We have been discussing the growing attack on free speech in this country, including a widespread movement in academia to curtail free speech rights. Indeed, this movement largely began on college campuses and spread to social media, politics, and journalism. It is now an article of faith for the left to demand censorship or the regulation of speech in the name of social justice. University of Miami’s Mary Anne Franks has a simple solution, and The Boston Globe wants people to consider it: just gut the First and Second Amendments. That’s right, the problem with the Bill of Rights, according to Franks, is that it is too “aggressively individualistic” so the solution is to “redo” the work of the Framers to be more woke compliant. All of those pesky constitutional rulings in favor of free speech rights will then fall away and society can move on with social justice unimpeded by constitutional niceties.The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights. This in turn allows the most powerful members of society to reap the benefits of these constitutional rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Both amendments would be improved by explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” set out in the Constitution’s preamble.
Franks would entirely gut the free speech protections under the First Amendment that have long defined this country. She would instead amplify the right of the government to hold people accountable for speech deemed harmful:
“Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses.”
Other freedoms fare little better. Indeed, the amendment is rewritten to guarantee equity over individual rights:
Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.
As for the Second Amendment, she would just replace the right to bear arms with a right to abortion and personal autonomy:
All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.
As chilling as the Boston Globe column may be, it does serve a useful purpose. It acknowledges the anti-free speech agenda of many in academia and journalism today. As liberal academics took effective control of faculties and schools, the support for free speech and academic freedom waned. A new orthodoxy took hold that is continuing to build on our campuses. I discuss that trend in my forthcoming law review article, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming).
The writings of Franks and others are enormously popular because they legitimate such orthodoxy and the anti-free speech movement. Most intellectuals have grown weary and impatient with free speech.
What is most striking about the Franks’ proposal is that it is hardly new. Indeed, such a qualified right was made part of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. Article 11 (drafted in part by the Marquis de Lafayette) stated:
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
The First Amendment was written, as correctly noted by Professor Franks, as a more robust individualistic protection. It was elegant and powerful in its simplicity: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”
Indeed, that clarity famously inspired Justice Hugo Black to declare “I take no law abridging to mean no law abridging.”
It is “aggressively individualistic,” as were many of the Framers. That is precisely why Professor Franks and many in academia want the right extracted from the Constitution. Once this protection is removed by constitutional amendment or judicial interpretation, the real work can begin on recreating a society in a better, government-approved, and government-enforced image. The “aggressively individualistic” model of the Bill of Rights can be replaced with an “aggressively collective” model of a Bill of Responsibilities and Penalties.
I have long admitted to being a dinosaur on free speech. I support the free speech rights of those who espouse views that I find deeply hurtful and offensive. I still believe that the solution to bad speech is better speech, not censorship or sanctions. The growing wave of speech intolerance on our campuses and in society has left many of us in a shrinking minority. To make maters worse, many professors are too intimidated to speak out. To do so is to risk everything that intellectuals hold dear from publication offers to speaking opportunities to their very academic positions. The result is a generation that is being taught in an echo chamber where free speech is treated as a scourge or tool of oppression.
That is the ultimate irony in all of this. Liberals often lament the McCarthy period for its crackdown on speech and blacklisting of leftist academics and writers. They have now succeeded in achieving what the right failed to achieve in the 1950s. Faculty and editors are actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. 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. Through a combination of corporate censorship, government pressure, and media controls, they have succeeded in silencing many who would challenge them.
It was only a matter of time before someone like Professor Franks cut to the chase and called for the First Amendment to be discarded as the final measure of devotion to the cause.
“Aggressively Individualistic” Now that is something I would like to be called. If I used bumper stickers and I don’t, this sounds like a great one.
BreecePeter,
I identify as ‘Aggressively Individualistic’
would be a great tee-shirt.
Or bumper sticker.
How does anyone so ostensibly intelligent as Ms. Franks not understand that she would not be allowed to express her concerns if she and others like her were successful in their effort to thwart free speech? Re common sense, I guess what’s common to some is a luxury to many. And the more intensely indocrinated—er, um, of course I mean educated—the rarer is the prevalence of common sense.
Tyranny isn’t so bad if it is done to the right people. Some people deserve to tyrannized for being the inconsiderate, indecent a-holes that they are. They should be rounded up and shipped to North Korea so that Kim Jung-un can have his way with them.
“. . . explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of ‘domestic tranquility’ . . .”
Translation:
Those who express opposing ideas invade my safe space. They’re noisy and create dis-ease. In the name of collective harmony, they should be locked away — far away — somewhere dark and soundproof. Never again to be heard from.
And yet some still claim that “it can’t happen here.”
Sam, I too was struck by this passage. It goes on to say that the right to free speech must also be “situated” within the framework of the “general welfare” referred to in the preamble to the constitution. So, in addition to permitting the curtailing of speech that is disturbing, this esteemed professor would also give the legislative, executive and/or judicial branches the power to curtail speech that threatens their view of the general welfare. The historical, political and philosophical ignorance underlying this proposal is astonishing.
“The historical, political and philosophical ignorance underlying this proposal is astonishing.”
