We have previously discussed the worrisome signs of a rising generation of censors in the country as leaders and writers embrace censorship and blacklisting. The latest chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech. Another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one out of four supporting violence.
Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Others are supporting actual book burning. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship. Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.
The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on the left applaud such censorship. A prior poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”
We discussed this issue recently with regard to a lawsuit against SUNY. It is also discussed in my forthcoming law review article, Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming).
We have seen how in universities (including state schools) this can turn into a type of “heckler’s veto” where speeches are cancelled in advance or terminated suddenly due to the disruption of protesters. We recently discussed such an incident at State University of New York at Binghamton. The danger is not just that protesters can stop others from speaking but that school authorities can use that speech as a pretext for barring or shutting down events. The issue is not engaging in protest against such speakers, but to enter events for the purpose of preventing others from hearing such speakers. Universities create forums for the discussion of a diversity of opinions. Entering a classroom or event to prevent others from speaking is barring free speech. I would feel the same way about preventing such people from protests outside such events. However, the concern is not with outdoor events where all groups can be as loud and cantankerous as their voices will bear. Both sides have free speech rights to express. The issue on campus is the entrance into halls, or classrooms to prevent others from hearing speakers or opposing viewpoints by disputing events.
This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others. Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a “slaveholder” as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students).
We previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter. A district court has now ordered Thatcher to pay $17,000 and undergo First Amendment training. However, Thatcher remained defiant and the university appeared complicit in his actions by the lack of disciplinary action.
The pro-life students had written messages on the sidewalk like “You CAN be pregnant & successful” and “Unborn lives matter” to “Women need love, NOT abortion.” Thatcher got students from his 8 a.m. class to help remove the anti-abortion messages and their chalk was taken away to write pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk. The students seem entirely unconcerned that they are censoring speech and engaging in a grossly intolerant act. Instead, they refer to their teacher as telling them that they should do so. Thatcher then walked up and confronted the pro-life students. Thatcher invoked the controversial restriction of free speech to “zones” and says that there is no free speech right for this type of writing outside of that zone. When the students explain that they have permission, he then proceeds to rub out their messages and declared “you have permission to put it down — I have permission to get rid of it.”
A few years ago, I debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who is a leading voice for speech codes. Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. I disagree. It is the antithesis of free speech and the failure of schools to protect the exercise of free speech is the antithesis of higher education. In most schools, people are not allowed to disrupt events. They are escorted out of such events and told that they can protest outside of the events since others have a right to listen to opposing views. These disruptions however are often planned to continually interrupt speakers until the school authorities step in to cancel the event. Some schools (as discussed in the SUNY lawsuit) do not wait in trying to cancel events in anticipation of such hecklers. At SUNY when the speaker insisted on trying to speak to the audience, a protester with a bullhorn was eventually led out of the room. However, he was allowed to simply hand the bullhorn to the next disrupter and eventually the hecklers prevailed as the officials shutdown the event.
Absent enforcement of school rules on such disruptions, there is little hope for the open exchange of ideas and a diversity of opinions on campus. It can unleash a type of tit-for-tat pattern of retaliation as speakers are prevented from speaking on controversial subjects. Our campuses then become little more than screaming matches. The rules of most schools properly draw the line between protests and disruptions. Everyone is allowed to be heard. However, if you enter to disrupt it, you are disrupting free speech.
The added increase in embracing violence is particularly chilling. A quarter of those polled supported violence to prevent others from speaking. This is the core of the philosophy of the Antifa movement. It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Indeed, Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.” It is an illusion designed to promote what Antifa is resisting “white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and genocide.” Thus, all of these opposing figures are deemed fascistic and thus unworthy of being heard.
Antifa has a long and well-documented history of such violence. Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
Notably, when George Washington University student and self-professed Antifa member Jason Charter was charged as the alleged “ringleader” of efforts to take down statues in Washington, D.C., Charter declared the “movement is winning.” He is right and this poll shows the success.
Willing to use violence to stop speech? Trample 1st Amendment rights. Those founders were brilliant to include the 2nd Amendment for just such an occasion.
