YouTube has continued to enforce and expand its censorship of opposing views on its site — enforcing what it considers to be the truth on various issues. The latest subject is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been suspended from the site for expressing his opposition to Covid mandates. One does not have to agree with Paul on his view of Covid or mandates to see the danger of such corporate control over public discourse in the United States. However, politicians (including President Joe Biden) are calling for even greater censorship to silence those with opposing views on such subjects.
Rand posted a video on Sunday in which he lashed out at the calls for mandates and the “petty tyrants and bureaucrats” supporting them, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Joe Biden. He called for people to stand up against these efforts:
“It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. … We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and bureaucrats. We can simply say no. Not again.
Nancy Pelosi, you will not arrest, or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have either had Covid, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport. We will not wear a mask. We will not be forced into random screenings so you can continue your drunk with power reign over the Capitol.
“President Biden, we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves towards a lockdown.”
YouTube took down the video leading Paul to post a response to the censorship. That response was also reportedly taken down but can be viewed on Rumble.
Sen. Paul has been criticized for this and other statements on Covid but many agree with him. This is part of our political debate. People have a free speech right to oppose the mandates and question the science cited by the government. In this case, a corporation is preventing a major political figure from being able to use its platform to engage others on this subject. It is picking and choosing who can speak and what they can say. It has a right to do so as a private company but it is wrong to do so. It is a denial of free speech and we need to address the corporate control over political speech in the United States.
I have previously and repeatedly said that I believe people should be vaccinated. I and my family are vaccinated. However, I will not accept arguments that my public health concerns should negate the free speech rights of others, including Sen. Paul. I also do not accept that these corporations should hold such a strangle hold over public debate.
The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
According to YouTube the video was taken down because it provided false information about masks. It was not taken down because of his opinion per se. I didn’t see the video and it seems like an overreaction but YouTube has a legal right to take down any video they want. In this case it does not seem capricious.
YouTube can’t tell an opinion from a fact. They’re that insidious and dumb. And btw who made this group of woke 30-somethings the arbiter of anything?
YouTube, in service of their special and peculiar religion, is wrong on the physics and science of masks, lockdowns, [quasi-]vaccines, therapeutic treatments, etc.
“It’s time for us to resist.” (Rand Paul)
It was time long ago.
But congratulations to Senator Paul for defying the health-care tyrants.
“The Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.”
That is sub-contracting censorship. Such an action violates the First Amendment.
“ That is sub-contracting censorship. Such an action violates the First Amendment.”
Flagging material isn’t a violation of the 1st amendment. Any government official can flag content for review if such content violates the platform’s policies. Because anybody can do it doesn’t mean government can’t. After all there’s nothing in the constitution stating government can flag material. It can’t censor the material itself. It’s ultimately up to the platform’s owners to decide what to do with the material if it violates its policies.
“Flagging material isn’t a violation of the 1st amendment.”
Wrong!
When the private company then acts to censor the material flagged that is sub-contracting censorship. Section 230 exacerbates that claim.
SM
S. Meyer,
That’s not “subcontracting” censorship.
Section 230 does not prevent private companies from censoring or removing posters at all. It actually encourages it because they are incentivized to stop litigation from posts that they may me liable for.
There’s nothing in the constitution that prevents government or any government officials from pointing to a private company that something is violating THEIR policy. This is the key point. It’s still a violation of a private company’s policy. Pointing it out is not censorship.
“There’s nothing in the constitution that prevents government . . .”
So the government can take any action that is *not* prohibited by the Constitution?!
You have the purpose of our Constitution exactly backwards.
Sam,
If the constitution doesn’t prohibit government from doing something that it not specifically in the constitution it does have the ability to do what is NOT prohibited.
The constitution sets limits on what government can do. The 1st amendment prohibits government from infringement on free speech. It doesn’t prohibit it from pointing out a policy violation of a private company’s policy.
Pointing out a violation is not infringement on free speech.
Free speech means section 230 cannot exist in its present form because it permits a phony work around for government to censor free speech.
That is not the only reason social media companies are wrong.
Anonymous,
“ Free speech means section 230 cannot exist in its present form because it permits a phony work around for government to censor free speech.”
Nope, all section 230 does is protect SM from lawsuits. That’s it. Removing that doesn’t suddenly negate THEIR free speech right to run their platform how they see fit. It would not stop them from censoring political speech if they wanted to. All they would have to do is update their TOS and include a clause that puts all lawsuits into arbitration.
They can do that. Most contracts already have an arbitration clause which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled is permissible.
It may “seem” like a workaround, but it’s not. There is nothing illegal about government flagging content on social media platforms. It’s not censorship nor even by definition. Only the private companies determine if the flagged content violates THEIR policies.
The crazy part is most conservative platforms or blogs do exactly the same thing. They kick out liberals or those who they deem to be making false claims. They can do that and if SM companies are forced to carry other people’s messages those conservative blogs and platforms will not be able to kick out or censor liberal posters. Then they will moan and complain that big government is dictating how a private company should run their business.
Stalin, Mao and Castro all said the favorable news articles about them were from the heart and that there was no evidence to the contrary. What you don’t know is that news articles were flagged yes or no (to be printed). A yes didn’t mean the truth was being told. It meant that government with enough power dictates what they wish to be done. That is exactly what is happening here and it is criminal. The government is using social media to abolish its enemies First Amendment rights.
You have my 13 year old’s understanding of the rule of law, but without his respect for it. We went to In & Out last evening and his Mom told him he could have a shake or fries, but not both. They gave him an extra shake, to which he said she didn’t say he couldn’t have 2 shakes. That’s where it ends for you. But my son chose to not drink the 2nd shake because he knew that would be wrong.
To understand and accept the principle of limited government, you have to first understand what it means and more importantly, you have to want it respected. You don’t respect it and you don’t care if it is respected. Every day we are provided examples of rights being abused, and every day you defend the abuse, either by trying to minimize it or by giving justification for it. For you it’s never should they do it, it’s always can they do it. Every tyrannical regime in human history operated on the same mindset; we can and so we will. Our founding generation experienced this and our DoI documents 27 unique examples of a government exercising their can do tyrannical spirit. You are a Loyalist to that same spirit.
And yet they’d howl at the moon and shake their fists at the sky if THEIR free speech was infringed by a private company that previously promised to have an open forum; and one day it will, it’s only a matter of time before they get ‘their’ way used against themselves.
My theory is they attack because they’ve got nothing to lose. If they fail, that means their rights are intact to continue to attack. They exist under the protection of conservatives. What they don’t realize is if they win and this whole thing comes down, their usefulness will cease and conservatives will no longer be able to protect them. The reality is they have everything to lose if they push too hard and expose themselves to an enemy of the state status.
I thought I was saying that. 😀
👍
Olly,
“ To understand and accept the principle of limited government, you have to first understand what it means and more importantly, you have to want it respected. You don’t respect it and you don’t care if it is respected. ”
Limited government principles require that government follow only what’s spelled out in the constitution.
Does the constitution say private companies are bound by the 1st amendment’s prohibition on infringement of free speech ?
Does the constitution prohibit government from flagging content on social media?
There’s nothing “tyrannical” about it. The only reason it’s being called tyranny is because it’s something that is allowed and it only seems to be a loophole of some kind to silence as Turley euphemistically likes to call false claims as “opposing views”.
We know that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. Neither is saying there is no fire in a burning building where the exists are blocked.
“We know that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.” No, it’s not illegal to yell “Fire” during an actual fire event. If your premise is ‘it’s wrong to instill panic in a nearby crowd of people”, then we agree. However, if for example, you allow “the sky is blue” to be published but then prevent a commenter who says, “except at night” in your publication, yes, you’re within your rights to do so and at the very same time, denying information to someone looking to make a fully-informed decision; being allowed to look both ways before making your decision to cross the two-way street, is far better for everyone, than teaching the kid to ‘run’ because you’ve told them “traffic is clear”, then under your breath, “from one direction”.
Casual Observer,
“ No, it’s not illegal to yell “Fire” during an actual fire event. If your premise is ‘it’s wrong to instill panic in a nearby crowd of people”, then we agree”
But that’s not what i said at all. The opposite holds true to the original premise that yelling fire in a crowd theater when there is no fire is not protected speech. Yelling that there is NO fire or that it’s safe to remain in a burning building is also not protected speech. Both examples threaten the safety of those inside.
To further clarify, if you’re in a building that’s on fire and “experts” or those more knowledgeable about the situation tell the crowd to cover their faces with a wet rag to prevent smoke inhalation and you have individuals telling you it’s not as dangerous or that such precautions are ineffective you’re disseminating misinformation to the detriment of others despite the advice of those who know the real dangers. With COVID and masking it’s the same thing.
