry but your argument rings hollow

  13. This is just me, but I am far less offended by f**k (it has lost all of its bite) than seeing the bloody severed head of a sitting president held up by the decapitator by the scalp
    Is performance art protected or not? I’m so old I remember that twisted pervert Maplethorp being defended by the ACLU, ART! dontchyaknow

    1. Iowan, so what if some third tier actress holds up a decapitated head? She was trying to get attention. Trump was trying to get attention every hour of every day. Trump’s presidency was 24-7 In-Your-Face.

      1. Anonymous, the actor who held up trumps severed head was not just trying to get attention but rather encouraging the assassination of a President of the United States. As a matter of free speech she had a right to do what she did. Imagine what would happen to someone doing the same thing with the head of the leader of China. However, to wave it away as not being considered as something abhorrent with a false equivalency about Trump shows a lack of a grasp of knowledge in comparative assessment. Just as in elementary school which one of these things is not like the others? Sorry, maybe you were absent that day.

        1. Thinkthrough, did that ‘look like a real head..?? ..No..! And I bet you can’t name that actress, or any of her credits, without checking Google.

          1. “did that ‘look like a real head..?”

            One can only think trains before brains.

          2. I remember that it was comedienne Kathy Griffin and that this little escapade ruined her career. Perhaps she can stage a comeback. Can’t remember if it was a photo or replica of the severed head of The Donald that Ms. Griffin held up to share with the world… ..I think it was a gruesome 3D replica. Kathy’s manager must have been out to lunch.. Melania asked, “Who does this?” Answer: a Trump hater.

          3. It was Kathy Griffin, she’s a comedian not an actress. She was making a point that was tasteless, but it was no different than burning an effigy of Trump in protest. A lot of conservatives got triggered by it.

            1. Yea, upset a lot of people. The severed head of a sitting President is nothing.

              Real offensive stuff like tying a loop on a garage door pull, will get the FBI involved. Because ropes are offensive.

      2. Oh how I wish they would have developed a vaccine for that TDS you Democrats hang on to…

    2. Yep if it was the orangehaired man they were going after you’d hear crickets.

  14. The pressing question to me (considering that all people including judges make mistakes), are anti-Trump signs treated in the same fashion as anti-Biden signs? We already have some proof of the answer.

    Vile and hateful language is part of the left’s persona. Remember “Kill Bush” or what they said about Reagan? Wannabe dictators like Svelaz, eb, and other leftists on the blog don’t understand, rule of law or shoe on the other foot. That is what Turley is advocating. I always thought those concepts to be simple. But, apparently not, because so many leftists don’t seem to have the intellect to understand them.

    1. I don’t recall “Kill Bush,” but I do remember “Lick Bush and Dick.”

  15. Music to tune of As I Go A Wandering:

    As I go a wandering…
    Through the deep blue states…
    I find some sign obnoxious…
    And fully mean and lame.

    UkFay you…
    In the nose!
    In the nooo hooo is in the nose.
    Oh ukFay you in the nose!

  16. Andrea Dick may have a right to post such messages, but she is lacking in good manner and allowing children to see obscene material, which is child abuse. She should change her name from Andrea Dick to Richard Cranium.

    1. dirtydog1776 wrote, “allowing children to see obscene material, which is child abuse”


      I agree that she should change her name should be changed to Richard Noggin.

    2. I’ve never been one to filter or tailor my speech to the youngest common denominator. If parents are so concerned about preventing their children’s sensitive ears from seeing or hearing language I guarantee they are hearing and using with their friends every day I suggest a long talk and explanation is in order.

      1. True, but you have no right to offend me by depriving me of my right to ignore you.

  17. When you’re right, you’re right. People in Columbus have used “that word” in reference to a state to the North for years

  18. “ It seems a tad odd that Dick cannot use this word near a school, but one of the students can do a virtual profane cheer with the same word and gestures.”

    Yes it is odd. The primary difference is that the signs are open to the public in full view if anyone who goes by. The students posted their profanities on social media where only those who are party to their social media page will see the profanity. There is a difference.

    Nevertheless if it’s on private property the city really has no choice in what they can express.

    There was a case not long ago about a Texas man who had the words “F-ck Trump! Written in large letters on his tailgate being ticketed for it. His case was dismissed on 1st amendment grounds.

  19. Lefties love to control other people’s speech.

    Look at how often Anonymous EB tells Turley what to write or not write.

    I say “other people’s speech” because Anonymous will whine piteously when he tells someone to F— off and that comment is deleted.

    1. Monumentcolorado,

      “ I say “other people’s speech” because Anonymous will whine piteously when he tells someone to F— off and that comment is deleted.”

      If that comment is deleted on this blog it means even Turley, the champion of free speech is a hypocrite. He may deem it offensive, but if Turley truly is for free speech he wouldn’t be deleting offensive language on the blog.

      Eb, is just holding Turley accountable to his own standards of free speech. Turley is always stating that to fight against offensive free speech is more free speech. Not censorship. He should practice what he preaches.

      1. Svelaz


        On one hand, Turley doesn’t want his blog deteriorating to: “And your mother wears army boot…”.

        On the other, love it when Anonymous EB shows himself to be a petulant man child.

        Bottom line, Turley’s blog, Turley’s rules as so many say about Twitter.

        1. Monumentcolorado,

          That’s the conundrum that faces free speech advocates like Turley, he’s Ll for full on free speech, BUT when it comes to his blog. It isn’t exactly what he preaches.

          Turley’s blog has already deteriorated into a cesspool of wacked put opinions and insults galore. Profanity while offensive is still a more direct form of speech that emphasizes the true ire of ones views on other’s opinions. Cursing should be allowed. We are all adults here.

          But as you correctly pointed out, “Turley’s blog, Turley’s rules. Just like Twitter and Facebook.

Comments are closed.