Trump Creates “Free Speech Site” While Barring Criticism of the Site or Its Creators

Many of us have called for free speech alternatives to social media given the expanding censorship programs on Twitter, Facebook, and other sites. Former President Donald Trump announced this week that he was supporting the creation of such an alternative site in TRUTH Social. Any alternative to the regulated speech found on social media is welcomed from a free speech perspective, but TRUTH Social contains a fatal flaw as a free speech site: it reserves the right to censor any criticism of itself. The inclusion of this reservation in the “Terms of Service” was not just hypocritical given the free speech premise of the site but self-destructive as the creators seek to roll out the site.

The “Terms of Service” also include a prohibition on the “excessive use of capital letters.” That rule seems a tad odd given the name of the site, which is fifty percent caps: “TRUTH Social.”  Then there is President Trump’s own signature use of all caps writing.

However, the loss of all caps communications is hardly a major blow against free speech. What is far more concerning is this specific term for service:

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

You may not access or use the Site for any purpose other than that for which we make the Site available. The Site may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by us.

As a user of the Site, you agree not to:

    1. disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site.

While companies like Twitter have embraced biased and extensive censorship platforms, they do not censor criticism of their sites. Indeed, while Twitter has refused repeatedly to “verify” my identity, it has never censored my many tweets criticizing the company or its officers.

It is not clear what “us” encompasses, which adds a dangerous ambiguity to the regulation of speech on the site. Free speech demands bright lines. Saying that you can censor criticism of “us” without a definition is an absurd rule of service.

The reservation also uses sweeping and ill-defined terms of “disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm,” which could mean anything. Merriam Webster defines “to tarnish” as “to dull or destroy the luster of by or as if by air, dust, or dirt” or “to detract from the good quality of ...[or]  to bring disgrace on.” That could mean anything from mocking to outright defamation.

We have faced such issues on this blog. As a site committed to free speech values, we minimize the deletion of comments. As stated in the site policy, we will remove threats, doxxing, or personal attacks as well as possible copyright violations, profanity, and openly racist comments. (Profanity is automatically deleted by WordPress through a list of prohibited words). Repeat violators can be barred from the comment section. However, our stated default is against such deletions. We prefer good speech to correct any bad speech on the site. We delete a tiny fraction of comments despite our disagreement with the tenor or substance of some postings.

Many blogs have eliminated comment sections. We have kept our comment section as a forum for free speech. Comments routinely criticize or attack me as the host. To that end, I have never deleted a criticism of the site or myself without some violent or threatening element. That includes comments that contain clearly false statements about me, my writings, or the site. Moreover, I follow a long-standing view of columnists that it is a privilege to write for newspapers or major sites. The cost of that ticket is to allow others to criticize your writings or views. That is why I rarely respond to comments on the blog.

To be honest, I do not put much stock in the objections of the many commentators crying foul over the rule on TRUTH Social. Many of these same writers are silent or openly supportive of censorship rules on social media to combat what they define as “disinformation” on subjects ranging from election fraud to climate change to gender issues.  There is even a new Orwellian term for censorship: “content modification.” Saying that you are no better than we are is hardly a compelling argument.

Nevertheless, the hypocrisy of these critics does not justify the same hypocrisy on sites like TRUTH Social. The reservation on the TRUTH Social site is anathema to free speech and immediately undermined the credibility of the site. It should be removed.

 

156 thoughts on “Trump Creates “Free Speech Site” While Barring Criticism of the Site or Its Creators”

  1. Turley seems surprised that Trump would make clear that he will censor any criticism of him on his inappropriately-named social media platform called “Truth Social”. Turley, if you’ve paid any attention at all to all of the psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who have commented on Trump’s narcissism, you shouldn’t be surprised. According to some of the recent books about Trump, he loved Twitter because he considered it a “free newspaper” in which he could say anything he wanted, without those pesky editors from real newspapers editing him or refusing to print his lies, or even worse, printing the actual truth and refuting his lies. He is a pure narcissist: in his perspective, the entire planet revolves around him. Everything is all about him, Him, HIM, H I M, and how wonderful, talented, smart, successful, and attractive he is. So, Turley, do you really think that a social media platform created by him would ACTUALLY allow the truth to be told? If you do, you haven’t been paying attention.