Casual Observer,
In this debate about censorship, those favoring it completely disregard the responsibility and capability of the consumers of information to discern fact from fiction. If we have a segment of the population that needs and wants the government or their proxies to tell them what to think, then they are willfully choosing to disable their 1st amendment rights. If they don’t want the responsibilities that come with these rights, then they should forfeit the privilege to vote for a government whose responsibility is to secure them.
Agreed. As another poster here has already mentioned, I concur: The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Strong on this message board. Sadly, to the detriment of having thoughtful, reasoned debate.
The only reason it’s being called tyranny is because it’s something that is allowed and it only seems to be a loophole of some kind to silence as Turley euphemistically likes to call false claims as “opposing views”.
So you decided to prove my statement true: For you it’s never should they do it, it’s always can they do it.
Actually “opposing views” are just that “opposing views”. Silencing opposing views is censorship. The justification for censorship alleging “false claims” defies the principle of having a robust, free exchange of ideas. And when that censorship is provided protection from liability by the government, is directed, coordinated, coerced or otherwise encouraged by the government and is in return predominantly censoring opposition to government policy, then this is a public-private partnership of tyranny.
And you’re just fine with that.
“So you decided to prove my statement true: For you it’s never should they do it, it’s always can they do it.”
Olly, you hit the nail on the head like a professional.
Svelaz’s mind spinning: ‘Can’ I rob a bank and get away with it? If he “can” he would.
Svelaz’s mind spinning: ‘Can’ I get away with murder? If he can he would.
Yesterday I wrote that Svelaz lacked morality and you just proved it. If Svelaz lies he can do so in a few or one word. To prove he is a liar takes paragraphs. He has no morality so he can pepper the list while others explain the truth. The former takes no brains and little time. The latter takes intelligence and lots of time.
On. The. Nose.
Yesterday I wrote that Svelaz lacked morality and you just proved it. If Svelaz lies he can do so in a few or one word. To prove he is a liar takes paragraphs. He has no morality so he can pepper the list while others explain the truth. The former takes no brains and little time. The latter takes intelligence and lots of time.
That’s a very good point. Ironically, while Svelaz is arguing in defense of censorship, the free exchange of ideas on this blog exposes the danger of censorship. Because we have the opportunity on this blog to read and contribute various points of view, over time, each of us proves our moral philosophy and how that skews our political philosophy. Svelaz and others on this blog that will attempt to justify the abuse of rights of our citizens have the morality of tyrants.
Svelaz and a few others are absolutely worthless because their intent is to disrupt or lie.
You provide a good point. Those that are honest bring things to the blog that others haven’t seen or thought of.
Olly,
“ So you decided to prove my statement true: For you it’s never should they do it, it’s always can they do it.”
It’s not what “I decided”. It’s merely pointing out the obvious. If someone is accused of doing something illegal with no specific law stating it is, is it illegal? I thought conservatives where all about following the rule of law. But if there is no specific rule of law to follow or an absence of a prohibition is it still illegal? Short answer is no. Not even a conservative judge can legally state that such an an action absent a legal prohibition is considered illegal. The ironic thing is trump himself uses this approach all the time.
If it’s not specifically prohibited it means it’s allowed. Flagging false or misleading content by government is not illegal or unconstitutional at all. It’s essentially a very effective loophole and last I checked loopholes are not illegal either. It’s up to a judge to decide based on the facts.
If government has an account with YouTube or any of the other platforms it means it has also agreed to the terms and conditions of their respective platforms. Just like anybody else.
If YouTube allows anyone to flag questionable content or content that clearly violates THEIR policies it is well within their right to remove the content.
The distinction lies how government acts. If government directly told YouTube to take down content as in openly or thru back channels explicitly telling the company to take down content then it would certainly be a violation of the first amendment. Because the it would be a violation of YouTube’s 1st amendment right to run its business as it sees fit.
Flagging content within YouTube’s own policies is NOT a violation of the 1st amendment BECAUSE all the government is doing is pointing out content that it thinks is misleading or false. It’s not telling YouTube to take or down. It’s letting YouTube decide for itself according to its own policies what to do with that content. It’s YouTube’s decision, not the government and that’s completely constitutional because it’s a private company who ultimately makes the decision, not government.
Can it be an unfair loophole? Yes certainly. Is it illegal, no. Is it wrong? Possibly, but as pointed out above just because it may be wrong doesn’t necessarily mean it’s illegal.
“ Actually “opposing views” are just that “opposing views”. Silencing opposing views is censorship. The justification for censorship alleging “false claims” defies the principle of having a robust, free exchange of ideas.”
But it wasn’t just an opposing view, Rand Paul’s content wasn’t taken down because it was an opposing view as Turley disingenuously alleged. It was a false claim and since it IS against YouTube’s policy AND their right to set and enforce such policy as a private company his content CAN be censored or removed. Even with/without Sec. 230 protections.
You say they are censoring opposition, yet you see plenty of YouTube videos expressing opposition all the time without being censored. It’s the false claims that are. Opposing views and false claims are two very different things.
It’s not what “I decided”. It’s merely pointing out the obvious. If someone is accused of doing something illegal with no specific law stating it is, is it illegal?
I believe you. You didn’t make a decision to point out the obvious, it’s the only view you have. So I will repeat, you don’t consider whether something should be done as a matter of principle, you only consider whether something can be done as a matter of law. There’s a reason we have a Judicial branch. It exists because people like you don’t consider whether a law is just. From Bastiat’s The Law.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
I have yet to see you post anything that is consistent with that view of just law. Instead, you align with this use of the law:
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
This country exists because those founders rejected “the law” that was abusing their rights. Slavery was legal. It was illegal for women to vote. Jim Crow was legal. All of that changed because laws that said “we can” were defeated by our founding principles that said “we shouldn’t.” You lack respect for those principles.
It’s quite possible, perhaps even probable, you’re efforts to lead svelaz to ‘see the light’ on his own are futile. Not because of an unwillingness or inability to understand, but due to contrariness.
That is probably the most favorable consideration. However, as someone reminded me earlier this week, it’s important to engage if for any other reason than for those who follow this blog but don’t participate.
Ah. Fair point.
S. Meyer says,
“ Svelaz’s mind spinning: ‘Can’ I rob a bank and get away with it? If he “can” he would.
Svelaz’s mind spinning: ‘Can’ I get away with murder? If he can he would.”
As usual you provide asinine examples because you don’t have reading comprehension skills.
It’s specifically illegal to rob a bank, you know that, we all know that. That means I certainly can’t. But it’s NOT illegal for me to REPORT a bank robbery. There’s no law stating it is illegal or that you should.
What you and Olly and others are arguing on this issue is that reporting a bank robbery, because the law makes robbery illegal, an illegal act. You’re arguing that government flagging content (reporting a violation of policy) is an illegal act because the government is reporting it. That’s exactly what you all are saying here.
That’s what you’re not getting. You WANT it to be illegal because it’s government doing the reporting and you believe they are not allowed to do that, but can’t cite any specific law or statute pointing out that it is indeed illegal.
You want to call it censorship, but reporting is not censorship. This isn’t complicated.
It falls to a basic question, is reporting or flagging content censorship? I’m willing to bet no court will say yes.
Svelaz, if you had credible intelligence, you would see how my statements align with what you are saying. You lack the intellect, but even worse, you lack morality. Let us get back to what I said and give you a second chance to deal with what I said instead of pretending what I said didn’t exist.
Olly proved you don’t have morality. You prove it all the time when you lie or change the context of what someone else said. You will do anything to win an argument except actually research the argument. You don’t need research because it will show you that you are wrong or there are two opposite statements where both need consideration.
‘Two opposite statements you say? ‘I have only one tiny brain. How does anyone expect me to deal with two issues?’ You are stuck with one small brain and two issues, but then you realize, ‘screw the research, it doesn’t count. I can change the context and subject, or I can lie. That is what I do best.’ (paraphrase of the mouse-like mind of Svelaz)
SM
I realize your intellect is not good enough to connect the dots. Section 230 was intended to permit companies to grow without being sued. The companies were supposed to be platforms that censored pornography etc., not political speech. The Bill of Rights and our country was built on the idea that government would not censor speech, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL SPEECH. When social media companies censor at the government’s bidding, that is sub-contracting censorship to private parties.
Anonymous,
You’re very confused apparently.
“ Section 230 was intended to permit companies to grow without being sued. The companies were supposed to be platforms that censored pornography etc., not political speech. The Bill of Rights and our country was built on the idea that government would not censor speech, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL SPEECH. When social media companies censor at the government’s bidding, that is sub-contracting censorship to private parties.”
“We’re supposed to?” According to what? Who said they were supposed to ? What law specifically dictates that they were not supposed to censor political speech?
You really don’t know what you’re trying to argue.