Folks seem to have lost sight of the most basic of understandings: that one person’s rights stop where the next person’s begins.
…”how do I get out of this chicken outfit…”
Democrats preach that China is right. Oh, how the authoritarians in China must love them.
I wonder what Americans would think about the current crackdown in China. Note, this is over and above the genocide of Uyghurs.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/beijing-unleashes-sweeping-bid-to-remold-society_4008852.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-09-22&mktids=1f25b1c5e93f239fa0d91132cb5fbce9&est=ZbsQxWjVX%2FByKw03hvBx3G%2FK%2FBCAV6suLcOSf%2BekWbK%2FcKx5OpjqDigLLb%2Fqht7yzw%3D%3D
“You get the sense that what Xi is saying is, ‘No, we don’t want a society that’s individualistic. Your job as a Chinese citizen is to support and follow the state,’” Atkinson told The Epoch Times.
“The goal of Chinese society is not to make people happy, it’s to make the state powerful,” he said.
I don’t think tangling will stop the steamroller of Leftism, either here or in China. It will only render it easier.
The authoritarian regime in China turned to limited capitalism to save itself from extinction. This is because socialism always runs out of other people’s money. Capitalism is only as fair as the system upon which it operates. In a nation of strong individual rights, like the US, capitalism is the most fair and successful economic system on the planet. When operated by an authoritarian regime infamous for abusing human rights, those abuses continue under capitalism. It’s not capitalism that’s the problem; its the level of individual freedoms that’s the deciding factor.
Expect China’s economy to tank soon if they really do go back to their socialist roots.
The rising intolerance of dissent on college campuses should concern everyone.
This is the end product of indoctrination in the public school system. If teachers and administrators left their personal opinions and politics at the door, then it would be immaterial to their ability to do their job. It wouldn’t matter if an elementary teacher was a Socialist or Communist or far right. All that would matter is their job performance. Can they teach reading, writing, and math?
However, the reality is that Democrat activists use their positions to further their political goals. Democrats took over the public education system and academia, and use their platforms to indoctrinate students. Public schools have dismal academic records. The number of children who read below grade level should humiliate the public education industry. They can’t teach an acceptable percentage of children how to read, yet they proclaim themselves experts on social justice and politics.
It is the rest of the country’s fault for allowing Democrat activism to infest public schools.
Schools should teach children how to think, not what to think.
We have arrived at the point where activists are removing meritocracy from education. The best students are no longer allowed to enter the most rigorous high schools. That does not produce a pleasing racial distribution. Race, gender, and Party are all that matters. Not math, reading, or writing.
We need to weed out this infestation. We should pass laws banning political indoctrination. History curriculum should be approved on a strictly bipartisan basis. There should be no politics whatsoever in ELA, math, and science. Critical reasoning curriculum, bipartisan approved, should be taught in public schools. Students should learn how to evaluate positions, and construct a reasoned opinion. Debate should be an elective in more schools. It would be healthy for more students to have to understand the other side’s position before forming their own.
We are graduating a generation of useless fools. Puppets. Useful idiots. Propaganda junkies. Brainwashed sheep.
Karen S.
I get what you are saying, and applaud your ideas.
But I think what we need is, as another poster says, a divorce.
At the local level, form private schools, pods, large homeschooling groups that focuses on STEM, writing, reading, civics, history in context to include the good, the bad and the ugly. All of it. But again in context. Teaching critical thinking. Objective thinking and reasoning.
Get junk food out of the cafeteria.
And bring back recess/gym.
I agree with all your points, Upstate Farmer. In public school, my son had very short recess, and he rarely had time to finish lunch. The kids were not allowed to run or play tag. Even so, I taught him how to read at a young age, not the public school. I discovered they still used the debunked 3 cuing method to teach reading, and blended learning. I taught him math, when Common Core frustrated him. He calls it “real math.” I taught him cursive because the public school doesn’t teach it anymore. Kids can’t even sign their names.
Last year, I fully homeschooled him. He learned zero distance learning the last couple months of his 4th grade year, when the pandemic hit. We did a book based homeschool for 5th grade. I had him tested at the start and end of the year. He scored almost off the chart in math and ELA at the end of his 5th grade homeschool year.