You’re being too generous. Those fascist academics are not ignorant. They know full well the history and political philosophy of free speech and of its enemies. They are knowledgeable about the history of regimes that banished free speech, and the consequences of doing so. They are perfectly clear about their goal: Full-blown government censorship, with their censors in control. Theirs is not a mistake of knowledge. They are consciously, willfully *evil*.
I first heard this totalitarian desire to destroy free speech some 30 years ago, from a then-prominent philosopher — Richard Rorty: “[W]hen the secret police come, when the torturers violate the innocent, there is nothing to be said to them . . .”
The Constitution is the bedrock upon which this nation was founded. For a law professor to refer to himself as a dinosaur because he doesn’t believe in gutting the Constitution is akin to a builder referring to himself as a dinosaur because he doesn’t want to dig up the foundation of a skyscraper and throw it in a landfill. It was the need for a Constitution that caused our forefathers to fight the Revolutionary War, no?
Deborah: The Constitution is the bedrock upon which this nation was founded
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
John Adams, 11 October 1798
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102
“Our Constitution was made . . .”
Selective quoting a FF is not scholarship. It’s cheerleading.
Try this Adams quote on the use of reason to create the Constitution:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had *interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven*, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely *by the use of reason and the senses*. “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, *without a pretence of miracle or mystery*, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” (Adams letter to Samuel Miller, emphasis added)
Adams letter to Samuel Miller, emphasis added)
You did not provide a link for one good reason: none of your alleged Adams to Samuel Miller quote is verified. It is no where to be found on the founders.archive.org site, thus you are being dishonest. There are only 4 letters from Adams to Samuel Miller. Additionally, they all treat religious themes considering Samuel Miller (1769–1850) had been ordained as a Presbyterian clergyman in New York City ….and served on the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary until his death
https://founders.archives.gov/search/Recipient%3A%22Miller%2C%20Samuel%22
As usual, you do not address any of Adams salient words. Why you would think Adams, a practicing devout Christian, contradicts himself is a mystery lacking any reason.
You see religion and belief in God as contrary to reason, but that is due to your ignorance, themes Saints Augustine, Justin Martyr, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Anselm, John Henry Newman, even present day Bishop Robert Barron present in spades, unlike your gibberish. We get it. You dont believe in God, you have made that clear. That’s on you. Your personal disbelief says nothing about the fervent belief many of the Founding Fathers had like Washington, Franklin, Adams and others.
Put up or shut up. Provide a link to an Adams document located on the archives.founder.org site where he denounces religion and God, or remain the unhappy angry ignorant atheist you continue to show us with an axe to rewrite US history
From John Adams to Samuel Miller, 11 May 1811
Quincy May 11 1811
Reverend and dear Sir,
Your kind Letter of the Sixth of this Month is this day received with great Pleasure. I thank you, Sir for the Facts relative to your Ancestors, and Shall be obliged to you for any others that you may please to communicate to me. I may possibly furnish you hereafter with Some Information concerning your Uncle Joseph Miller: but this is mere conjecture at present. I escorted to the Tomb in the Course of this Week, the Remains of Ebenezer Miller Esqr of this Town, who died at the age of Eighty–one. He was the Son of Ebenezer Miller D.D. formerly the Episcopal Clergyman of this Town, who was a Brother of Col. Steven Miller of the neighbouring Town of Milton. This Family I have known from my youth Up and I know that Joseph Miller and John Miller have been common Names among Them.—Surely these circumstances are Sufficient to excite the curiosity of an Antiquarian, at least to inquire whether this Family is not the Family of your Uncle Joseph. If this Imagination is altogether chimerical, you can no doubt determine it, at once.
your Politeness enquires whether I do not bear Some Relation to the Family of Bass? and what that Relation is? My Grandfather Joseph Adams married Hannah Bass but whether a Daughter or grand daughter of Deacon Samuel Bass who married an Alden, I am not able, at present to determine, one or the other She certainly was. This Joseph Adams by Hannah Bass had Eight Children, five Sons and three Daughters. My Father was the Second Son. The oldest Son, The Reverend Joseph Adams, Minister of Newington in New Hampshire who died in 1783 was born in 1688, The Year of the Revolution in England. The Marriage of his Father and Mother was probably in 1686 or 7. Deacon Samuel Bass who married an Alden died in 1683, at Eighty four Years of age. It is not probable that he left a Daughter, young enough to have Eight Children, and after that to die young, as my Grandmother did. I conclude therefore that She must have been a Grand Daughter of Bass and Alden. The Records of Marriages, Births, Baptisms and Deaths, which ought to have been kept with Precision, and which have been kept in this Town and Church with tolerable Regularity, I presume might be Searched with Success, to determine most of this. Facts and Dates: but I have given my Self very little concern upon these Subjects. Indeed I have observed that it is not till extream old age that People commonly begin to think much about their original and their ancestors. Thus it often happens, when it is too late, and when all are dead who could give authentic Information, Men and Women become intemperately anxious and inquisitive, about such Subjects.
I wish to know, Sir whether Dr Miller of New York, The Physician, who is so much associated in Medical Investigations with Dr Mitchel is your Brother?