“The Bill of rights and our country was built on the idea that government would not censor speech, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL SPEECH.”
Yes anonymous, THE GOVERNMENT. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are not the government.
They don’t censor at the government’s bidding. They censor because their policies get violated and because they ARE private companies they CAN censor political speech it they want to.
Your argument keeps getting dumber every time you keep trying to put that square peg in the circle.
People, those who sign up to those platforms give away their right the moment they click on “I AGREE” on THEIR terms and conditions. This is not a difficult issue.
Just because SM got liability protections doesn’t automatically make them a government agency as many stupidly try to argue. There is no law or rule that makes that true EXCEPT when there IS a specifically worded contract spelling out that upon getting that liability protection they are a government agency. Section 230 has none of that.
The only reason many try to make that stupid argument is because they WANT it to be a government agency so that they can argue that they are violating the 1st amendment. That’s it. Unfortunately they are not and as Turley mentions a lot they have every right to censor, remove, suspend, or revoke privileges when THEIR policies are violated. Turley’s own blog has the exact same rules. He’s protected from lawsuits by the exact same Section 230. If it’s repealed Turley’s blog can be sued AND Turley would STILL be able to censor, delete, or remove posters that not only violate his policy, but also posters who pose a liability risk of being sued.
If you don’t like social media censorship, don’t use it, don’t agree to their terms and conditions. There’s plenty of other conservative friendly sites where you can exercise all the free speech you want…..as long as you don’t violate….THEIR policies YOU AGREED TO.
““We’re supposed to?” According to what? Who said they were supposed to ? What law specifically dictates that they were not supposed to censor political speech?”
In law there is such a thing known as history. We have communication history and that determined right and wrong on the same basis I have mentioned. There are many other things that are wrong with what social media is doing. However, when there is lawlessness it takes time to correct the problems in our free society. You prefer a non-free society so those corrections never take place. Many in government agree with you, but then you have to say you are against individual freedoms which you don’t.
“Yes anonymous, THE GOVERNMENT. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are not the government.”
No one said these entities were government. The claim was different. They are doing government’s bidding and Psaki even admitted it. You are wrong here as well, but you don’t care because you are a fascist who doesn’t believe in individual rights. However, even when you are a fascist and against individual liberty you should till get your facts straight and manage your responses more appropriately.
Anonymous,
“ In law there is such a thing known as history. We have communication history and that determined right and wrong on the same basis I have mentioned. There are many other things that are wrong with what social media is doing. ”
What the hell are you talking about?
“In law there such a thing known as history”. That’s as relevant as saying, “In law there’s such a thing as verbs. We have communication verbs and that determined right or wrong on the same basis I have mentioned”
“ However, when there is lawlessness it takes time to correct the problems in our free society.”
What lawlessness? What laws are specifically being ignored? You don’t cite any.
“ You prefer a non-free society so those corrections never take place. Many in government agree with you, but then you have to say you are against individual freedoms which you don’t.”
Nope. I prefer a free society that UNDERSTANDS its own laws. You have not shown us how or why government reporting or flagging content is illegal?
“ They are doing government’s bidding and Psaki even admitted it.”
No they are not, give us the direct quote Psaki stating they are doing the government’s bidding.
How or why is it illegal for government or any government official to flag content that may violate YouTube’s or any other platform’s policy?
Show me the law that makes it illegal.
Remember the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Does it prohibit government from flagging or pointing out questionable content or claims?
“ No one said these entities were government.”
You ARE claiming these are government entities when you’re declaring they ARE government agencies because they are under section 230 protections. YOU have stated that multiple times. In fact many have been arguing that SM is a defacto government agency because they are given special protections thru Section 230.
So which is it, are they or are they not?
Make up your mind.
“What the hell are you talking about?”
Apparently you don’t realize that when judges decide law they frequently go back into history to see the context of the law and what it meant. I should have realized that you couldn’t understand that point.
Think about what the words mean. Get a dictionary and a basic book on the Constitution. Hillsdale College offers a free video course on the Constitution. Try it. You have a choice, become better educated or remain a slug.
Even a mouse can learn that if he pushes the left door with a checkmark on it he gets cheese and if he pushes the right door without the checkmark he gets noting.
Are you saying a mouse is smarter than you?
There’s nothing in the constitution that prevents government or any government officials from pointing to a private company that something is violating THEIR policy.
Those powers not enumerated in the constitution to the federal govt are left to the States or the People
“Flagging material isn’t a violation of the 1st amendment.”
That is false and recklessly dangerous.
When the government does that “flagging,” it is censorship. The government is not a chat room. It is an institution of physical force.
Sam,
“ When the government does that “flagging,” it is censorship. The government is not a chat room. It is an institution of physical force.”
Wrong, because the government, just like everyone else who uses such platforms, are bound by the private company’s policies if they are to use THEIR platform.
Policies that include flagging content that is believed to be in violation of THEIR policy. Flagging triggers a review and if they find it does violate their policy they take the appropriate action accordingly. If they determine it doesn’t they leave it alone and government is powerless to do anything about it.
Flagging content isn’t censorship. It’s..flagging content. Look at SPAM, anyone can flag SPAM on SM platforms. Is that censoring SPAM? Does SPAM have a right to be on their platform?
What Turley claims is his “internet originalism” means his own blog would be open to SPAM and any attempt to flag it or remove it would be censorship and a violation of free speech.
This is why Turley’s arguments are flawed from the get go. Even he admits they have every right to do what they do. He says it’s wrong and he’s mod wrong about that. But just because it’s wrong in his eyes doesn’t mean they can’t censor or revoke posting privileges to those who violate policies that were AGREEE to in the first place. It’s also wrong to deliberately violate policies you agreed to abide by, right ?
Sevvy:
“Wrong, because the government, just like everyone else who uses such platforms, are bound by the private company’s policies if they are to use THEIR platform.”
*******************
There was no bigger supporter of Adolph Hitler than the leaders at Krupp Iron works. Their effective partnership insured civilian compliance with Nazi policies in exchange for slave labor for their factories. Now what do you call a system like that?
Hint: Rhymes with nashism.
“Flagging material isn’t a violation of the 1st amendment.”
Government “flagging” is like the Mafia “suggesting.”
Until people grasp that government is in essence an institution of physical force (its police powers), they will never grasp such analogies.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I did take constitutional law in law school. Professor, would you please explain why the White House asking Facebook to censor material does not rise to the level of Facebook/Twitter acting under “color of law?” Why isn’t that a First Amendment problem?
Jonathan: As the Delta variant spreads unchecked across the country politicians should be explaining to Americans the science behind face masks and vaccines–not spreading lies and misinformation. Instead, GOP politicians, like Sen. Rand Paul, are deliberately spreading false information. In the case of Paul it’s all about politics–not about the science. He is in a tight race in his re-election campaign and he thinks appealing to the ant-vacs back home will ensure he stays in office. That’s the part of the equation you choose to ignore. Firebrand GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has also been suspended from Twitter because she is also spreading Covid misinformation. She said: “These vaccines are failing & do not reduce the spread of the virus & neither do masks”. Of course, this is a lie. Vaccines and face masks are highly effective in preventing the spread of the virus.
Paul and Greene are free to issue public statements or get on Fox and other right-wing media to express their false views. Their views are widely covered by the main stream media. But that doesn’t mean YouTube and Twitter, private companies, are obligated to allow politicians to spread misinformation. In responding to her Twitter suspension Greene said: “Twitter suspended me for speaking the truth…”. “Speaking the truth” is not part of Greene’s DNA. Since coming to office she has been spreading lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories on all sorts of subjects.
But as an “Internet Originalist” you think Paul and Greene should be free to spread lies and misinformation about Covid/Delta variant even when their opinions are clearly contrary to the science and could have deadly consequences. God forbid, if you have a close friend who is infected and dies how will you explain your views to the family?
You and your ilk chose to beliecve the “science” that fits your agenda. Fauci himself said MASKS DON’T WORK..
“Fauci Said Masks ‘Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,’ Email Reveals”
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703
So what’s the problem? Why don’t YOU listen to the science?
Anonymous,
This was from the beginning of the pandemic when the spread of COVID wasn’t as widespread. Fauci was talking about face masks not being 100% effective against infection which has never been the claim.
The science behind face masks is still valid. What you are doing is deliberately twisting out of context. This is the type of misinformation that is fueling the current surge in new cases and the discourse on mask mandates.
From your own cited article,
“ He added: “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.”
Masks are effective in REDUCING the spread when both the contagious and healthy wear a mask. When both wearing a mask that stops 70% or even just 40% of the droplets that contain the virus you’re increasing exponentially the effectiveness of the purpose of the masks.