      1. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate Trump. Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah. I hate Trump. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate Trump. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate Trump.

        1. Independent Bob writes:

          “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate Trump. Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah. I hate Trump. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate Trump. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate Trump.”

          Are you inviting Leftists to substitute “Biden” for “Trump” in this diatribe whenever Trumpists criticize Biden? And what would be your reaction when we accuse you Trumpists of Biden Derangement Syndrome?

    1. I’m new here, so Wise Old Lawyer’s comment not withstanding, I will point out that both the author and Natacha are 100% wrong.

      It’s a plain and simple fact that, agreeing to not “disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site.” simply does NOT equal “barring-criticism-of-the-site-or-its-creators” no matter how much you think it does.

      And one more dig at your hypocrisy before I go. Obama was and still is the greatest narcissist ever to enter American politics. How many times did he refer to himself (I, me, my) in that 90min speech to the Cadets? 118 times I believe, averaging out to once every 46 seconds. In fact take the text of EVERY Obama speech and put it into one of those word counting websites like “edwordle.net” and you will ALWAYS find the words “I, me and my” to be the most used. Do the same for Trump and I doubt any of those 3 words will be on top.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if all Presidents are narcissists to some extent. But Trump is a malignant narcissist (which combines narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy, paranoia, and sadism), and Obama is not.

        1. Do you know what the word malignant means? Based on your context the word has been wrongfully used. But, You lie and deceive, so you will say anything you want to back up all the cr-p you say. That is why you are called ATS.

            1. Yes, it has a distinct meaning when used properly. You use the term as a weapon, not as a diagnosis. As a moron you have an excuse, but not a good one.

      2. “Obama was and still is the greatest narcissist ever to enter American politics.”

        – Sean
        _____

        Truer words have never been spoken.

  2. The site is disappointing that it is so self sensitive. I implies that it is unable to defend against baseless and also reasonable criticism.

    1. I implies that it is unable to defend against baseless and also reasonable criticism.

      Your feelings are noted. Current platforms don’t imply the same approach, they have implemented it.

  3. I’m still voting for him if he runs. The bigger picture is America as a whole, and anyone who says America was better of under Obama or is better off now than we were under Trump is delusional.

    1. It’s sad that you can’t accept that reasonable people can see things differently than you do, and you conclude that anyone whose views about Trump, Obama and Biden are different than yours must be “delusional.”

  4. And who do we have to thank for the creation of TRUTH Social? That’s right, everyone on the Left that told us FB, Twitter, etc. were private companies and if you don’t like their TOS, then build your own site. And true to form, without so much as 1 comment being posted on this new forum, those on the Left are denouncing the site for being an affront to free speech. I predict TRUTH Social will reflect an alternate reality to what is pumped out daily by the other social media platforms. Thank you Lefties!

    1. Wondered how long it would take before a comment about “the LEFT” would worm itself into the comment section. Did so without a “what about” too. Impressive.

      1. Wondered how long it would take before a comment about “the LEFT” would worm itself into the comment section. Did so without a “what about” too. Impressive.

        What is your over/under on American Marxists? That was another option.

    2. I’m on the left. I don’t consider Trump’s site “an affront to free speech.” Like any private organization, he is free to create whatever termsn he wants for use of his site. He has a 1st Amendment right to do that, just like Facebook, etc., do.

    3. I hope you enjoyed the site from the moment it was created until 2 hours later, when Trumps account was compromised and posted an image of a pig defecating on its own scrotum, whereupon access to the site was shut down. Very on-brand.

      1. Very on-brand.

        Indeed. The Left have a very distinctive brand of social engagement and they haven’t disappointed. What they probably haven’t deduced is they are being used (useful idiots) to help identify the weaknesses in the platform prior to it’s official launch in 2022. Many thanks!