It is not without pleasure, nor without pride, that I am able to trace any connection of consanguinity, between two gentleman you the men who have done so much honour to the Religion Litterature and Science of America, and your affectionate Friend
John Adams
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5640
February 1756
from the Diary of John Adams
22 Sunday.
Suppos a nation in some distant Region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in Concience to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and Charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love, and reverence towards almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by Gluttony, drunkenness, or Lust—no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or any other trifling and mean amusement—no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbour, but would live in peace and good will with all men—no man would blaspheme his maker or prophane his Worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected Piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts. What a Eutopa, what a Paradise would this region be. Heard Thayer all Day. He preach’d well.
Spent the Evening at Coll. Chandlers, with Putnam, Gardiner, Thayer, the Dr. and his Lady,1 in Conversation, upon the present scituation of publick affairs, with a few observations concerning Heroes and great Commanders. Alexander, Charles 12th., Cromwel.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-01-02-0002-0002
There are only 4 letters from Adams to Samuel Miller.
Correction: There are only 6 letters from Adams to Samuel Miller on the founders.archives.org site including the following:
From John Adams to Samuel Miller, 7 July 1820
Montezillo July 7th. 1820
Dear Sir
You know not the gratification you have given me, by your kind; frank; and Candid letter—I must be a very unnatural Son to entertain any prejudices against Calvinists, or Calvinism, according to your confession of Faith. For my Father and Mother, my Uncles and Aunts and all my Predecessors from our Common Ancestor who landed in this Country two hundred years ago, wanting five months—were of that persuasion—Indeed I have never known any better People than the Calvinists—Never-theless, I must acknowledge that I cannot Class myself under that denomination—my opinions indeed on Religious Subjects ought not to be of any consequence to any but myself—To develope them, and the reasons for them would require a Folio, larger than Willards Body of Divinity—And after all, I might scatter darkness; rather than light—Before I was twelve years of Age I necessarily became acquainted a reader of Polemical writings of Religion, as well as Politics—and for more than Seventy years I have indulged myself in that kind of reading—As far as the wandering anxious and perplexed kind of Life which Providence has compelled me to pursue, would admit—I have endeavoured to obtain as much information as I could Of all the Religions which have ever existed in the World—Mankind are by nature Religious Creatures—I have found no Nation without a Religion, nor any People without the belief of a Supreme Being.—I have been overwhelmed with horror to see the natural love and fear of that Being wrought upon by Politicians to produce the most horrid Cruelties, Superstitions, and Hypocrisy—From the Sacrificesto Moloch down to these of Juganaut, and the Sacrifices of the Kings Whydah and Ashantee, the great result of all my researches has been a most diffusive and comprehensive Charity—I believe with Justin Martyr; that all good Men are Christians—And I believe there have been, and are good Men in all Nations, sincere, and Conscientious—That you and I shall meet in a better World, I have no more doubt than I have, that we now exist on the same Globe—If my Natural reason did not convince me of this Cicero’s dream of Scipio, and his Essays on Friendship, and Old Age would have been sufficient for the purpose—But Jesus has taught us that a future State, is a social State, when he promised to prepare places in his Fathers House—and of many Mansions for his Disciples—
By the way I wonder not at the Petition of the Pagans to the Emperor that he would call in and destroy all the writings of Cicero, because they tended to prepare the mind of the People—as well as of the Philosophers, to receive the Christian Religion—
My kind Compliments to Mrs Miller—and thank her for the obliging visit she made me—I interest myself much in her family—her Father was one of my most intimate friends in an earlier part of his Life—though we differed in opinion on the French Revolution—in the latter part of his days—though, I find that diffences in opinion in Politics, and even in Religion, make but little alteration in my feelings, and Friendships, when once contracted
I have not received Mr Sargents Speech—nor the Sketch—
I am Sir with great and sincere / Esteem, and affection, / your Friend / and humble Servant
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-7369
Actually, the source of that Adams quote is even more consequential. It’s from his: “Preface” to _A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America’, 1787_.
“. . . remain the unhappy angry ignorant atheist you continue to show . . .”
It’s never pretty when the mask falls off.
+100
“the real work can begin on recreating a society in a better, government-approved, and government-enforced image.”
The “utopians” push their OCD onto others but haven’t learned that the only way to achieve a utopian civilization is through ‘genocide’ of those that do not fit into their very defined space.
The French Revolution playbook is open for view, and we can watch the same story unfold again and again.
Svelaz,
You are right on!
How many readers here have questioned my mental health, accused me of TDS, or demanded that my criticism of Turley be censored?
How many have responded to my “bad speech” with their good speech contesting my evidence and disproving my arguments?
Zero.
I’m glad that for his sake Turley is not aware of his readers’ incorrect reaction to me. He would be ashamed of them and would have to ask himself where did he go wrong in educating them his free speech views.
Along with insulting your host the only shame one should have is that you represent an American lawyer who doesn’t know the difference between despots and statesmen.
You are an embarrassment to the legal profession that Turley is a part of.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ Along with insulting your host the only shame one should have is that you represent an American lawyer who doesn’t know the difference between despots and statesmen.”
You don’t know the difference between “excellent” and “accuracy”.
He isn’t insulting the host. You insult the host most of the time when you engage in a tirade of insults about others. It’s a free speech site. Turley is fair game for criticism just as anyone here is. You being a prime example.
“You don’t know the difference between “excellent” and “accuracy”.”
You are very repetitive so I will follow suit. Is an inaccurate professor an excellent professor? You seem to think so. So much for your understanding of what words mean.