However, since he’s an only child, we live in a rural area, and with the shutdown, I worried he wasn’t around kids often enough. We put him back in public school for 6th grade. He’s been in school for weeks, and has learned zero. It’s not only review, it’s early review. A lot of the class is behind, so the class is not progressing. He said he’s not learning anything. The school itself is so easy it’s boring. While the teacher is going over math problems on the board, he races through them on paper, and then reads a book. The only thing he’s getting out of school right now is being around kids. It’s the social, not the academic aspect. After a long day of school, he learns at home, when we work on reviewing some of the advanced math he’d learned so he doesn’t forget it.
It’s making me reconsider public school. If I homeschool again I’d probably do as you suggested, and try to find a homeschooling group, which is essentially a tiny private school.
Karen says:
“Schools should teach children how to think, not what to think.”
Do you think on your own? Of simply parrot verbatim what you have read? Of all the Trumpists on this blog, you stand alone in conveying the impression that there is hardly a thought in your head which has not been placed there by someone else.
Remember the University of Florida student, Andrew Meyer…The “don’t tase me bro” student. Help, help, help. Unfortunately Andrew was not a Life Alert customer.
Just waiting for the next s@@tlib to explain why shutting down undesired speech is a good idea and consistent with the 1st Amendment. And of course their definition of “hate speech” is quite broad, they define “hate speech” as any speech they hate.
“Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech.”
So in the name of “free speech,” he violates another person’s right to free speech.
Only in a world that embraces contradictions could you get such absurdities.
“ So in the name of “free speech,” he violates another person’s right to free speech.”
No, it’s the same point Turley uses. A heckler is not violating another’s free speech. It’s countering it with more free speech. It may be rude, certainly, but it’s exactly what Turley often says about “bad” free speech can only be opposed by MORE free speech. A heckler has just as much a right to heckle an opposing view. Free speech doesn’t mean you have a right not to be interrupted. In a public square there really are no rules against heckling or shouting down a speaker unless it’s in a venue where there are rules to be observed.
Heckling IS a form of free speech. What Turley doesn’t mention is the other person CHOOSING to stop talking vs. dealing with the heckler and continuing with his point.
A heckler can be shouted down by others or he can be removed if it’s too disruptive. Especially at a venue or university auditorium.
Trump had hecklers thrown out at his rallies. Would that constitute censorship?
Turley loves free speech, unless it’s the right to vote, then crickets.
Fishwings, Turley does not oppose the right to vote. What legal voter do you think Turley opposes?
Voter ID is not in any way associated with any decline in voting. In fact, voting has increased where voter ID is used. Over 80% of Americans support voter ID. The idea that voter ID is voter suppression is a myth. It’s just Democrat propaganda.
Voter ID is one method to reduce cheating. Groups that want to cheat oppose efforts to reduce cheating.
Karen says: “
“Voter ID is one method to reduce cheating. Groups that want to cheat oppose efforts to reduce cheating.”
Are we to understand that you STILL to this day believe the election was stolen on account of massive Democratic cheating?
And you have proof which will hold up in court?
Yes or on.
And/or a shot to the beans with a non-lethal bag of the same.
“A heckler has just as much a right to heckle an opposing view.”
There is no such thing as a right to a “heckler’s veto.” It’s not his event.
And more broadly, there is no such thing as a “right” that includes violating another individual’s rights.
When the rule becomes, one has the right to silence others, it is only a matter of time before the words turn to violence.
The left doesn’t think of what happens if the right decides to silence the left. We have seen the left act violently or threateningly where others are in disagreement. What happens when the others refuse to be pushed?
And when it happens, Leftists will have the nerve to act surprised.
Casual Observer .. Yes, they’ll be “morally outraged”! That mob acts as though they are the only ones in the universe. Talk about privilege and exceptionalism — all the things they are supposedly against.
Casual, that is a good point. We see that happening at times, and the polite Republicans then apologize.
S. Meyer,
“ The left doesn’t think of what happens if the right decides to silence the left.”