  5. The current tech overlords have said for years, “Get your own platform,” then promptly shut down Parler et al. They suppress — or outright ban — actual truths by using the ambiguous label dis- or misinformation, and repeat the jeer, “Get your own.”

    They must Shirley realize they have overplayed their monopolus hand. Some people who have retained the ability to think critically have seen behind their false pretenses and are sickened by the extremely thin veneer of section 230 “public square provider and not editorial publisher” tech has smeared over its naked hatred of dissent. Orwell would be amazed at the pure audacity of leftists becoming Big Brother without having to have formally declared itself an institution.

    Petty tripe about platform rules aside, the overlords have seen that their facade has been allowed to crack and they are facing an existential threat to their hobnailed, jack booted power. That alone is reason for rejoicing. Doubly so if they are incensed at the public application of their hidden rules upon their own voice.

    Perhaps if they don’t like the TRUTH platform, they should get their own. Or rather, maybe they should not have hidden their contempt for disparate views and then brazenly branded (misbranded?) anyone for discussing that contempt as a leper. Such haughty malevolence was, is, and will be their downfall.

    Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18, AMP)
    When the wicked are in authority, transgression increases, But the righteous will see the downfall of the wicked. (Proverbs 29:16, AMP)

    Whether if this life or the next, these temporary overlords will bow to the one, true Lord. Just like golf and the stock market, eternity is indeed a long game.

    1. “The current tech overlords have said for years, “Get your own platform,” then promptly shut down Parler et al.

      I disagree with “et. al.” And they and we have for years and years — decades even done exactly that!
      AltTech exists and is alive and thriving, even without mainstream media adoption.

      Most people, including people here, are NOT aware of these alternative platforms. That’s why using Parler as a proxy for AltTech is wrong.

      The problem is sites like Parler of making the mistake of relying on BigTech services for its implementation, specifically entirely relying on AWS without backup plan, which was foolishly shortsighted.

      Trump could have used any number of AltTech platforms but hey, creating his own is just as well. I do agree that the prohibition on criticizing / disparaging the site or Trump and admins is partly hypocritical in its claims of free speech.

      1. @zeroz: I will agree with your stipulation that the the overlords promptly shut down platforms which are implemented on their services. However, all the points regarding their haughty malevolence still stand. As we don’t yet know how narrowly the TOS defines “us,” we’ve not enough information to gauge how free-speech adverse the restriction truly is. Note that this is far removed from an absolution of hypocrisy. However, they do announce this proviso in daylight and plain language, and would-be users are under no completion to use their services.

        As a point of levity: When I first started typing my OP, I hadn’t realized I had Caps Lock on. Ohhh, the delicious, amusing irony. 🙂

    2. “Petty tripe about platform rules aside . . .”

      That “petty tripe” is a contract. A contract is how civilized individuals *voluntarily* execute a trade. What you (and others) are suggesting is that the government inject its police powers into a free market transaction. That is rule by brute force — the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

  6. Well it’s no real surprise that Trump is launching his own site. That being said everyone knows about free speech in USA and we also have Free Agency (Free Will) to say what we want and in all things there are consequences to our speech and actions. I hope that the Professor keep’s doing and even though I don’t always agree I still will listen to his point of view any day of the week.

  7. “We delete a tiny fraction . . .”

    Irrespective of the size of the fraction, or the reasons for the deletions, such actions are — by your definition of “censorship” — censorship. Such are the contradictions that follow when one starts with an overly broad definition of “censorship.”

  8. Lol. I was agreeing with JT for a while till he lied. It is established that this blog keeps a blacklist of blocked commentators. But they don’t tell you, they just make it impossible to post l. This issues has been discussed before.

    1. Sad personal attack….now provide your proof to your statement “It is established that this blog keeps a blacklist of blocked commentators.”. Show your Cards of fold your Hand!

      You stated Professor Turley “lied”.