“Fauci was talking about face masks not being 100% effective against infection “
No he wasn’t. He was lying at the time and if Fauci can lie you feel that you can lie as well. Initially, or so he says, he was worried about the mask supply. You never get your facts straight.
“The science behind face masks is still valid.”
Show us the science. Studies have shown masks help, don’t help and help spread disease.
You are lying as usual. You really know very little about the subject matter.
S. Meyer,
“ No he wasn’t. He was lying at the time and if Fauci can lie you feel that you can lie as well.”
Nope, Fauci was articulating the nature of the situation AT THAT TIME. It was around February of 2020. At the very beginning of the pandemic. He was talking about why those types of masks were not really designed for preventing infections. They were designed to prevent the spread of infections from those already infected. Surgeons wear masks to prevent THEIR breath which may contain bacteria or viral droplets from infecting the patient. Everyone in the room wears a mask. The more people wear a mask the less the chance of infection on the patient.
I can show you multiple studies and scientific papers on the effectiveness of masks and you will either dismiss them outright or demand further proof that you will still dismiss. You’ve played that game too many times.
The current outbreaks of the delta variant are in areas where there ARE no mask mandates and low vaccination rates. Use that famous common sense conservatives often cite as their most cherished of values.
Fauci never argued that face masks were 100% effective. He never said they were going to prevent 100% the spread of the virus. What he HAS said what is still true today and backed by science is that they do indeed reduce the spread and lower infection rates.
Now with a widely available vaccine AND masks that reduction should mr much higher and faster. However it’s the stubborn, the stupid, and willfully ignorant that are prolonging and worsening the situation for everyone else thanks to misinformation and BS like what you post.
It’s only a matter of time before nearly every business will require employees to get vaccinated or look for work somewhere else.
“The current outbreaks of the delta variant are in areas where . . .”
You mean like at the southern border? And everywhere in the country where those unvaccinated immigrants are landing?
One cannot credibly claim to be “following the science,” while ignoring the superspreader event of some 1 million immigrants.
Sam,
“ You mean like at the southern border? And everywhere in the country where those unvaccinated immigrants are landing?”
The argument that the current outbreaks of the delta variant are coming from the southern border see false. It’s very convenient to use immigrants as scapegoats for something that they are not responsible for.
Immigrants, including those entering the country legally are required to be tested and prove they test negative for COVID.
Those that do test positive are isolated and sent to the hospital.
The CBP, is NOT releasing immigrants who are NOT tested.
In fact,
“ But back in March, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency told lawmakers that the positivity rates for people coming across the border at the time was less than 6%. For some comparison, the average positivity rate in Texas was above 7% at that time.”
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/04/15/fact-checking-claims-about-covid-19-testing-for-migrants-at-the-southern-border/
Florida has no border with Mexico. Yet they are the center of major outbreaks and hospitalizations. It’s Trump country after all and they are proud to not be vaccinated.
“The CBP, is NOT releasing immigrants who are NOT tested.”
That is false:
“CBP, the Border Patrol’s parent agency, does not currently have the testing capability.
Deputy Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz, who will soon take over as chief, told NBC News on Wednesday that such testing would lead to further bottlenecks in the Border Patrol’s facilities.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/18-percent-migrant-families-leaving-border-patrol-custody-tested-positive-n1276244
“Florida has no border with Mexico.”
Try to keep up with current events. Those unvaccinated migrants are being shipped to states throughout the country — including Florida.
I thought that the issue is the scourge of the unvaccinated? Care to hazard a guess about how many of those some 1 million migrants are vaccinated? You want to claim that vaccination should *not* be a requirement of immigration? Or is it that *some* unvaccinated are bad; others (your “chosen ones”) are good.
No matter how many obfuscations and half-truths you spin, the fact remains: The science either applies to all, or not all.
Sam,
“ CBP, the Border Patrol’s parent agency, does not currently have the testing capability.”
Testing capabilities does mean they are being released. You silly goose.
Your article is not talking about immigrants being released to states. They are testing positive when they are being DEPORTED. Those that are testing positive are HELD in quarantine here. Gasp! what a shocker! Being quarantined means they are NOT being released to states like Florida either.
From your own linked article,
“ Migrants are not tested for Covid in Border Patrol custody unless they show symptoms, but all are tested when they leave Border Patrol custody, according to DHS officials. Immigrants who are allowed to stay in the U.S. to claim asylum are given tests when they are transferred to ICE, Health and Human Services or non-governmental organizations. Deportees who are scheduled to be put on planes out of the U.S. are tested for Covid and other infectious diseases by ICE.”
Apparently your own article contradicts your claim, shocking.
“Nope, Fauci was articulating the nature of the situation AT THAT TIME. ”
Nope, he lied for a purpose that might have been acceptable. He has flip-flopped continuously, but that is what you refer to as “AT THAT TIME.” Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Do you even know what that TIME was?
Learn the difference between bacterial and viral infections.
“I can show you multiple studies and scientific papers on the effectiveness of masks and you will either dismiss them outright or demand further proof that you will still dismiss. You’ve played that game too many times. ”
I can show you studies on both sides of the argument and have no problem with comparing studies. That is your problem. You think canceling studies makes them invalid. It doesn’t.
I don’t think you know in depth what a study is, how to rate them, or the different types. You are ignorant of those things, so of course, you can’t compare studies, and sometimes, when you do, you don’t realize the difference between a magazine article and a study..
You don’t even read who wrote the study or paper and what their qualifications are. Last time it was a student, and you denied it again and again even after I pointed out that his own bio said he was a student.
You are the perfect example of The Dunning-Kruger Effect.
If I said what you did and you didn’t believe me, you’d demand that I provide the empirical, double-blind, control group-comparision, peer-reviewed, statistics to back it up. That’s all the skeptics, including those in the medical field, have asked to see…the data that supports the statement itself, (paraphrasing here) ‘masks reduce the spread of aerosolized viruses’. It’s already been proven false by decades of studies conducted world-wide since the Spanish Flu disaster 100 years ago, including those conducted by the CDC and other established medical entities since the 1940’s. Common sense says if masks worked, virologists and epidemiologists wouldn’t need the additional PPE gear worn in their own labs. So please, show us the data for those new studies that meet the requirements above – as you’d demand from a medical professional or scientist who has the same skepticism. Consider it this way, imagine you’re defending your truth in a court of law by submitting your supporting evidence. Prove your case against the 100+ years of established medical protocols and related scientific knowledge, even if only by the ‘preponderance of evidence’ standard. If you can do that, you just might convince at least some of the skeptics around you that your statement has merit. Convince everyone? Not likely, but then that’s not the challenge being suggested.
“As the Delta variant spreads unchecked across the country politicians should be explaining to Americans the science behind face masks and vaccines–not spreading lies and misinformation.”
*************************
Hardly “unchecked.” In Connecticut for example there are 1200 breakthrough cases, 162 hospitalizations but only 27 deaths. Noone under 55 has died and 24 of the 27 are over 75-years-old. So quit the Chicken-Little stuff. To torturously mix a metaphor no one believes the cries a wolf any more. So the facts say, you’re safer now in Connecticut from Covid than you were pre-vaccine.
BTW, you don’t want education you want coercion. Screw the petty tyrants telling us what to do. They wanna be our mommies. They aren’t. Be a man; grow a pair and stop whining about what other people do. You’re safe Dennis — from everything– except the political ideology you worship.
https://ctmirror.org/2021/08/10/covid-hospitalizations-skew-younger-as-delta-variant-spreads-in-ct/
Mespo,
“Only 27 deaths”. Deaths that were entirely preventable. That’s the point.
We wouldn’t be dealing with these “tyrants” if it weren’t for the unvaccinated. This whole new surge is entirely on the unvaccinated. There wouldn’t be any breakthrough cases if the delta variant wasn’t being spread by those who ignorantly bought into the misinformation and lying about basic precautions and the vaccine’s effectiveness.
I correctly predicted that you would see more mandates for vaccination from private companies and hospitals because they certainly don’t want these unvaccinated to threaten the economy again.
The majority of people clogging hospital ICU’s and children’s hospitals are from unvaccinated people spreading it and getting kids in greater numbers infected.
Already people are regretting not heeding the warnings they were given prior to the mess evolving now.
The vaccine is set for approval in a few weeks and it’s virtually guaranteed more companies will mandate vaccination or be out of a job. Some companies are actually putting surcharges on employees who are not vaccinated on their paychecks to pay for the increasing health insurance premiums due to the new delta variant.
It’s an entirely preventable situation that is being prolonged by the ignorant and those who keep spreading false claims.
Sevvy:
“Only 27 deaths”. Deaths that were entirely preventable.”
**********************
Glad you researched the medical records of these septuagenarians and octogenarians. Send me the redacted versions.
Mespo, you keep missing the point and conveniently focus on a state where delta variant infections, and hospitalizations are still low.