I respect the host. You do not and Jeff libels the host.
SM
I went to get my booster shot yesterday. I felt okay at first, but then this happened:
The Nazis and SS paraded around in their intimidating uniforms reeking terror on those who stood in their way. Their power grew to such an extent that making the Normandy landing would have been virtually impossible. It was only by Hitler’s pride that he felt he could open a second front against Russia, even though history had harsh lessons for those who do. There he lost several million crack troops to Russian fighters and bitter winters.
When the Allies with much help from America finally garnered enough resources and girded up their loins to fight tyranny did the tide begin to turn. At a cost of millions of lives did the world return from the brink of total destruction. It was by the industrial might of this nation and compassionate leaders that the post war savagery in Europe and Asia lessened with initiatives such as the Marshall Plan.
The once proud and arrogant perpetrators of terror were no longer in power and were shriveled up, weak. Many who were not hung shot themselves or took cyanide capsules or quietly slipped back into civilian life.
The founders of this great nation understood the capabilities of unchecked power, raw power in the hands of the ambitious. That is the beauty of this nation. Free speech and the ability of citizens to defend themselves from evil, tyranny, and those with unchecked power is foundational.
Those who wish to eliminate these rights should not be trusted. It appears that such individuals hate this nation and long for its destruction. To replace it with what? A Marxist communistic nation where the elite still keep there luxurious lifestyles while the citizens suffer? To snuff out the dreamers, to stifle motivation?
Those who assign themselves to these nebulous tenants are in for a shock, should they succeed. We are witnessing an attempt and a full out assault on this nation. Look how wonderfully they work! Venezuela is an example of the success of communism. I wonder if the mayor of New York, Warren Wilhelm gives a care? He changed his birth name to hide his heritage. How is his tyranny working out for the once great city?
I only pray that the center holds and we the people can regain our nation from the grip of those who constantly plot its demise. You can have your opinion but I can also have mine.
Regarding the opinion of the anti free speech and second amendment professor, Stephen King said that opinions are like rectal orifices, everybody has one.
It is people exactly like “Franks” that show the dangers of Free Speech….and that if enough are foolish enough to embrace such notions as offered by her….then Free Speech itself is the weapon that shall be used to dispose of it.
Then where are we…..like Russia following the takeover by the Communists….who committed mass murder of their own population far greater than ever did the Nazi’s under Hitler after invading Russia?
Should the Left succeed in doing away with both the First and Second Amendments….NONE of the other Amendments or the Constitution in its entirety are not safe…..or any individual in this Country.
Some pansy assed Generals recently warned of a possible Civil War within Ten Years in the United States…..but looked at the situation from entirely the wrong direction.
It is not those of us who look to the Constitution as something to be defended that are the danger to the survival of our Great Republic….it is the Left who seek to destroy the very Constitution that grants then their freedom to think and speak as they do.
The Left loves to call January 6th an “Insurrection”…which if so was both a failure and a model of what one without firearms looks like…..and why.
Trust me folks…..the Insurrection if it ever happens will not be like January 6th was……and the First and Second Amendment are the very reason that is so.
Remember the US Army Motto…..”This We Shall Defend”.
The Marine motto…..”Semper Fidelis”…Always Faithful.
Do you think we shall not defend the Constitution?
And to think some of the framers didn’t believe a Bill of Rights was even necessary. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #84:
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
This reminds me of the No Means No movement. Why? Human nature. Duh!
“ It still believe that the solution to bad speech is better speech, not censorship or sanctions.”
Turley is still being quite the disingenuous hypocrite. All he talks about is liberals this liberals that, but completely ignores conservatives own censorship and sanctions. Just look at how Sen. Liz Chaney is being demanded she be censored and punished for what she has said or done. Not a single peep from Turley.
Turley freely admits he is a “free speech dinosaur” but being as such requires that he understands the simple fact that private companies and organizations do not have to adhere to the 1st amendment’s prohibitions on censorship of speech. Even Turley admits that by mentioning it in passing.
He wants EVERYONE to adhere to it which would require that he focus his criticism not only on liberals academics, but conservative legislators too. Liberty university was rife with free speech censorship and it was perfectly within its right as a private institution.
This is not about liberals not tolerating free speech. It’s about not having to hear it. Nobody is required to listen to what someone has to say.
Turley often conflates concerns about other issues as censorship of certain speakers. When those concerns are valid and founded on past events.
I have no problem with conservative or controversial speakers expressing their views on campus or off. In this day and age there are far more avenues to express and have their views known. College campuses are not the only venues for speech expressions.
Many conservative or controversial speakers deliberately choose the most liberal universities just to stick their finger in their eyes because of the principles of free speech they espouse. Problem is nobody is required to listen or no individual who wishes to speak is entitled to an audience. Jordan Peterson is famous for expressing controversial views because he just stood at a campus square and expressed his views among angry students. He didn’t demand an audience he commanded by just being there.
Anyone can do that. But the catch is you have to be brave enough and committed enough in your views to do it successfully.
Most conservative speakers complain they are being censored because they are not able to use a venue. They don’t really need one. If they are brave enough they can just start speaking on an open campus “quad” or public gathering area.
““ Turley is still being quite the disingenuous hypocrite.”