      It is on you to prove he did….not just throw out such a comment.

      He does not have to prove he told the truth….you have to prove he lied.

      So which one of you is lying….as one of you has to be by simple logic.

      My money is on you that is telling porky pies.

      1. Darren has stated that he blocks some people entirely. For example, there was a commenter here who posted under the name This is Absurd and then under the name Art Deco, and I remember Darren telling Art that he had already been warned and would now be blocked, though it will be hard for me to find it. Darren gave JeffSilberman a warning recently, after removing a comment that Jeff had made to Oky1 that Darren interpreted as Jeff hoping Oky would die. If you want to see the warning from Darren, we can ask Jeff if he recalls the column in which Darren said this to him.

        1. Yes, I recall it. FWIW, here is what an anonymous person said then in this regard:

          “When I first started commenting here, I was surprised by the level of incivility, especially the group bullying — much of it homophobic — towards a commenter who was posting at the time under the name Seth Warner. I emailed Turley about it, but he didn’t respond. I’ve written Turley a number of times since then (e.g., to report comments threatening violence, to let him know about typos and factual errors in his columns). Usually, there is no response, but a few times, he’s responded to thank me. I wrote twice after a bunch of my comments were deleted for no reason that I could tell. I got no response the first time, and the second time he responded, saying that he didn’t know why my comments were being deleted. He did not attempt to put me in touch with Darren, and my attempts to get a response from Darren here went unanswered. I have not written Turley to complain about Darren’s inconsistent moderation.
          So you may get a brief response. Even if you don’t, it might still be worthwhile for him to hear about the issue. Up to you, of course, whether you want to take the time.”

          1. Yes, I am that same anonymous commenter, and I made that comment here: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/12/go-fund-me-takes-down-fundraising-campaign-for-litigation-over-vaccine-mandate/comment-page-2/#comment-2129031

            But that’s not the column where Darren gave you the warning about the comment you’d made to (or about?) Oky1. That occurred in a different column a day or two earlier I think, and I don’t recall which column it was in. Do you?

            1. Darren said:

              JeffSilberman,

              You made a comment in violation of the civility rules where you mentioned the hope for the death of another commenter. The comment has been deleted. If you make such a similar comment again you risk having your posting privileges revoked.

          1. How do you know? The only way you would know is if you were one of the banned people. We have followed some that have been banned and they were banned for good reason. If you were banned then you are one of them.

              1. Take note how you didn’t answer the question, how do you know. Instead you tried to make something up.

    2. Yes, there are things that you can get blocked for here.

      Fundimentally that is WordPress blocking you not JT.

      Your posts will get blocked if you use any of a list of keywords that WP looks for.
      Mostly this is either to block spam or to block profanity.

      I beleive that Daren has one extremely rare occasions blocked specific posters for extremely nasty defamation.

      Beyond that JT’s blog is pretty much a free for all.

      I am not aware of anyone ever being blocked for their viewpoint – unless you consider defamation a viewpoint.

      Even there – there is a significant amount of fairly egregious defamation allowed on this blog.

      I also find it interesting that the most censorious of posters are the ones that most loudly protest very narrow viewpoint neutral rules based censoring.

      1. Darren blocks people for more than defamation.

        For example, if someone repeatedly posts comments encouraging another commenter to commit suicide, that is not defamation, but the person will be blocked.

        1. Can I presume that you beleive Darren should not block people who advise others to commit suicide ?

          Regardless the claim was not just that people can get blocked here – but that such blocking was being done in a politically biased way.

          Blocking those who encourage suicide seems to me to the a politically viewpoint neutral response.

          Or are you claiming that Daren only blocks those on the right who encourage suicide ? or only those on the left ?
          Or that one ideology is intrinsically more likely to goad others to suicide ?

          1. “Can I presume that you beleive Darren should not block people who advise others to commit suicide ?”

            You can only mistakenly presume that about me. It’s also irrelevant to my point — in response to “I beleive that Daren has one extremely rare occasions blocked specific posters for extremely nasty defamation. Beyond that JT’s blog is pretty much a free for all” — that Darren will block people for reasons other than defamation.