What about Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama?
Texas is begging for more nurses and their ICU’s are full. Children’s hospitals are full. In Arkansas and Missouri, more and more children who are below the age of vaccination authorization are being hospitalized because yahoo’s and. Idiots keep screaming “freedom!” from vaccines and evil Dr. Fauci’s lies while spreading it to the rest of the population.
We essentially have to vaccinate ourselves in order to protect the idiots and the ignorant from themselves. In Missouri you’ve got people demanding anonymity and secrecy in getting vaccinated, why? Because they don’t want their anti-vax neighbors or friends from finding out risking backlash or worse getting accused of being….GASP , a traitor.
It’s already evident that those who mocked, lied, or have been gullible are losing the argument that they aren not the problem. They are. One only needs to preface their argument like Turley does with, “ I’m not against vaccines, BUT….” It’s similar to, “I’m not a racist, BUT…”.
It’s obvious whose prolonging this pandemic and it’s not those who are vaccinated.
“It’s obvious whose [sic] prolonging this pandemic . . .”
I don’t understand how you expect any thinking person to take you seriously.
On the one hand, you point out some legitimate areas for concern (though, suspiciously, you omit New York City).
On the other hand, you completely evade the some 1 million unvaccinated immigrants now planted all over the country.
“Science” is not “selective science.”
Sam,
“ On the one hand, you point out some legitimate areas for concern (though, suspiciously, you omit New York City).”
New York is as of two days ago 57% vaccinated. Florida, 44%, Alabama 35%, Arkansas, 37%.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cdc+state+vaccination+rates&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&sxsrf=ALeKk02pL_vrAEA7AMnix2oYZVvjbrys5g%3A1628701841144&ei=kQQUYZeLCNqsqtsPraSR8A4&oq=cdc+state&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYATILCAAQgAQQsQMQgwEyCggAEIAEEIcCEBQyBQgAEIAEMgsIABCABBCxAxCDATIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEEMyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoHCCMQ6gIQJzoECCMQJzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoOCC4QsQMQxwEQowIQkQI6BQgAEJECOggIABDJAxCRAjoQCAAQgAQQhwIQsQMQgwEQFDoICAAQsQMQgwE6CAgAEIAEELEDOgcIABCABBAKOgQIABAKOgcIABDJAxAKOgoIABCxAxCDARANOgQIABANUK6hCVilxQlgu9IJaAZwAHgAgAFwiAGgCJIBBDEyLjGYAQCgAQGwAQ_AAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
These are rates for the fully vaccinated. Not those who just had one shot.
“ On the other hand, you completely evade the some 1 million unvaccinated immigrants now planted all over the country.”
What’s your proof of this claim?
“New York is as of two days ago 57%”
Learn to read.
I wrote “New York City.” A city is not a state. See in particular the areas of New York *City* with predominately Black and Latino communities.
“What’s your proof of this claim?”
Nice try.
It’s the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens from immigrants carrying infectious diseases. It’s the government’s burden to prove that those immigrants are vaccinated. That the Biden administration is *not* doing so is an epic abdication.
Sam, obviously you have difficulty doing research for yourself. Here,
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.page
It even breaks it down by borough. Enjoy.
Already did that research. Apparently, you have difficulty understanding it:
“According to the city’s data, Black adults are only 30 percent partially vaccinated, while Hispanics are 39 percent partially vaccinated . . .”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/delta-is-especially-dangerous-for-black-brown-new-yorkers.html
Low vaccination rates among Blacks and Latinos in New York *City* mirror those communities in other cities. That is not a revelation. Though it is a fact that your side attempts to evade.
For that alone, threatening the lives of American citizens, Biden should be impeached.
“This whole new surge is entirely on the unvaccinated. There wouldn’t be any breakthrough cases if the delta variant wasn’t being spread by those who ignorantly bought into the misinformation and lying about basic precautions and the vaccine’s effectiveness.”
Svelaz, Vaccinated persons are spreading Covid as well, so stop with the lies.
Right, the story said 27 “breakthrough” deaths. When the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were first approved, we heard they were 95% or 94% effective. That means compared to the unvaxxed control group, the vaxxed had 5% or 6% as many Covid-19 cases. So we knew from the outset that there’d be breakthrough cases. And apparently with the delta variant, there are even more.
It’s interesting that the death rate from these breakthrough infections — 27 deaths/1171 cases — is still more than 1%.
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, Vaccinated persons are spreading Covid as well, so stop with the lies.”
Nope. Vaccinated persons are getting COVID, but they are not spreading it. They are not the ones clogging up hospitals and ICU’s.
Show me proof or what you claim. That vaccinated people are spreading covid.
99- 90% of hospitalizations and deaths are from unvaccinated people. The fact that the delta variant is more virulent and more contagious is why it’s spreading so much more among the unvaccinated. Those who are UNPROTECTED. That natural immunity many believe they have is no longer effective.
“Vaccinated persons are getting COVID, but they are not spreading it.”
Who knew that vaccinated people don’t breathe.
Sam,
“ Who knew that vaccinated people don’t breathe.”
Oh they breathe alright, but the contagious virus in their system is not virulent enough to create the massive amounts of viral loads necessary to spread it. Yeah, that’s science. That’s exactly what the vaccine does. Amazing isn’t it?
[T]the contagious virus in their system is not virulent enough to create the massive amounts of viral loads necessary to spread it.”
Really? Then why the mask mandates for those who are *vaccinated*?
The CDC (your Higher Authority) “found no significant difference in the viral load present in the breakthrough infections occurring in fully vaccinated people and the other cases, suggesting the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the coronavirus is similar.
“The CDC said the finding that fully vaccinated people could spread the virus was behind its move to change its mask guidance.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance
Than, again, that was Tuesday’s “science.” And today is Wednesday.
We know that Sam has everything all figured out…
Was there supposed to be an argument after that ellipses?
Nope.
“Nope.”
So your “contribution” to the discussion is, as per usual — ZERO. (Actually, a childish smear is less than zero.)
I have more respect for Svelaz. As wrong as he is, at least he has the intelligence and civility to present arguments.
Sam hasn’t learned that sometimes silence is the best response, as it’s said.
He also can’t seem to accept that this is a place for people to make comments. Not every comment has to be an argument.
And he’s still got that big old chip on his shoulder.
Sam,
“ Really? Then why the mask mandates for those who are *vaccinated*?”
BECAUSE, the unvaccinated who are doing all the spreading are putting those who are vaccinated at risk of breakthrough infections. We are having breakthrough infections BECAUSE of the unvaccinated. Misinformation and lies perpetrated by ignorant leadership are contributing to another phase of this pandemic. So mask mandates and mandates vaccinations by private companies will become the norm.
The claim that the vaccinated can transmit the virus is true, I will concede that. However, that still doesn’t change the fact that the whole reason we are having that issue is because of the unvaccinated. It still falls on that group.
It seems we have to once again mask up because a bunch of yahoo’s and idiots can’t exercise simple precautions. That means they are rightly to be blamed for this new situation.
That’s great Svelaz. Now Sam (assuming he had his vaccination) doesn’t have to wear a mask or social distance right? He got his vaccine so he can’t infect anyone, right? Biden and Dem governors are wrong when calling for mask mandates for those already vaccinated, right?
How did you learn all this science that you could be so sure of yourself even when you change your mind? Did you go to fool school?
Svelaz, you ran away from this one as well. So much for your proof and logic.
” Now Sam (assuming he had his vaccination) doesn’t have to wear a mask or social distance right? He got his vaccine so he can’t infect anyone, right? Biden and Dem governors are wrong when calling for mask mandates for those already vaccinated, right?”
This proves Svelaz is lying or doesn’t know what he is talking about. He runs away so he doesn’t have to respond to the inconsistencies of his arguments.
“Nope. Vaccinated persons are getting COVID, but they are not spreading it. They are not the ones clogging up hospitals and ICU’s.”
Then there is no need for vaccinated people to wear masks and social distance. As usual you don’t know what you are talking about and your ideas conflict with one another.
Vaccinated, unvaccinated and illegal immigrants can all spread Covid I can’t help it if you get your facts wrong or if you lie.
“The fact that the delta variant is more virulent”
Look up the word virulent. Your vocabulary stinks. Your knowledge stinks and your lying is unbearable.
You know nothing of science. You are a typical air headed leftie.
If you want to say something, bring proof. I’m tired of proving things to you and having you deny it. You couldn’t even read the paper you used in the past as proof. You failed to recognize a student wrote it and failed to recognize that fact even after you were told it was in his bio. That is unimportant, but it demonstrates that nothing you say has merit.
“This whole new surge is entirely on the unvaccinated.”
More anti-science “disinformation,” brought to you by the party of “science.”