So says the one who made all sorts of statements about CRT and then asked for proof that he was wrong. When the proof was provided, what did Svelaz do? He ran away again.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ So says the one who made all sorts of statements about CRT and then asked for proof that he was wrong. When the proof was provided, what did Svelaz do? He ran away again.”
LOL!!!! Hahaha! Hee hee hee. You were given proof. The problem was you moved the goalposts to avoid discussing said proof. Didn’t run away. Just chose to disengage from your constant deflections and obfuscations.
S. Meyer, a guy who believes “excellent” and “accurate” meant the same thing in an attempt to salvage the credibility of a bad argument.
“excellent” and “accurate”
You still don’t understand context. In your world an inaccurate historian can be an excellent historian. Your world is upside down and filled with depravity.
“moved the goalposts to avoid “
No goal posts were moved. You wanted proof of what was being taught in the schools and in the surrounding replies that proof was provided with copies of what was being taught in the classroom, a book dealing with that exact subject and testimonials by many parents who saw the same or similar things happening.
All of that is proof but Svelaz ran away from it.
What didn’t you understand about the paper you provided being written by a student? You said otherwise over and over again because you didn’t read the link you provided and therefore didn’t know the bio provided by the writer saying he didn’t have his Phd. Tell us more about Robert Moses who most likely you heard about for the first time in that series of postings. You drew conclusions without knowing a thing. When proof was provided you ran away.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ excellent” and “accurate”
You still don’t understand context. In your world an inaccurate historian can be an excellent historian.”
LOL!!!!!!!! Hee! Hee! Hee! Hee!
That’s not what you were saying. You conflated “excellent” and “accurate” as having the same meaning when you decided to change “excellent” to mean accurate. You’re trying to save face on an obvious lie. LOL!!!!
You moved the goalposts S. Meyer. When you’re in a losing argument you constantly move the goalposts or go off on a rambling insult. That was reason enough to disengage from that fruitless discussion which you seem to be quite obsessed with. That’s just further proof that engaging in that old discussion is a colossal waste of time.
You are a liar and continue to lie while misusing words and concepts. You are a dummy. This discussion had to do with Howard Zinn
You said: “An “excellent” text just means it’s a good one. It doesn’t mean it’s accurate.”
How can a history textbook be inaccurate and be excellent? You ran away from that question.
“Svelaz, I will leave it up to others to determine what type of dummy you are. According to your logic, an excellent textbook is full of inaccuracies.
Responses end at: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/05/big-daddy-dobbs-airing-out-the-stench-from-the-oral-argument-over-abortion/comment-page-2/#comment-2141842
“you constantly move the goalposts”
You lie again. You wanted proof and it was provided in several different replies with actual copies of what was in the classroom.
Why don’t you tell us what goalposts were moved? You can’t. I have shown some of you lies and idiocy already today so that you can be seen naked. I will show more at the right time. Stop lying.
“They don’t really need one. If they are brave enough they can just start speaking on an open campus “quad” or public gathering area.”
There too when evidence of such violence was provided in video form Svelaz deleted it from his memory and ran away.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ There too when evidence of such violence was provided in video form Svelaz deleted it from his memory and ran away.”
There too when evidence? Huh? S. Meyer. What violence? You’re not making any sense.
You can try gaslighting all you want, Svelaz, but all that proves is your ignorance.
SM
I wish the Professor would stop referring to himself as a ‘dinosaur’. Our principles don’t survive if we throw up our hands and say, ‘I guess I’m just old! You unstable and fragile college sophomores that can’t tie your own shoes better just take over.’. We wouldn’t have a Republic if anyone had so capitulated over the past few centuries. Come on.
Things stay preserved because we preserve them against foolishness and madness, and kids that don’t even yet do their own laundry don’t get to call the shots. Yes, I am including the ‘intellectuals’ in that description. They are the biggest babies of all.
“The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights.”
Ms. Franks fails to realize that the “individualistic ways” actually serve as a moderating factor for our society which, whether Biblical or not, institutionalizes the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” When we start to codify all the “competing rights,” someone’s rights will get left out. I don’t want it to be mine any more than she wants it to be hers (she probably doesn’t feel the same…)
Folks of her ilk fail to realize lots of things. Hard to argue with ignorance.
As a Dickens character famously said (slightly revised): “The law professor is a ass — a idiot.”
She is also unbelievably arrogant, but, in my experience, that is not uncommon among law (or any other kind of) professors. We are fortunate that the founders, in their wisdom, made it difficult to change the constitution. My fear, however, is that the wokists have so little respect for the constitution (or for individual rights) that they will come up with a “work around” to bulldoze our constitutional protections, with support from a packed Supreme Court.
University of Miami huh? Way down by Cuba.
Let’s call this Fidel College.
Everything in moderation. Including moderation. The Turkey blog is censoring one of my comments.
How can the highly educated be so ignorant of current events. Does this prof actually want to “teach” in an eviroment that mirrors China as China operates today?
Is she wholly ignorant of the Framers and how they based their vision of government? Is she not aware that she, the people, are sovereign? That the govt answers to the people, not the other way around?