            You and I clearly interpreted the OP — “It is established that this blog keeps a blacklist of blocked commentators” — differently. I don’t see any mention of partisanship there.

            “Or are you claiming that Daren only blocks those on the right who encourage suicide ? or only those on the left ? Or that one ideology is intrinsically more likely to goad others to suicide ?”

            No, no, and no.

        1. Anonymous – do you have the slightest logical skills ?

          First – you are posting as anonymous – JT.org has no capacity to block you as an anonymous poster without blocking all anonymous posters.

          The very fact that you can continue to post anonynmously proves that there is no meaningful generic blocking or banning.

          It is possible that some of your posts are individually blocked – either by the WP key list, or less likely because Darren read your post and found it way out of bounds.

          That is STILL blocking on a post by post basis.

          You should feel fortunate that there is no means here or anyone else to block or ban people based on the quality of their logic or intellect – or you would be silenced.

          But you have not been.

          BTW I am not seeking to defend JT. Frankly he is free to block, ban, setup posting rules however he pleases.
          What I am pointing out is that you are making self evidently stupid claims.

          There are very few things that can get a post blocked or banned here. Most of us know them. They are viewpoint neutral.

          I was unaware that Darren was blocking repeated inducements to suicide.
          “If I ruled the world” I would probably allow that. But I do not, and I do not have a problem with barring inducements to suicide.

          It is my understanding that Spam is also blocked – are there those here who object to that ?
          Or do you wish to have posts interspersed with advertisments for blue pills ?

          What of posting pedophila – I doubt Darren has thought of that. But I am sure most of us expect that would be blocked if it arose.

          One of the problems with those on the left is they are used to doing all the censoring.
          They have no problems with censoring others, but cry foul instantly when they encounter a speed bump.

          1. “Anonymous – do you have the slightest logical skills ?”

            Absolutely. I was checking on your broken windows, jbsay. Are they functioning or not?

          2. “JT.org has no capacity to block you as an anonymous poster without blocking all anonymous posters. ”

            No, if a specific anonymous commenter is posting from a fixed IP address, Darren can block that IP address.

            “You should feel fortunate that there is no means here or anyone else to block or ban people based on the quality of their logic or intellect – or you would be silenced.”

            A matter of opinion. Some here would put you in that category.

  9. This entry by the Good Professor got me to thinking as is not surprising as he does have a way of fueling my interest.

    I see his point as being critical of the new “free speech” social media site being backed by Trump because the site shall not tolerate/accept/ignore criticisms of the site or of Trump…..all the while proclaiming it to be all about free speech.

    I get the Professor’s reaction to that….I do.

    I sometimes have thought such an identical policy would be beneficial right here at his own Blog.

    To me there is a huge difference between debating and mere personal attacks….anyone familiar with Saul Alinsky’s Rules understands what I mean.

    Far too many come here day after day and attack Professor Turley….and do not debate the issues or his positions….just attack him personally for anything that he has to say without offering a reasonable or rational challenge to the issues at hand.

    If Trump’s new social media site’s rule about such posting was applied here….it would sure save a lot of time spent scrolling past the trolling. posts and do no harm whatsoever to genuine “free speech”.

    The Good Professor has a very thick skin and light touch on removing posts that just detract from the debating that is what free speech is meant to protect.

    The old saying “Disagree without being disagreeable.” is what that new site’s rule appears to be.

    No harm in that….just debate the issues…..and leave off the petty personal attacks…..ignore Saul’s recommended method.

    1. Ralph says:

      “ To me there is a huge difference between debating and mere personal attacks”

      Who decided which criticism is based on hatred?

      I claim that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. Trumpists reflexively accuse me of TDS, that is, I must hate Trump. It seems that anyone who claims Trump has lied will be accused of hatred so that no one can accuse Trump of lying EVER on “TRUTH Social.”