Sam, then prove me wrong. Show your evidence.
You’re joking, right?
You, and the rest of your anti-science demagogues, (falsely) claim: “is entirely on the unvaccinated.”
See breakthrough cases, and the actual science of virus mutation, population, and spread.
The actual science (which has been known for decades) is that viruses often mutate to avoid the defenses of those with immunity (natural or vaccinated).
You and your masters (especially Fauci) use science selectively — to inculcate guilt, to smear political opponents, and to rationalize a sick desire to control others.
Such a use of “science” is a far greater threat to the public’s perception of science, than are some yahoos spreading conspiracy theories about vaccines.
Sam,
“ The actual science (which has been known for decades) is that viruses often mutate to avoid the defenses of those with immunity (natural or vaccinated).”
Yes viruses mutate when they are left unchecked. The current variant emerged among the unvaccinated because the vaccines were not yet widely available. Now they are. The whole reason why there are cases of breakthrough is because of the virus spreading among the unvaccinated. It’s being spread by them and the longer there’s millions of unvaccinated people the virus will continue to mutate until it will make the current vaccine ineffective. We wouldn’t be dealing with the delta variant of the majority of people got vaccinated. It wouldn’t have given the virus an opportunity to mutate.
It’s ignorance such as yours that is the problem. We are in effect vaccinating to protect YOU from your own ignorance. How ironic isn’t it?
“t We wouldn’t be dealing with the delta variant of the majority of people got vaccinated. It wouldn’t have given the virus an opportunity to mutate.“
Fool school graduate, what you are saying is that until we reach herd immunity all over the world this virus will not be stopped. We didn’t get the delta variant from unvaccinated Americans. We got it from India. We cannot put America in isolation, though perhaps we should isolate you from any discussions involving science.
Anonymous,
“ We didn’t get the delta variant from unvaccinated Americans. We got it from India. We cannot put America in isolation, though perhaps we should isolate you from any discussions involving science.”
As usual you keep missing the point. Where it came from is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that it is the unvaccinated who are creating this new surge. The virus has more opportunities to mutate once again and find a way to go around the vaccine. Since it’s already starting to infect even the vaccinated, thanks to the yahoo’s and idiots who insist their “natural immunity” will protect them or that vaccines aren’t approved they are responsible for the ongoing problem.
Texas and other states are already begging for more staff and resources to deal with full hospitals and ICU’s.
It’s going to get much worse as long as people don’t get vaccinated. Unfortunately now more people are choosing to get vaccinated AFTER realizing it’s really that bad. Even schools are ignoring governor executive orders against masking mandates.
The point is most of your points are wrong, lies, or conflict with one another. You don’t care and are too ignorant to understand how a free country functions.
If it is the unvaccinated that are getting sick that is their problem. Vaccine is now available for everyone. If the Biden Administration were honest they would either decrease the hype regarding the vaccine or stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. You think all sorts of things that do not comport with the facts.
Take a look at the pictures from the border. people are packed like sardines and then released elsewhere. Are you foolish enough to believe such close contact doesn’t help spread the virus.
No need to discuss more with you because all we get are falsehoods and lies.
Svelaz, you have been proven false too many times and after the proof is provided you repeat the same false claims. You are either a liar or are unable to handle the subject matter.
Without credibility you need proof. All or almost all your statements involving illegal immigrants are false.
If Biden was serious about Covid the border would be shut tight.
Anonymous,
“ Without credibility you need proof. All or almost all your statements involving illegal immigrants are false.”
Nope. I actually provided proof up thread. It was a response to Sam’s claim about 1 million immigrants being released with COVID.
His own link trying to prove his claim contradicts it. You should check it out before making accusations.
How can you provide proof when you don’t know what proof is.
To you proof is any lie you choose at the time or any prior idea that you previously thought was false. It doesn’t matter.You act in a corrupt fashion, having no principles.
“. . . Sam’s claim about 1 million immigrants being released with COVID.”
You’re misrepresenting what I wrote.
Sam, Svelaz always takes points written by others and distorts them.
It is either intentional or he has problems with reading comprehension.
“Nope. I actually provided proof up thread.”
Here is an example of how you prove things. It was posted in a close time frame.
Svelaz writes: “Nope. Vaccinated persons are getting COVID, but they are not spreading it. They are not the ones clogging up hospitals and ICU’s.”
I then wrote: “Then there is no need for vaccinated people to wear masks and social distance.”
Tell us. Why do vaccinated people have to wear masks if you say they are not spreading Covid.
This is an example of your proof and logic. You have neither.
Delta variant, blah, blah, blah. Good for Senator Paul, he’s only saying what many of us are thinking. Can we please have a national divorce from people like you, people who are completely fine being ruled capriciously by others, and who have no qualms with laying down your rights as long as the person with the right credentials tells you to? I don’t want to live around people like you, I don’t want to know people like you, and I will never look upon people like you as my countrymen ever, ever, again.
“politicians should be explaining to Americans the science behind face masks and vaccines–not spreading lies and misinformation. Instead, GOP politicians, like Sen. Rand Paul, are deliberately spreading false information. ”
Dennis, you think it is false because you haven’t been allowed to see the information from the other side. Why don’t you list the proof you have that Sen Paul is deliberately spreading false information and disprove the data he provides.
“In the case of Paul it’s all about politics–not about the science. ”
Dennis that is not true. Paul has been a libertarian his entire career, and his arguments haven’t changed. The statement you just made invalidates everything you say that comes after.
“face masks are highly effective in preventing the spread of the virus.”
If you look at the studies, you will find that there is no proof of this. Maybe properly used N-95 masks that are frequently changed and restrict the ability to breathe have a significant effect, but not the masks people wear today. There is even some question that masks can spread the disease because, as I am sure you have seen, people constantly adjust masks with their hands.
“ There is even some question that masks can spread the disease because, as I am sure you have seen, people constantly adjust masks with their hands.”
That’s why they tell you to wash your hands. Right? You’re not adjusting someone else’s mask. Just your own. If you’re not sick and you’re adjusting your mask then you shouldn’t be spreading disease, right?
Come on S. Meyer, use that common sense that supposedly many conservatives ascribe to. Surely it isn’t that hard.
Wrong as usual. People do not wash their hands every time they touch the mask. The outside of the mask can have Covid from other people. Masks are not kept clean and can cause other types of contamination as well.
Your information is so inaccurate and stupid that you should be cancelled.
Dennis,
It would be nice if Turley would address your question. He never advocates shunning, shaming, ostracizing or deplatforming anyone no matter the content (though in lieu of impeachment, he did suggest that Congress could have censured Trump for his 1/6 battle-cry to his mob which he described as “reckless.”) His only solution is more speech however ineffectual it may be. Accordingly, 630,000 lives lost and counting is simply the price society must be willing to pay in order to preserve our freedom to spread misinformation, plant disinformation or simply spew lies (unless they amount to a legal defamation). I agree with Turley insofar as regards governmental censorship, but I disagree as regards private discrimination of bad speech. Citizens must not be discouraged to exercise their freedom to express their contempt and disgust at speech which the government is not permitted to censor.
If they censor him over an idea, it means his idea is superior to theirs. Otherwise, they wouldn’t censor. Instead, they would demonstrate why he was wrong. Therefore, it makes sense not to trust any ideas that have to be propped up with censorship.
S. Meyer says, “ If they censor him over an idea, it means his idea is superior to theirs. Otherwise, they wouldn’t censor. Instead, they would demonstrate why he was wrong.”
He was censored over a false claim that had already been shown to be false. Censoring something is not proof that something is superior.
His idea has already been refuted multiple times. Because it’s been refuted and shown to be false it’s no longer a “superior idea”. It’s just a false idea. It makes sense to censor an already proven false claim. Especially on a platform that cites false or misleading claims as policy violations.
“He was censored over a false claim that had already been shown to be false. Censoring something is not proof that something is superior.”
That is a lie. There is evidence on each side. No evidence has proven the other evidence wrong. His claim is as good or better than the claims being made by others that have not been censored. The reason for censorship is to promote only one idea. Smart people recognize that is not science and that means Paul has superior ideas.
You don’t know how to evaluate data and that has been proven. Therefore, you shouldn’t be engaged in this type of discussion. You should be censored.
I read Orwell’s 1984 when I was a college freshman. Never imagined that it could happen in the U.S. It has.
Ralph:
“I read Orwell’s 1984 when I was a college freshman. Never imagined that it could happen in the U.S. It has.”
*************************
The public-private censorship partnership is troubling but, in the main, you can still say what you want to government. Now having your employer play nanny is a problem but a lot of that is limited to big corporations. I’m hoping this situation opens people’s eyes to the folly of “big” anything and we see more entrepreneurs, small businesses and a resurgent middle class making it on their own. Sometimes adversity makes a good friend to motivate you. I’m hoping our history is a guide here once we throw the Marxists Dims out of office.