It already does. They have even resorted to violence to silence the left. It was quite common at trump rallies where protesters were beaten up or shouted down. Shouldn’t they have been left alone in expressing their disagreement?
Trump approved of shutting up those protesters thru violence. The right is just as guilty of committing those transgressions against free speech.
“They have even resorted to violence to silence the left. It was quite common at trump rallies where protesters were beaten up or shouted down.”
If I rent a space, it is my right to determine who enters the space. If someone refuses to leave then he can be escorted out.
Now, provide an example of violence at a Trump rally. I can show you plenty of videos of violent leftist behavior where people got hurt or killed, where areas were blocked off, where fires were set and where looting occurred..
You talk out of ignorance.
“If I rent a space . . .”
Well said.
I asked Svelaz to provide an example of violence at a Trump rally. Take note how Svelaz disappeared with his tail between his legs when facts were required. Take note how he can’t seem to deal with spaces that are rented for private gatherings, where those bothering others can be escorted out.
That is typical of Svalez and all of his other aliases. No facts. Plain ignorance. A waste of time.
“[I]t is only a matter of time before the words turn to violence.”
And therein lies a source of the confusion (with all due respect).
“Violence” is just an extreme form of physical force. And a “heckler’s veto” is the initiation of physical force — and thus a violation of the speaker’s right to free speech. What those miscreants are doing is no different than a neighbor blaring loud music into your home.
That “matter of time” you speak of is here, right now — via the “heckler’s veto.”
Sam, when I was talking about violence, I meant it as physical, but not one side beating up on the other. Instead, the other side finally ratchets up their voices when real blows are exchanged.
For the most part today, it is one side, the left, being up on everyone else that doesn’t comply with their demands.
SM: I figured you meant fisticuffs. I just wanted to piggyback on your comment, to make the point about heckler’s veto being a form of initiating physical force.
Sam, you are right on both counts. There is a point where too much heckling is a form of physical force. [Newton’s Third Law 🙂 ]
“There is a point where too much heckling . . .”
Exactly! And that point is when the speaker is *physically* unable to continue his speech (and to exercise his right to free speech).
Some here are creating a red herring, and intentionally dropping the context — as in: Speakers, comedians, et al., face hecklers routinely. What’s wrong with that?
I faced single, temporary hecklers all the time. Usually, I just waited patiently until they burned themselves out. It was rude, but I was able to continue my speech. However, a few times, there was a cabal of sustained hecklers, whose intentions were to shut down my speech. That’s when the heckling went from rude to a violation of my free speech rights. (And a violation of the rights of those who hosted my talks.)
The ship is heading towards the rocks and two-thirds of the passengers are helping it get there sooner.
Marx: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Orwell: Told you so.
While the anti-free speech crusaders twist themselves into pretzels to justify their fascist tactics, they are forgetting one very important thing: Their “power” to cancel others will only last as long as the Democratic Party holds the reins of power. But the Democrats, so eager to cancel Trump and push to the left, are being sloppy and stupid. They are antagonizing parts of their base (the saner ones) and many independents (where their electoral victory actually lies). This rush to the left, poorly thought out and with no real long-term plan, will be their undoing. Once their power dissolves, and the conservatives take over the government, let’s see how many lefties still support censorship, canceling and “righteous” violence. For any nation to survive, its fundamental values cannot be relative or mutable. There has to be some stability, or the nation heads towards civil war. The left has cut off every channel for expression – policing words and thoughts, and prohibiting what they ingenuously call “misinformation” – and has left few legal and nonviolent outlets for its opponents. At some point, the social fabric will tear and it will be Hobbes’ world.
Giocon1 says:
“The left has cut off every channel for expression – policing words and thoughts, and prohibiting what they ingenuously call “misinformation” – and has left few legal and nonviolent outlets for its opponents.”
We call it “disinformation,” but lying Trumpists call it “fake news” and police the thoughts of Republicans by cancelling them as members in good standing for refusing to lie on behalf of Trump, e.g., Liz Cheney.