The constitution prohibits specific actions the govt is barred from engaging in. All designed to keep the people, not the govt as the final say in governance.
in 14 months, Franks and her ilk can get their wish. President Trump in the Oval office, and an army of like minded, seeded throughout the the government. Instead of the government investigating parents participating in school board meetings. The government will be tasked with shutting down Franks ability to lecture, and publish, ideas harmful to a peaceful society.
Be careful what you wish for iowan2. Trump can just as easily trample on your rights just because he doesn’t like it. Trump is famously thin skinned and has a particular sensitivity to criticism. Those who are “like minded” would certainly censor those who criticize him.
It was Trump himself who censored critics on his own Twitter account before the courts ruled he couldn’t do that.
What Svelaz fails to recognize is that Trump followed the Constitution and common sense. Biden has not.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ What Svelaz fails to recognize is that Trump followed the Constitution and common sense. Biden has not.”
Trump was censoring critics on his Twitter account when he was president. He wasn’t following the constitution. He was violating it. A federal court ruled that trump couldn’t do that because he is a government official.
Trump tried to subvert an election. That’s not following the constitution either. He let his mob storm and ransack the Capitol. He deliberately sat on his hands and let his follower try to stop a legitimate function of congress. That’s not following the constitution either.
Biden is not following the immigration laws of the US which is a national security issue. Trump blocked someone on Twitter is your equivalent. You sound like a fool.
“He let his mob storm and ransack the Capitol. “
He didn’t let anyone do anything. Your understanding of the definition of words is atrocious. The people were directed by others, some of them working alongside the F.B.I. To you that is unbelievable but if I remember correctly, in the group that tried to kidnap Governor Witmer there were more FBI agents then actual members of the group.
Here is another example where you don’t know what a word means.
Svelaz has great difficulty understanding what words mean.
Here he thinks that the word assigns means the same as requires.
Svelaz has great difficulty understanding what words mean.
Here Svelaz thinks that the word assigns means the same as requires.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the-case-against-retroactive-impeachment-trials-a-response-to-the-open-letter-of-scholars/comment-page-1/#comment-2052079
Svelez, I know exactly what I was doing using Trump. Not because of has actions in office, but rather of the phony accusations of the left. The highly ‘educated’ Franks is in fact brain dead stupid. She never considers that she is terrified of being ruled by people she finds abhorent. For that reason she should campaign for an even more individualistic society.
“To make maters worse, many professors are too intimidated to speak out.”
JT are you one of these? What are you doing in the college atmosphere?
He did not say all
Turley is perhaps the most outspoken defender of free speech in the country, and yet (I suspect you know where this is going) he works for Fox News which canned Lou Dobbs and banned Trumpist lawyers, Giuliani, Lin Wood, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell from appearing on its broadcast. Worse, Turley has not come to Eastman’s defense when he was forced out at his law school (and now his law license is being threatened) all on account of his views supporting Trump.
Some Free Speech Originalist our Turley!
I know you Trumpists will attack me personally for pointing out Turley’s naked hypocrisy. Will not one of you criticize Turley for ignoring the censorship of his employer?
I think any off-topic comment such as your (as this one as well) should be moderated off the board. You incessantly whine about Turley and Fox News. It’s like a broken record (if you’re old enough to know what a record is). Eventually the listener (reader in this case) gets so tired of hearing the “scratches” they throw the record out. I just wish WordPress had the function to mute your screeds that are rarely on-topic
Kenb5605 says:
“I think any off-topic comment such as your (as this one as well) should be moderated off the board.”
If Turley censored my civil free speech, he would be betraying everything for which he so passionately is fighting! It’s bad enough he is a hypocrite when it comes to Fox News; you want him to be a hypocrite on his own blog too?
Turley has made it his business to vilify CNN and MSNBC (which coincidentally happen to compete with his Fox News) for their hypocrisy in denouncing conservative bad speakers while ignoring liberal bad speakers! I’m doing the same- criticizing Turley for ignoring the censorship conducted by his own network. You can only hear Trumpist lawyers on Newsmax and OAN.
I just want to know why no Trumpists here are bothered by Turley’s double standard?
Ken,
Jeff is right. Turley’s criticisms are quite hypocritical when he knows and is deliberately ignoring the anti-free speech behavior from his own network and conservative legislators openly punishing and demanding censorship of those who go against the party such as Liz Chaney.
Jeff’s criticism is not off topic. It’s right on the very same premise that Turley is complaining about. His only focus is liberals. If he is truly an ardent defender of free speech as he claims to be he wouldn’t just focus on liberals and. Academics. He would be critical of everyone who practices what he claims are punishment and censorship.
“ I just wish WordPress had the function to mute your screeds that are rarely on-topic”
The irony of that statement is fundamentally what Turley is complaining about. You want to censor Jeff’s views because you find it tiresome. Guess what. Liberals at colleges and universities feel the same way about certain speakers. You want word press to let you censor him out for yourself. Why not a university let students have the same choice? A university can let a speaker voice his opinions and ideas and it still does. BUT students are not required to listen to them and oftentimes the majority of students at certain universities don’t want to listen to what they already know what the speakers views and opinions are.
Controversial and deliberately inflammatory rhetoric or views have consequences and often those that espouse them don’t accept responsibility for the consequences of what their ideas or views create. A lot of times some conservative speakers choose liberal universities knowing they will be met with hostility and derision and use that as a means to gain attention and fame. It’s not about expressing ideas. It’s about deliberately inflaming liberals just because they want to. That’s an abuse of free speech and those that engage in it know it.