There are cases all over america, Turley has highlighted some, of people being charged with crimes, fined, and even thrown in jail for expressing their free speech views to government officials.
Anonymous:
“There are cases all over america, Turley has highlighted some, of people being charged with crimes, fined, and even thrown in jail for expressing their free speech views to government officials.”
*******************************
I haven’t seen that except in Europe. Generally, US courts throw stupid charges like that out the window. If you mix speech with criminal action now you’re fair game.
Mespo chooses to ignore those January 6th PROTESTERS who have been jailed without basic due process given to everyone else.
Anonymous:
“Mespo chooses to ignore those January 6th PROTESTERS who have been jailed without basic due process given to everyone else.”
************************
They have been arraigned and had bond hearings. That’s due process. They have lawyers. That’s due process. They also have the right to appeal their denial of bond. That’s due process. They have trials set. That’s due process.
And they weren’t charged with free speech “crime.” The protest wasn’t a permitted event as the government has the right to insist upon yet there were no charges for content of their speech. They were charged with various ACTIONS ranging from trespass to monument defacement to obstructing a legislative process.
Most have pled guilty to various misdemeanors. Oh and that’s due process, too.
+100 @ mespo 11:43 am.
“ Turley has highlighted some, of people being charged with crimes, fined, and even thrown in jail for expressing their free speech views to government officials.”
In other countries where the constitution doesn’t exist. Duh 🤦♂️
The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” [1]
It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.
A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group [who received a saltwater shot].”
Those shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.
The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than a placebo shot—the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”
That’s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.
In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”
Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.
I’m vaccinated myself, I did it more for my wife, but that’s another story. Here’s the thing….
There’s a reason that on average it takes.. TWELVE YEARS.. for a new drug to be approved by the FDA (and less than 5% of them are). LONG-TERM SAFETY!
This idea perpetrated by the left establishment (i.e. the media and government, big tech) that people don’t have a right to question the safety and be weary of a drug that was rushed to market in a matter of months, meaning there is no long-term testing/data whatsoever to prove it’s safe, is mind-boggling. I and millions of others took a gamble,
“ This idea perpetrated by the left establishment (i.e. the media and government, big tech) that people don’t have a right to question the safety and be weary of a drug that was rushed to market in a matter of months, meaning there is no long-term testing/data whatsoever to prove it’s safe, is mind-boggling. I and millions of others took a gamble,”
Well…Trump took credit for rushing it didn’t he? If it was a good thing that Trump rushed it and thanks to operation warp speed we have this…unproven vaccine? Soooo, it’s Trump’s fault that it was rushed?
“Trump took credit for rushing it didn’t he?”
No, that is a lie. He took credit for making it possible to have a vaccine produced in less than a year using all the normal channels. If he were crooked like the lefties, Pfizer would have released the vaccine before he left office.
Getting the vaccine out fast to the most vulnerable, before they died from the virus, was a good idea.
You would kill the elderly and sick like Cuomo did. The virus is yet to be proven. Those that do not want to take it should have the right not to do so. You have no morality.
Turley was strangely silent when Rep. Taylor Greene was suspended from Twitter just yesterday. She made false claims too. Does this mean Twitter was right to suspend her account?
Turley can’t address every case of bit tech censorship, and certainly not within 24 hours, lol. You think you made a cute little point, but you didn’t.
Your point?
Thanks for the link, Professor Turley! I just signed up for Rumble and intend to eschew as much MSM as I can. I read Substack instead.
Never step on a red ant hill. Sen. Paul is a red ant. I just wish he had a bigger nest of other red ants to help him fight the battle against censorship and tyranny.
“ YouTube has continued to enforce and expand its censorship of opposing views on its site — enforcing what it considers to be the truth on various issues.”
Sen. Paul didn’t just express an opposing view. He was making false claims. Turley is playing with semantics here in an effort to portray this as opposing an “opposing view”.
Rand Paul states masks don’t work which is patently false. As it’s always the case with social media platforms they can suspend, censor, remove, or revoke an account if a violation of their policy occurred.
Paul violated their policy and therefore got suspended. As a private company Turley knows very well they have a right to do that, because even this blog has that right and often does censor or remove content that violates…policy.
People have a right to make claims that you believe are false.
blcarwright,
“ People have a right to make claims that you believe are false.”
Yes they do have the right to make false claims. On their own. But if they are making them in someone else’s private social media platform with rules they AGREED to they don’t have the right to have those claims on the platform if the rules the AGREED to are violated.
That’s issue too many republicans and conservatives have a hard time understanding.
WRONG! On at least two counts.
1. Section 230 protects big tech from being sued only because they claim to be a vehicle for speech, not a censor of speech.
2. Big tech cannot collude with Government to censor speech, which they are. That’s makes them a defacto government agency. with is unconstitutional.
“ Section 230 protects big tech from being sued only because they claim to be a vehicle for speech, not a censor of speech.”
Nope. Section 230 doesn’t prevent big tech from censoring speech. It will actually encourage it if it is repealed. Big tech has 1st amendment rights too.
“ Big tech cannot collude with Government to censor speech, which they are. That’s makes them a defacto government agency. with is unconstitutional.”
No it doesn’t. Remember, collusion is not illegal according to trump supporters.
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc. can censor anything that violates their policies. Government pointing out a violation is not censorship.
The contorted argument that government pointing out policy violation or false claims makes private companies defacto government agencies is not an argument. It wouldn’t even fly in court.
“Nope. Section 230 doesn’t prevent big tech from censoring speech.”
Take a remedial English class. No one said that. You are making things up again or lying. This is what was said: “Section 230 protects big tech from being sued”
“Government pointing out a violation is not censorship.”
Government intending this to happen is a violation.
The rest of your response made incorrect assumptions. You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t even interpret statements correctly as noted above.
Anonymous,
“ Take a remedial English class. No one said that. You are making things up again or lying. This is what was said: “Section 230 protects big tech from being sued”
Anon, pay attention. This requires reading comprehension. Those arguing that SM should lose its section 230 protections are making the case that if companies continue to censor they will be sued. That’s the point of arguing on threatening to remove those protections.
Removing them won’t achieve the results they want which is companies thinking twice before censoring or otherwise risk being sued. That’s the whole argument. Removing section 230 will not prevent companies from censoring content at all. It will encourage it, BECAUSE it gives them reason TO censor potential litigious posters and their content content.
“It will encourage it, BECAUSE it gives them reason TO censor potential litigious posters and their content content.”
Wrong it enhances the ability to sue. You don’t know what you are taking about. The social media companies might call you an idiot because they don’t want section 230 removed and they disagree with you.
There are multiple avenues of attack, but when the media, academia and social media line up behind a President and his administration that doesn’t care about the Constitution, rule of law or individual freedom that means the country either has to fight or succumb to fascism.
You don’t even know what fascism is so if the letters look pretty you will accept it.
What false claim did he make? And how are the censors at Youtube (mostly college kids in their bedrooms) more qualified than a doctor to decide what is misinformation?
“ What false claim did he make?”
He claimed masks don’t work. That’s a false claim.
“He was making false claims. “
Wrong!
What false claims?
Provide proof.
“ Wrong!
What false claims?
Provide proof.”
“ Paul falsely claimed in the removed video, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection,” adding that “cloth masks don’t work.”
That’s a quote from Sen. Paul.
“A spokesperson for YouTube told NBC News that the video violated company policy on Covid-19 misinformation, which includes “claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects” or that masks don’t play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19.“
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/youtube-suspends-sen-rand-paul-over-a-video-falsely-claiming-masks-are-ineffective/ar-AANbXdz
It violated their policy so it got removed and he got suspended. He broke the rules he agreed to abide by when he signed up to use YouTube. It’s can’t get any more simple than that.
You didn’t provide proof. Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words you use.
“Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection,”
That is true. If masks prevented infection, no one wearing a mask would get infected. That has been proven. There is some potential reduction, but that is with a lot of caveats. Even skilled physicians wearing N-95 masks and changing them frequently can become infected. Wearing a mask is counterbalanced by improper usage of a mask that can cause the infection to spread. When all is said and done we don’t know if the masks help or harm.
You don’t want debate because you don’t know anything and neither do most of your Democrat friends that support cancelling. The way we learn is with open discussion. When you hide behind stopping the other from speaking we know you are likely lying.
“Turley is playing with semantics here”
Wrong!
Show us how Turley is playing with semantics.
“ Show us how Turley is playing with semantics.”
Turley is claiming Sen. Paul is being censored over his opposing views. What Turley leaves out is that the “opposing views” are actually false claims which ARE a violation of YouTube policy. YouTube didn’t censor Paul because he called masking mandates tyranny. He got censored because he falsely claimed marks don’t work and are not effective.