Cultural Marxism, Maoism, Feminism, UNism, Eurotrashism, New Left, and Rules for Rubes have empowered the sick, the lame and the lazy since it was brought into academia to destroy the greatest country since 1960 (Marcuse and Hegel). The legal profession long ago forgot that the USA is not a mobocracy but a Republic and the psychopathics with inferiority complexes shall not infringe on the rights off the individual. The legal profession doesn’t even teach this fundamental founding in law school anymore, especially Ivies and West Coast Schools. Shall not means shall not. It does not mean life’s losers get mob up and vote or poll away rights. The judiciary is responsible for more destruction than all other branches of government combined and the reason the USA is a failed state.
And just wait until this cohort is running things in another 20 – 30 years. Don’t worry sweet, tolerant lefties, you’ll get your desired ‘hate speech’ laws soon enough. The days of the traditional free speech liberal are mostly gone. And if you oppose these laws, you’re a ‘nazi’ too.
antonio
They have no problem with shout downs and violence? I’d like to know how they feel about the Americans who protested on January 6th?
Can I stop some dumbass wokista by killing her to express my right to stop free speech? Seems like a good defense to me. “Your honor, I was just exercising my free speech right to stop free speech.”
“ Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. I disagree. ”
It actually is. It’s exactly what Turley often says is a way to combat bad free speech, with more free speech. Heckling has always been around as a form of countering someone else’s speech. Comedians deal with it all the time.
Turley’s laments about the “erosion of free speech” ignores the increasing acceptance of incessant lying and deliberate manipulation of facts that dominate current discussions on issues. His old fashioned remedy that that kind of speech is best countered by more free speech is becoming useless. Which leads others to more drastic alternatives.
Turley often ignores the fact that some conservatives deliberately engage in inflammatory and provocative speech just for the purpose of forcing others to shut them down and use those attempts to “show the left is against free speech”. Ironically this happens a lot with conservatives too. Think tanks, blogs, websites that are conservatives leaning constantly kick out liberal posters or shut down comments when their views are not welcome. Turley focuses only on censorship from the left, but ignores that of the right which is just as guilty of such behavior. Even this blog has had its own issues with censorship.
If Turley is truly concerned about the erosion of free speech he would be the first to support something like the fairness doctrine. Because it’s essentially what he’s advocating. Even in the private sector.
Think tanks, blogs, websites that are conservatives leaning constantly kick out liberal posters or shut down comments when their views are not welcome
I would be interested in what that looks like, just so I can gauge what you consider censorship.
iowan2 wrote, “I would be interested in what that looks like, just so I can gauge what you consider censorship.”
In other words Svelaz support your claim with facts.
“In God we trust; all others must bring data”
– William Edwards Deming
William Edwards Deming was an American statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and consultant.
I’ve been to a few conservative blogs where I have been kicked out simply because my comments were either arbitrarily labeled false claims or simply just kicked out without an explanation.
One such site was the Kansas policy institute which doesn’t “tolerate” false claims and warns people that posting privileges will be revoked of false claims are made. Even when postings are supported by documentation that they demand. They literally don’t want to have any points of view or comments that will sow doubt on their claims. The mere warning that no false claims will be tolerated is a form of censorship. Just like Facebook.
How about in Trump rallies? Those voicing an opposing view are shouted down or violently prevented from expressing it when their posters or signs are ripped from them?
Even on this blog people’s comments have been deleted because of a controversial or offensive posting.
“How about in Trump rallies?”
Trump rallies are rented private spaces. Svelaz, don’t you ever think before you speak?
Public universities are supposed to protect the rule of law. If the left chooses to prevent speech, the university should intervene to permit the speakers to speak. If they can’t do that for one side, they need to prevent both sides from having speakers.
Svelaz does not understand the rule of law. Maybe a sports analogy would help. “Fair play,” let the referee judge based on fairness instead of bias or graft.
S. Meyer,
“ Trump rallies are rented private spaces. Svelaz, don’t you ever think before you speak?”
As usual you miss the point entirely. Turley argues that the left among other things uses violence or intimidation to prevent others from speaking, conservatives. Regardless of whether the venue is public or private.
He even mentions corporate censorship which is private social media companies.