      Some free speech site! Turley would reject your suggestion. He is a free speech originalist.

  10. “The reservation on the TRUTH Social site is anathema to free speech and immediately undermined the credibility of the site. It should be removed.”

    It will never be removed. Trump is a malignant narcissist and hates being criticized.

  11. Given that site is associated with Trump, it will undoubtedly attract a fair number of people that will go there for no other reason than to bash and flood the site with criticism of Trump and the site. That would make it unusable, so I can see this as a self preservation measure. Also good for them for spelling out allowed activities, and not leaving it to the vagaries of an “algorithm”, that always seems to err in one direction.

  12. Not a fan of any censorship, that goes beyond Brandenburg. The only positive, in this shit sandwich, is that at least this is openly censorious.

  13. Maybe they’re finally learning to play by the rules of the left? The Democrats have screwed this country up so badly in 9 months it will take a lot more to return it to a republic. Just look at the border or looking into your bank account.

  14. The hypocrisy of the critics of this site is glaring. It is a reactive site that at present doesn’t have the size to be associated with the ‘town square’. It would not exist, but for the hypocrisy we see from members of the left. I am sure we will hear some of these hypocrites yapping about censorship

    1. You talking about censorship. when you yourself has criticized facebook and others for deleting your Dear Leader.

      1. Fish, I don’t like censorship anywhere, but when it occurs in the town square it is dangerous. I’m sure you can see that even if you are unwilling to say so. Why don’t you think about the meaning of the town square envisioning a place where all people gather. Then we can talk about it.

        SM

  15. There is no such thing as a totally free speech website. Therefore the more the merrier. I suspect it will become an alternative to the current idiots who deny even scientific papers to be published that the idiots disagree with and don’t even understand but call it misinformation . Trump’s site May get half the population like Fox got. I follow you faithfully but I don’t think you got this one right.

  16. I agree with Turley on the assumption that his assessment of the rules of this new site are as he stated. But, I really don’t want to use a site that is systematically bombarded with criticism from political foes of Trump that are based on hatred of him rather than issues. Perhaps an alternative would be not to censor or ban such posts, but to separate them from the discussions based on issues. In this way, they would be available, but in a separate section similar to an Opinion section in the paper that is equally accessible. If you are interested in what they are saying, you are welcome to read and comment; if not, then read and/or engage in discussion of issues.

    1. I really like this proposed solution; A simple change to TOS ASAP might just be the perfect fix to a “hellova” issue the site-creators have astutely anticipated, while also addressing the self-limiting hypocrisy inherent in the attempt, as wisely identified by Turley.

      – Seems logical (and understandable) that a key purpose of the unique TOS just might be to eg, avoid Leftists (including high-tech trolls + bits) from inundating feeds, users & the site with the equivalent of “Orange Man Bad” (and worse), 24/7; threatening to quickly make the site unusable.

      – By quickly updating the TOS to a) clarify who the narrowly-drawn, protected targets are and b) specify criticisms against those targets will be allowed but segregated, it seems like a great way to address both Turley’s concerns, and no doubt Trump et al’s, as well.

      1. In other words, you want to censor objectionable Leftist speech. How many times does Turley have to tell us that the ONLY response to bad speech is more speech.

        You can’t maintain a Safe Zone for Trumpists. A blog is either totally free or it ain’t! Period. That’s the point!

        1. The hypocrites speak in the voice of Jeff.

          This site is telling people up front what to expect, something not stated by others until after successfully gaining tremendous membership. In other words, the other sites were dishonest. Trump’s site is being honest from the start which is when it hurts. The site, if it succeeds, will be far freer than Twitter or FB. I hope it succeeds and in turn breaks up the monopolies which would open the doors for free speech.

          1. “This site is telling people up front what to expect, something not stated by others until after successfully gaining tremendous membership. ”

            Not true. Sites like Facebook and Twitter had Terms of Service from day 1, and the ToS told users up front what to expect.

            “In other words, the other sites were dishonest.”

            Ironically, you are accusing them of being dishonest, when you are the one being dishonest here.