I don’t wnt to censor Jeff’s views. I just want the cpability to “walk away” from his views and mute them so I don’t have to scroll thru them to get to on-topic content.
Ken,
“ I don’t wnt to censor Jeff’s views. I just want the cpability to “walk away” from his views and mute them so I don’t have to scroll thru them to get to on-topic content.”
Is scrolling past his comments impossible? You CAN walk away. You are completely in control and capable of doing that anytime. You can just, as you just noted, scroll past. You make it seem like it’s such a chore to have to scroll. Just scroll past it. Jesus 🤦♂️ . Is it really that much of an inconvenience to flick the thumbwheel or finger to scroll past his posts?
Jeff, you really need to see someone about your issue. You seem so obsessed with Professor Turley as to be deserving of some observation.
Your new little MO of prefacing your attacks with some benign positive comment doesn’t hide your unhealthy animus for the producer of the one place that you visit all day and every day. You must make it very tough for a First Amendment defended like Turley to somehow keep letting you poison this site with your 100 insane comments a day. Frankly, I would be troubled by such an obsession.
Hullbobby,
I appreciate your concern for my mental well-being. I really had no idea you cared. I suppose you are looking out for me since we are members of the same tribe. We have to stick together.
I am no less obsessed than Turley is obsessed with defending his view on the First Amendment. I am single-minded, true.
Can you explain why he NEVER criticizes Fox for ANYTHING? Not for its “advocacy journalism”? Not for banning Trumpist lawyers? Not for canning Lou Dobbs? Points out the defamation lawsuits against the MSM but is silent about the billion dollar defamation lawsuits against Fox?
I’m going to keep asking these questions until someone gives me a better explanation than hypocrisy.
jeff, you will never get any of your questions answered from Turley, his MO is to feed his base and keep the right-wing in rage, it’s the only thing that works for them. I wish it wasn’t true, but here we are asking questions that will never be answered.
Fishwings,
One day, Turley will face the music. My guess is he gets questioned by friends, relatives, colleagues and students in private.
Is there NO ONE here who knows Turley PERSONALLY who can attest whether he answers to those who know him? Not one of his students reads this blog nor any GW co-worker? No one here has any acquaintance with Turley who can shed some light on whether he is more accountable in private than in public?
Jeff, you won’t hear any conservatives or trumpists explain. All they want is the thrill of “giving it to liberals” and that’s what Turley delivers. Clearly he won’t discuss Fox News because anything expressed by him WILL be used in court. However that shouldn’t stop Turley from commenting on republicans censoring and punishing Liz Chaney for voting her conscience or expressing her views about Trump’s lying.
That’s an entirely separate issue that wouldn’t expose Fox News to further evidence given that the criticism would be leveled at republicans instead of Fox.
The same can be said of OAN and Newsmax.
I don’t see any reason why you should stop pointing out Turley’s massive hypocrisy and disingenuousness.
Svelaz says:
“I don’t see any reason why you should stop pointing out Turley’s massive hypocrisy and disingenuousness.”
Yes, sir! Will do!
“Can you explain why he NEVER criticizes Fox for ANYTHING?”
You were already proven wrong by another commentator yet you repeat the error again and again.
Anonymous, Jeff is specifically mentioning Fox News own censorship and advocacy journalism Turley often complains about. Not just a general criticism of Fox News which Turley has indeed criticized. However that criticism wasn’t about censorship or advocacy journalism.
I was the one who initially noted that Turley once criticized Hannity for attending a Trump rally. To my knowledge, that is the only criticism since his employment at Fox. Is there any oyhers I am not aware of?
Waiting for evidence…..
“Waiting for evidence…..”
Bull. Mespo called you out on your claim about Fox, and in .7 seconds found a link he provided to you. Now you are trying to take credit for that discovery. Have you no shame?
silberman: don’t pretend you have some insider knowledge that Fox “canned” them from appearing. More likely, they were advised by their counsel to not appear because of pending litigation.
Why? Truth is a defense. Fox knows the election WAS stolen!
Jeff libels Turley again. A comment was made, and Jeff responded using an acronym, throwing four-letter words back to the writer.
“JS, are you again concluding at the edge of libel. Turley is a big fish swimming in a big ocean, so you get a pass while swimming in a pis-pot, tiny and unnoticed.”
Jeff’s comment was removed. Jeff cannot control himself, but he could see his ultimate boundaries when using the four-letter acronym containing the four-letter word. He realized he could swim in “a pis-pot” but not the ocean. He can’t stand being ignored by the big fish swimming in the sea. Envy wreaks from his every pore, something many take note of daily.
SM
jeffsilberman wrote, “Turley is perhaps the most outspoken defender of free speech in the country, and yet (I suspect you know where this is going) he works for Fox News which canned Lou Dobbs and banned Trumpist lawyers, Giuliani, Lin Wood, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell from appearing on its broadcast. Worse, Turley has not come to Eastman’s defense when he was forced out at his law school (and now his law license is being threatened) all on account of his views supporting Trump. Some Free Speech Originalist our Turley!”