Turley is saying the left uses violence to silence opposing views. Guess what? So does the right and as I pointed out as an example at trump rallies they have silenced opposing views thru violence and intimidation. Whether the event is public or private the principle that Turley is arguing still applies to a trump rally.
“ Public universities are supposed to protect the rule of law. If the left chooses to prevent speech, the university should intervene to permit the speakers to speak.”
Turley’s examples are often devoid of context in why universities don’t intervene. Most conservative speakers do get to speak at those universities. What Turley doesn’t distinguish is the few conservatives who are only invited to speak at such universities with the deliberate intent of upsetting liberals on their own turf and therefore inviting violent responses. This creates a situation where universities are forced to put safety ahead of speech. This is why those speakers are oftentimes prevented from speaking, not because they are conservative, but because they are deliberately inciting the reactions that force universities to cancel such speeches. It’s not a genuine attempt at arguing a view. It’s a deliberate intent to inflame liberal groups so they they can argue that their free speech is being censored.
The law doesn’t say a university MUST allow anyone to speak. There are limits just as it is with everything else. The right to free speech is not absolute.
“As usual you miss the point entirely. “
Svelaz, you miss everything and get almost everything wrong. If Turley said what you are saying he is correct. The left uses violence and intimidation both in public and private venues.
Learn the difference between public, private and a government entity. Learn the difference between truth and falsehood; evidence and opinion. I’m done trying to get through to your brain. The skull is too thick.
SM
” . . . with the deliberate intent of upsetting liberals . . .”
Here’s an idea:
How about universities putting civilized behavior and the Enlightenment ahead of coddling spoiled, barbaric students?
Wow, ‘The Kansas Policy Institute’. Again, I have no idea about your content. Left out of your claim, is the examples of others allowed to post false claims.
Small potatoes, to entire colleges shutting down speakers invited to campus to broaden the debate. But, sorry the Kansas Policy Institute hurt your feelings.
I was hoping you could direct me to institutional examples, of public censorship. Something were the facts are available. There are tens of thousands of examples of the media, and big tech silencing information they are threatened by. All Screen captured for people to see exactly what issue triggered the censorship.
If what you’re saying is true, I agree that this site and the other you mentioned are wrong. As a conservative I defend free speech and defend my views with free speech. The question is why have so many liberals abandoned that approach. When they suppress speech it suggests their arguments are weak or that they simply want to be totalitarian. Are liberals really ok with these Soviet style tactics? Do they know the history of totalitarian communist governments? Perhaps the next poll question should be “Are you ok with killing people who don’t share your views?”
Svelaz:
First, I support free speech, even when I vehemently disagree with it.
It appears to me that you are comparing a lack of free speech in comments sections with the following:
1. Targeting businesses that don’t want to participate in gay weddings, or provide custom art with the messaging that men can turn into women, for destruction. Ex. The baker who has been sued repeatedly, this last time for refusing to custom bake a cake that’s blue on the outside and pink on the inside to claim that a man can actually become a woman.
2. Violence and threats of violence, as well as shouting down invited conservative speakers at college campuses across America.
3. Big Tech censoring political dissent, as well as any story that could detract from a Democrat candidate in an election. Many stores are censored that are absolutely true. FB, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitter claimed to be digital communications, similar to the telephone, but they censor like China.
4. You can lose your job if you don’t agree with far Left propaganda. If you don’t want to participate in racist CRT training, or don’t support racist, Marxist, anti-cop, pro-criminal BLM, you could lose your job. If you state the obvious, that there are biological differences between the sexes, or that the sexes statistically gravitate towards certain fields, you can lose your job.
5. The public education system harasses and censors conservative students.
6. Hollywood has a McCarthy blacklist of conservatives, who find it very difficult to get employed.
When an individual creates a blog, that’s their blog. They might ban trolls who insult them. People can be incredibly mean under cover of anonymity online. There is something about the distance of a computer screen that brings out truly appalling behavior. Therefore, many people curate what they allow to remain in the comments sections. Others treat their blogs like a vanity project, and only allow positive comments. There are parents who allow their children to have an online presence, with comments that must go through their mediation. They do not permit some comments to go through. I share my son’s art online with family members. Even though the site has strict controls, such as parents must add people to the list who can view the art, it still requires parents to review and approve individual comments before the child may view them.