His play on semantics, false claims are his “ opposing views. Nope.
That sounds dumb. “Opposing” views are actually false claims”
Firstly, take out a dictionary and look up the words viewpoint, study and claims. I see that you still haven’t learned the meaning of virulent despite being explained to you numerous times.
Opposing views are not false claims. In order to be false, they have to be proven false. ALL the mask studies on ALL sides are open to question. You are foolish enough to believe that only “opposing views” are open to question.
We have all laid out our positions before.
What the Lefties are doing may be legal, but it isn’t right.
Up to us to do what is necessary to restore fairness and political integrity.
Monumentcolorado, why wouldn’t it be right for a private company to be able to control its own platform?
Republicans are the ones who are constantly championing the very freedoms these companies exercise, the freedom to do what what without government interference. Right? It may not seem right for them to be “tyrants” because they have rules that everyone who uses their platforms AGREE to.
If Sen. Paul doesn’t like what YouTube or Twitter or Facebook do with those who break THEIR rules he can post his views elsewhere or issue a statement via his press Secretary.
Turley’s own blog moderator pointed out that even here there are rules and everyone agreed to them. That gives him the authority to revoke, delete (censor) posts that violate them. Turley’s blog is exercising exactly the same thing the other platforms do.
Turley’s own words,
“ It is picking and choosing who can speak and what they can say. It has a right to do so as a private company but it is wrong to do so. It is a denial of free speech and we need to address the corporate control over political speech in the United States.”
The constitution doesn’t say free speech is absolute. It doesn’t say it’s wrong because private companies are exempt from the 1st amendment’s prohibitions.
Turley’s own moderator made a good point a while ago that those who post here are in essence in Turley’s house and one doesn’t come in to his house and does as they please, certain rules are required to be in his house. His house his rules and that’s exactly what YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are, they are someone else much bigger house and they CAN enforce the rules everyone in their house AGREED TO.
Sen. Paul should understand that. This isn’t a conspiracy to silence opposition. They are just enforcing their rules, just as Turley does.
Then your all for removing special provisions and suing them into bankruptcy.
John shwarz,
If by “special provisions” you mean the section 230 protections from liability then you still wouldn’t stop them from censoring or enforcing their policy. In fact it would encourage them to censor more because it would give them an incentive to remove possible comments, content, or views that they can be sued for.
Ahh, but that is circular reasoning. They could and would be sued and would go through millions and millions defending and settling suits.
“ They could and would be sued and would go through millions and millions defending and settling suits.”
No, all they could do is keep censoring and removing posters who pose a liability. Posters can’t sue over the removal because they have no constitutional right to post their messages or content.
Eliminating section 230 would not prevent them from censoring or removing people who pose a threat to their financial health.
“No, all they could do is keep censoring and removing posters who pose a liability.”
If you think the social media companies can be sued for postings advocating X, then they can be sued for those postings not advocating X.
You have a very strange way of looking at things and that demonstrates a lack of intellect.
Wrong!
Too many wrong comments to correct.
Anonymous,
“ Wrong!
Too many wrong comments to correct.”
No, just an inability to refute the facts. That much is obvious.
Wrong! You are making up your own facts. The social media companies tell a different story than you.
If they weren’t covered under Section 230 you’d be correct. But they are and you aren’t.
Anonymous,
“ If they weren’t covered under Section 230 you’d be correct. But they are and you aren’t.”
You really don’t understand at all.
Whether section 230 applies or not won’t prevent SM platforms from censoring those who violate policy.
You have not provided a single convincing argument proving your assertions. None.
Offer a credible rebuttal. My guess is you really can’t. That’s why you’re left with no effective rebuttal at all.
I and others have tried to explain it to you, but failed. Perhaps you should read one of the best opinions on this along with other reasons already presented to you that you likewise have an inability to understand.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-can-crack-section-230-11611946851
This attorney is an expert, far more expert than me. If you cannot get it via the WSJ or looking for a reprint not blocked, you can write back and I will reluctantly copy his op-ed. Based on what you write I don’t think you care enough. I think you like to live with ignorance and lies.
Rand Paul did nothing to violate anything, other than the capricious will and standards of juvenile oligarchs in Northern California. He said nothing, and did nothing, other than try to use the modern means of mass communication, to promulgate a statement to those who would hear it. That was his crime. And the thing that makes us all see that there is a vicious double standard is that if Rand Paul had had a “D” behind his name, he could say virtually anything about anyone or anything, including exhortations to political or personal violence. I bet that I could easily find Maxine Waters’ little rabble rouser of a speech encouraging political confrontation and some might say, violence, against members of the Trump Administration.
Please stop lying, you and everyone like you. You know the double standard is there, and you know that you are currently on the right side of it, which is why is troubles you not. If there was nothing to see here, I doubt that someone like Jonathan Turley would take time out of his very busy life to post this article about this issue. Stop. Lying.
“ Rand Paul did nothing to violate anything, other than the capricious will and standards of juvenile oligarchs in Northern California. ”
He did violate their policy. It’s as simple as that. He made false claims and he got booted for violating THEIR policies.
“ He said nothing, and did nothing, other than try to use the modern means of mass communication, to promulgate a statement to those who would hear it.”
He “tried”to use a modern PRIVATE means of mass communication that he AGREED to abide by ACCEPTING the policies THEY set in order to use THEIR PRIVATE platform. It’s not complicated.
Rand Paul is upset that he got in trouble for breaking rules he agreed to. Why is that so hard to grasp? It’s his own fault for getting censored.
I too, am in Monument, Colorado.
I’ve seen the comments here. Does anything the professor says give the censoring left a moment of reflection?
It doesn’t seem so. Good question. I believe they believe that they will forever be in power, leaving them with no reason to fear such tactics will be used against them. There is only one forever (eternity), but though tyranny may rule for generations, it always implodes.
Nope. They believe ” the science” even though flip flopping Fauci changes the science to suit the lefts means every step of the way. They narcissistically believe that only THEY can be right. ALWAYS.
Fauci has changed his mind continuously, and as Fauci changes his mind, people like Svelaz change their conclusions. There is no thought process involved. Maybe they feel no embarrassment because they don’t know enough to know what embarrassment is.
Anonymous,
Being science illiterate seems to be your problem.
Fauci can change his mind when new evidence provides a need to change an previous certainty. That’s what science is all about. It’s not about one assumption or idea set in stone. Even long held truths change when new evidence provides proof of that change.
I don’t need to feel embarrassed over something I know of to be true.
Science is not about flip-flopping though it seems you think it is. Science is not about lying and should not be political. Fauci is far more a politician than he is a scientist. Science is discussing all sides of the story. Cancel culture has no part in science.
You might not feel embarrassed because you don’t know enough to recognize you should be.
Paul is such a delicate snowflake. He and his wife established their own Opthomology board so Paul could say he’s a board certified ophthalmologist.
Liberals lie by omission. Paul was certified by American Board of Ophthalmology for decades and CHOSE to withdraw over politics.
Do you want to be a credible and reliable person? Let’s hear an apology or expand on an additional comment to understand better what you are trying to say.
As is always the case. Leftists always loose in the field of ideas. It is impossible to debate Paul. He quotes all the science to support his position. The covid panic porn crowd has nothing to support their desire to control a free people.
The UK dropped all covid madates July 18th and saw a 40% drop in cases. We still have no explaination for our Jan. 8th huge nose dive in cases. I cant believe what Fauci tells me about the future when he has no answers for the past. (since he cant say protocols have no effect on viral spread).
(music)
Rand Paul!
Came home!
To his wife and family…
After paying girls in a cathouse overseas.
And the time that he’d served…
Had shattered all his verbs.
And left a little fungus in his pee!
And…the morphine eased his pain.
Like a Kentucky train.
And gave him all the laxititives he lacked.
With a purple fart and a monkey on his back
He and his father are both MD’s and have every right to their opinion…it’s just a sign of our times…we are in a civil war…just wait and see what happens in 2022…we will figure out how to steal the government back…and then watch Biden,Harris,Pelosi,Schummer’s minds go blank…even Fox News and youtude censored out part of an interview Bongino had with Trump…took out the part when Trump said the election was stolen…I’ve never seen an MD as dumb and brain dead as Fauci…he just says whatever the administration tells him to say…reminds me of the time the Italian mobs ran NYC…controlled everything from tobacco to alcohol to drugs to guns…plus all small businesses and DC…it’s just history repeating itself…who’s controlling DC today???…it sure ain’t Biden/Harris,
“the fear of a de facto state media”? It’s already here and working overtime
To coin a phrase: “Democracy dies in darkness “
Not dead yet but in severely wounded.