Not one word in that comment about what Turley actually wrote about or what the Democrats are doing to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America. So predictable; another in a long line of unadulterated internet trolling ad hominem attack deflections. That’s the kind of commentary that’s expected from a partisan hack that regularly engages in acting others like a political attack dog.
jeffsilberman wrote, “I know you Trumpists will attack me personally for pointing out Turley’s naked hypocrisy.”
Interesting. Talk about naked hypocrisy; this jeffsilberman is constantly personally attacking Jonathan Turley with one ad hominem after another claiming all kinds of hypocrisy without providing one shred of evidence to support his claims. This jeffsilberman appears to be another one of this blog’s regular lying internet trolls and an unapologetic hypocrite.
jeffsilberman wrote, “Will not one of you criticize Turley for ignoring the censorship of his employer?”
Provide actual evidence to support your claims. Not writing about what an arrogant partisan hack, like you, what’s is not evidence to support hypocrisy by Truley.
What’s interesting is that Turley is actually talking about the very freedom of speech that people like jeffsilberman use to blindly attack him and others. What are these ignorant, immoral, anti-Constitution fools going to do when their freedom of speech is completely gone; my guess is they’ll whine like a bunch of immature snowflakes. I view people like jeffsilberman as rhetorical cowards in that they refuse to discuss what the blogger presents and deflect; maybe it’s because they’re too stupid to intellectually engage in the topic at hand.
Well rats! Nothing beyond the word “you” was supposed to be bold.
This should have read…
“Provide actual evidence to support your claims. Not writing about what an arrogant partisan hack, like you, want’s is not evidence to support hypocrisy by Truley.”
Witherspoon,
In defense of Jeff’s criticisms he’s not wrong about Turley’s hypocrisy. Jeff’s complaints do center in Turley’s own criticism of “censorship” in academia. Turley focuses on liberal professors from some backwoods college or university and portrays this issue as one that is affecting every liberal leaning university. He characterizes this issue as one of a much bigger issue on his claim that free speech is under attack everywhere. But he focuses only on some obscure liberal professor’s opinion and conflates that opinion as a sentiment that is shared with other liberal universities. That’s casting a very wide net for such a claim.
What Jeff correctly emphasizes is that Turley’s criticisms sound quite hollow when he focuses only on liberals. Conservatives are just as guilty of being anti-free speech as he accused liberals of doing. Fox News is one big honking example. Republican legislators who are demanding Liz Chaney be censored and punished for her views. What about those republicans banning the discussion of CRT? Are they not for the free and open discussion of controversial ideas? Turley has been deliberately ignoring those equally valid issues that fall under the free speech debate.
Jeff has provided plenty of evidence. It’s not hard to find. He’s pointed to the evidence that Turley is sometimes disingenuous with his writing of facts. Like any poster here, Turley is fair game for criticism, ridicule, mockery, insults, etc. S. Meyer is just as guilty of all of that as many of us are.
Svelaz wrote, “In defense of Jeff’s criticisms he’s not wrong about Turley’s hypocrisy.”
You’re welcome to try and defend Jeff but it seems to me to be a fools errand. It’s very clear that Jeff is an internet troll and you trying to justify his constant ad hominem deflections without any on-topic discussion is revealing. None of the trolling deflections presented by Jeff, or justified and promoted by you, change the fact that Jonathan Turley is presenting factual information and relevant opinions that Jeff absolutely refuses to address. Choices have consequences.
Intelligent commenters that are not internet trolls actually respect the blogger and address the blog topic at hand and then add in questions like “it seems hypocritical to ______ without ______” when reasonably appropriate or for the arrogant jerks like jeff “why aren’t you addressing (this other topic that I want to talk about)”, etc, etc.
Presenting ad hominems attacking Turley as being a hypocrite doesn’t change the fact that Turley is presenting truthful information and relevant opinions about current events. If Jeff doesn’t “like” what he reads then he can go elsewhere but nope that’s not what internet trolls do and that’s not what Jeff does, they/he attacks like a drooling political attack dog – an internet troll. If Jeff want’s to talk about other things then Jeff can start his own blog.
Witherspoon,
Please don’t read anything I contribute to this blog. Just ignore me, ok? I don’t want to cause you such consternation. Have a nice life.
If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I can take it, buddy. My concern is for your peace of mind.
jeffsilberman wrote, “Please don’t read anything I contribute to this blog. Just ignore me, ok? I don’t want to cause you such consternation. Have a nice life.” and “I can take it, buddy. My concern is for your peace of mind.”
That’s cute.
An ad hominem spewing internet troll, that’s now self-identifying as my “buddy”, can’t intelligently refute anything I’ve written so now he claims to be so concerned for my peace of mind that he’s asking me not to read anything he writes here so I won’t choose to reply with mentally challenging things that he can’t refute. Even now this troll can’t muster up enough intelligence to argue beyond a sophomoric imbecile or learn when to keep his foolish mouth shut.
jeffsilberman, ole buddy ole pal, you should be quite used to being intellectually inferior to commenters around you so suck it up buttercup, you’ve made your bed.
Choices have consequences.
There is a solution to your problem Jeff and any intelligent person would have figured it out by now; if you don’t like the reply comments you’re getting from your peers that are pointing out your constant trolling actions then consider changing what you write.