If you form a club, you are allowed to decide whom you want to include or exclude. Maybe you don’t want a Dodgers fan in a Cubs club, especially if he joined specifically to troll the Cubbies fans. Did you join the policy forum specifically to troll them?
These are ways in which individuals decide who they want in their group. That’s the right of free association. If a woman showed up on my property screaming that horses shouldn’t be kept or ridden, I’d have the right not to associate with her or allow her on my private property. She’d have the full right to spout her opinions off my property, however.
You cannot compare the curated comments section of private blogs with the totalitarian censorship, harassment, and persecution conservatives face in publicly funded schools and colleges. Big Tech claimed it would act like the phone company, only the operator listens in on your conversations, cuts you off if she disagrees, and rips the phone out of the wall if you disagree with her politics. If Big Tech wants to act like a private Democrat publisher, then it needs to lose its 230 protection, and must truthfully disclose its political position, censorship, and bias on its site. It should also be prevented from interfering with competing sites, such as Parlor.
How do you think a MAGA hat would be received at a BLM or Antifa rally? Do you think they would tolerate it? They should.
I remember this great video in which a woman told Kirk he wasn’t welcome at her rally, asking questions. She called the police on him, who then proceeded to explain to her that her right to free speech did not trump his. Those are words to live by.
Iowan2:
Okay, smarty pants, you asked for it. Watch this Newsmax host shutdown unwelcome views.
Ready?
https://youtu.be/tCGYmP-mlBc
Your move….
Again, that is a one of. Not the kind of censorship that get people fired for wrong speak in their private lives. The institutional canceling that’s been going one for years. Talk show hosts have been managing their interviews forever. Nothing new. But refuse to call a man a women? To properly identify a persons sex, is now a fireable offense.
I have stated many times that I agree with Turley that bad speech should not entail losing one’s job. I just disagree that good speech is sufficient to counter liars. Liars are indifferent to good speech, that is, facts.
Shaming, ostracizing, ignoring and boycotting are all additional means by which decent people can counter liars or those who profit on them, like Fox News, and regrettably Turley himself.
” I just disagree that good speech is sufficient to counter liars. Liars are indifferent to good speech, that is, facts.”
Jeff, no one cares what the liar thinks, so the comment you made above is rather ignorant. You are more interested in what other people think when they listen to people you don’t agree with. More speech helps clear the air and provide both sides of the story, but like a true liar, you only want your side to be heard.
You survive based on the ability to believe your own lies and remain ignorant.
You’re a Nazi.
Svelaz wrote, “It actually is. It’s exactly what Turley often says is a way to combat bad free speech, with more free speech. Heckling has always been around as a form of countering someone else’s speech.”
It comes as no surprise that people completely missed the real point; using your Constitutional right to intentionally infringe on someone else’s Constitutional right is an outright abuse of rights and it doesn’t matter which side is doing it.
Svelaz wrote, “Turley often ignores the fact that some conservatives deliberately engage in inflammatory and provocative speech just for the purpose of forcing others to shut them down and use those attempts to “show the left is against free speech”. “
Now we get to the core of your ignorant argument; no Svelaz, speech that you don’t like does not force or justify the use unethical anti-Constitutional tactics to stop the speech. You’re argument is sophomoric rationalizing nonsense.
Svelaz wrote, “Think tanks, blogs, websites that are conservatives leaning constantly kick out liberal posters or shut down comments when their views are not welcome.”
Here’s my experience with that; I see that when Liberal** not liberal* posters are challenged regularly about their rhetoric and they cannot back up their rhetoric with facts and logic they simply go away. Other than obvious internet trolls that should be banned, I don’t see conservative sites banning those with opposing opinions but I cannot say the same about the political left, they are constantly banning those with opposing opinions, I’ve had it happen to me so many times that I can honestly say that it’s a pattern of the political left.