            1. You might be too ignorant to realize that while growing the other sites set a precedent as to how they would act. When they became the town square, they radically changed. That is dishonest, but who ever said you understood the word dishonest since all you seem to do is lie and deceive.

              Small minds like yours are unable to think.

              SM

                1. Take note how you are too ignorant to respond to the substance of a remark. You survive based on your anonymity. No one can be one-hundred percent sure any singular comment is you, but when one deals with larger numbers one can get very close and see how Stupid you really are.

                  1. If you want others to take your comments seriously and respond to the substance, then you’ll have to control your desire to denigrate.

                    If you will not control your desire to insult others, then you deserve nothing more than having your own insults reflected back at you.

                    1. That was the point. You don’t respond to substance even to other people. Have you run out of commas or excuses? Are you going to increase your army of pretend friends?

                      No one can treat you like a normal individual. You lie too much.

    2. Cartwright says:

      “But, I really don’t want to use a site that is systematically bombarded with criticism from political foes of Trump that are based on hatred of him rather than issues.”

      Oh really. And who gets to decide which criticism is based on hatred? What are the standards? Turley insists on a “bright line.”

      I claim that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar. Trumpists reflexively accuse me of TDS, that is, I must hate Trump. It seems that anyone who claims Trump has lied will be accused of hatred so that no one can accuse Trump of lying EVER on “TRUTH Social.”

      Some free speech site! Turley would reject your suggestion. He is a free speech originalist.

      1. What Cartwright didn’t say is that anything would be excluded. Only separated, like news and opinion and sports and Comics are separated. Yes, someone would have to discern the difference between “Orange Man Bad” and real issues. Or in the example you sight, the difference between someone saying Trump is an habitual liar and should be impeached or someone saying that Trump lied about a certain issue and then present the evidence for discussion. The latter can be discussed sanely and intelligently. The first is a baseless opinion and cannot be discussed. In my suggestion none would be omitted only placed in a separate section easily searched by all to find where they are most comfortable. Their personal safe zone, so to speak.

        1. Cartwright says:

          “Yes, someone would have to discern the difference between “Orange Man Bad” and real issues. Or in the example you sight, the difference between someone saying Trump is an habitual liar and should be impeached or someone saying that Trump lied about a certain issue and then present the evidence for discussion. The latter can be discussed sanely and intelligently. The first is a baseless opinion and cannot be discussed.”

          Ok, lets see how you would handle this statement:

          “The claim that the election was stolen on account of massive fraud is a Big Lie espoused by Trump and his Trumpist followers.”

          There is no evidence of massive fraud that would have changed the election results. Moreover, Turley has NEVER claimed that the election was stolen on this account.

          So, I presume that you would not segregate this statement as “hateful”? And yet, there are many Trumpists who have accused me of TDS for making just this statement!

          What is your opinion?

  17. Turley says:

    “Moreover, I follow a long-standing view of columnists that it is a privilege to write for newspapers or major sites. The cost of that ticket is to allow others to criticize your writings or views. That is why I rarely respond to comments on the blog.”

    Rarely? How about, Never! That you allow criticism is not a reason not to respond to comments particularly if they are false. That is a non sequitur!

    You don’t respond because you understandably have more profitable matters to do with your billable time than engage Trumpists, who will support “Truth Social” in spite of your condemnation of Trump’s thin-skinned “Terms of Service.”

    Let’s see if I’m correct that the Trumpists will defend these terms of service or criticize you for doing so. This should be very interesting!

    1. It’s possible to find replies from him long ago. I also discovered not long ago that he does sometimes read some of the comments — reflected in changes to the column after it’s initially posted, in response to a valid criticism.

  18. If Trump wanted to promote an alternative social media site, then he chose poorly. I mean, without such “rules” the site would quickly get bogged down by trolls who suffer from TDS. But isn’t that the price you have to pay for being in what Nixon called “The Arena”? Maybe he should have just set up a paywall

Leave a Reply