*liberal: adjective, 1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
**Liberal: noun, supporter of political policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
Svelaz wrote, “If Turley is truly concerned about the erosion of free speech he would be the first to support something like the fairness doctrine”
The “fairness doctrine” is nonsense. Being “fair” is an individual perspective and subject to extreme bias. Consider the political left’s ridiculous “fair share” taxation arguments, there is no such thing as fair when it comes to anything political in our form of governing. “Fair” is term used in psychological propaganda that’s specifically designed to steer people towards classism, totalitarianism and ultimately Marxism.
Rats, I just noticed a couple of grammatical errors that I missed in my final edit. I’m sure everyone will get the idea.
Excellent rebuttal. We are living in 1933 Germany.
If something is a lie, show why it is a lie. Let facts from both sides come out and the truth will surface. Otherwise it’s very likely you just have a difference of opinion. It really sounds like you (as is often the case with liberals) are calling every opinion that doesn’t fit your narrative a lie. It damages your credibility.
Kung Fu. Wuhan Flu. Batman. Robinhood. Hitler. German American Bund. Mao. Stalin. Trump.
The times are not a changing. Went into Dartmouth, come out dumb too. Hustling round nitwits in the alligator shoes. They’re keeping the humans down.
I think we are past the point if debate. This is a totalitarian movement, period, willing to use violence. Leftists are the only domestic terrorists that exist in any meaningful way in America. I really do believe this began with parenting trends that have only worsened with subsequent generations. I think there was a time we could forestall all this – I’m not entirely sure that is going to be possible in the relatively near future if left unabated.
James wrote, “I really do believe this began with parenting trends that have only worsened with subsequent generations. I think there was a time we could forestall all this – I’m not entirely sure that is going to be possible in the relatively near future if left unabated.”
Read the comment in this link for a little more on that topic.
Thanks for that link — very interesting website.
“This is a totalitarian movement, period, willing to use violence. Leftists are the only domestic terrorists ”
James, to me, what you say means one of two reactions. Accept enslavement or resist. Based on the left’s use of force, resistance means more force.
Jonathan wrote, “We have previously discussed the worrisome signs of a rising generation of censors in the country as leaders and writers embrace censorship and blacklisting.”
When are you going to stop soft-balling this, these people are using the same kind of tactics that were used in 1930’s Germany as they embraced totalitarianism; you will assimilate to their standards or else, persecution is the new norm for these people. These people are a scourge on our society, our culture, and our form of government and these things makes them anti-American and anti-Constitution and therefore an “enemy” to We the People.
This comes down to the fact that Leftist always lose on the battle field of ideas. “free and open debate” is the most danger to leftist agenda items. So it must be shut down.
It seems from a series of posts here, that claiming to be “offended” is one way. to at least force others to refrain form certain words (Wuhan Flu) or concepts (man and woman). an effective strategy at the moment.
iowan2 wrote, “This comes down to the fact that Leftist always lose on the battle field of ideas. “free and open debate” is the most danger to leftist agenda items. So it must be shut down.”
^^^ THIS ^^^ is spot on!
iowan2 wrote, “It seems from a series of posts here, that claiming to be “offended” is one way. to at least force others to refrain form certain words (Wuhan Flu) or concepts (man and woman). an effective strategy at the moment.”
Don’t forget about calling anyone that opposes them a racist.
“Leftist always lose on the battle field of ideas. “free and open debate””
That is why leftists rely on trickery or violence instead of their ideas.
Iowan2, you are right, of course.
How did the Left become the group with the power to enforce punishment when only they are offended? Plenty of other people are offended at the anti-American, anti-cop, anti-man, and anti-biological women sentiment of the Left, yet the Left does not contort itself to remove the offense.
It doesn’t matter if they offend others. All that matters is if they are offended. That’s the behavior of a narcissist.
I’m offended that the Left demands that I agree that a biological man can decide to become a woman, and I have to allow him into women’s spaces, like changing rooms, showers, and sports. My entire gender has been reduced to a state of mind. That’s different than a man simply taking on a feminine persona. The Left seeks to punish and destroy anyone who believes in biological sexes. Women who object to penises in their chaining rooms, or biological men taking unfair advantage in women’s sports divisions, are denounced. They must keep silent and sweet, and cheer on the males invading these spaces. I find that pretty offensive.