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.
Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
“A Global Coup Has Been Carried Out Across the World – Has Destroyed the Very Foundations of the Rule of Law” – Archbishop Vigano’s Message to America (Transcript and Audio)
By Joe Hoft
Published December 19, 2021 at 9:26am
618 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/italian-archbishop-vigano-sends-message-american-people-2/
mRNA inventor stands with Abp. Viganò’s call for alliance against ‘fundamentally evil’ COVID tyranny
33,720 views
Dec 3, 2021
In a recent interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Robert Malone, the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, explained why he thinks that global totalitarianism is a bigger threat than the COVID-19 virus. Malone also praised the recent call of Archbishop Carlo Mario Viganò to form an anti-globalist alliance to combat COVID tyranny.
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61aa6f23d5718001dba4c518
This is the Video of the inventor of mRNA Gene Therapy, Dr Robert Malone Emergency Message to everyone that you should know & know you should want to pass it along to anyone you can about the Harm the so called Vaxxes can/will cause.
There’s as more stuff in this video if you’ve the time.
*********
The Dr Malone video starts just after 29:15 minutes of this link & last about til about 34:00.
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61ba7cf3d80fae228ace57ad
The worst thing about Dr Fauci’s/CDC/NIH/etc’s,. 1st 15 days to Flatten the Curve has been the 1st 2 Years headed into the 3rd year & all the Liberty & Freedom the Gov’t & Corporate is Steal from us!!!!!!!!
Interesting to me for some time now is how much this Covid Bio-Weapon Crap has been is how much it looks much like the Moses & Jesus stories of the Bible .
If you were to save & pass along anything to others I’ve ever posted I suggest it would be at least this group of four post right here:
************************
The Death of Pharaoh’s Firstborn- The Ten Commandments 1956
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJcd1NFw5JY&t=333s
*************
If you or others have or haven’t had the mRNA shots/boosters this I thought has some sage advise.
Repost:
Olly, et al;
I did watch that Dr Peter McCullough interview you posted & it was very good.
I’ll likely will post these pieces below a few times for both those that have & haven’t had the mRNA vaccines & what we can ask/do about parts of it.
Some of these Doc/Pros are hanging together with 13/14000 others that signed letter/s stating their opposition to these govt/corporate policy for mandatory Vaxxes to the public/others.
***********
{BTW I like Greg’s site & support it)
Calamitous Suppression of Early CV-19 Treatment – Dr. Pierre Kory
https://usawatchdog.com/calamitous-suppression-of-early-cv-19-treatment-dr-pierre-kory/
Another example of those with law school degrees who are able to practice law and earn a living … do so. Those who cannot … “teach.” And today, law school classes appear to not instruct students in various areas of law, but to proselytize, politic, etc. to the detriment of so many law school graduates.
Thetenants1970 says:
“And today, law school classes appear to not instruct students in various areas of law, but to proselytize, politic, etc. to the detriment of so many law school graduates.”
What a terrible indictment of Turley’s teaching profession. I respect his profession and admire his dedication to teaching. How dare you accuse Turley of proselytizing in his class. As reported in the “Washingtonian”:
“But even detractors of Turley’s Fox commentary speak highly of his teaching. That same student praises him for keeping politics out of his lectures and calls him a genuinely caring professor: “He doesn’t consider himself to be a political commentator.”
https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/12/17/jonathan-turleys-trump-takes-are-not-going-over-very-well-at-gw-law/
Atheists can be intensely group-think and appear to live for their atheism. Many religious folk live life and religion is a part of it.
There are two parts to the education process. One is teaching, which the professor does very well, as we see on this blog. The other part is learning and being human with many of the attributes mentioned in the Bible. Lawyers have at times gained disrespect because of their lack of learning.
It is so true the censorship of “wrong speech” is alive and well at so-called institutions of higher learning. September 2020, a fellow classmate in my class wore a facemask saying “Black Lives Matter”. A few days later I wore a facemask with the American Flag with the blue line to signify “Blue Lives Matter”. What do you know…a different classmate went to the professor before class and related that they were “uncomfortable” with this symbol. The professor came down from his office and told me about the complaint and asked me to remove the facemask (with another or turned inside out). At first, I was going to comply so not to be disruptive but a rising feeling of disgust increased and instead I walked out through the crowd gathering outside the door. If fear of “uncomfortable” speech and ideas are censored at colleges and universities…for what purpose are these institutions of higher learning for? To encourage “group-think” or to charge exorbitant tuition and fees to just babysit snowflake lemmings?
Know your audience, David. If you are attending a university with specific goals, focus on those goals and do not wage wars you can not win. Of course universities are brothels of greedy, hungry promiscuous administrators who bend over to earn a buck. That isnt your battle though. Use them to earn your degree, hopefully a useful marketable one, so that later you are successful.
Dont get distracted as a student with the inane woke battles of academia. Ditto on the unfortunate question these days on campuses as to your preferred pronouns. Keep your eye on the prize.
David disparages “group-think.” You mean like religions? Are you an atheist?
Atheists can be intensely group-think and live for their atheism. Many religious folk live life where religion is a part of it.
Your life consists of proving you are an atheist while bashing Professor Turley.
S. Meyer, religious “folk” are also intensely group-think. So much so that they have a need to all gather at one place to share said “intense group-think” once a week, sometimes twice.
Atheists live life because it’s there.
Svelaz, life is there whether atheist or religious. Your type of atheist lives to pursue others and convert them to what is now your religion. Unfortunately, as recently mentioned by another in a well-written response, your type of atheism is based on deceit and lying. In your case, there is an added factor, gross Stupidity.
Let me give you an example of such Stupidity that came from someone other than myself.
Awhile back you wrote: “There’s nothing in the constitution that prevents government . . .”
Sam had to correct your entire understanding of the Constitution: “So the government can take any action that is *not* prohibited by the Constitution?! You have the purpose of our Constitution exactly backwards.”
You probably couldn’t even understand Sam’s correction. You bounce randomly, rarely bouncing on the truth but making a fool of yourself most of the time.
(The above comment came from a Turley discussion on YouTube censoring.)
Hey Atheist, troll over to a great article and comment therein. It deals with group-think: thinking of others, being joyous and dying to self for the sake of others. Oddly we have noticed you and your atheist troll colleagues never post on Professor Turley’s many upbeat, joyous articles around the holy-days.
A Boy, A Grandma, and a Really Big Tree: A Christmas Story</strongm
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/12/21/a-boy-a-grandma-and-a-really-big-tree-a-christmas-story/
This is assuming of course that your employer, Act Blue, funded by atheist billionaire George Soros, allows you breaks on the clock to be other-directed and not self-absorbed in your Ebenezer Stooge Bah-Humbug disposition. Dont tell JeffSilberman, though. At his ripe age in his 7th decade, we wouldnt want to change anything about him. Fossils provide great insight into a dead civilization.
Feliz Navidad!
🎄🎄🎄
religious “folk” are also intensely group-think. So much so that they have a need to all gather at one place to share said “intense group-think” once a week, sometimes twice.
You have an inexperienced understanding of what occurs when people gather to practice their religion. It certainly wouldn’t be described as group-think.
Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought.
As a Christian, we may gather together to worship God, but each of us are experiencing the Holy Spirit working within us in very unique ways. 1 Corinthians 12 explains how we are all a part of the body of Christ, but each of us have unique spiritual gifts we bring to the table. In the secular world, especially in an environment where teams of employees are formed to accomplish something, it is ideal to have a group with a variety of talents. Some are leaders, some are administrative, some are creative, some are technical, some are salespeople, and so on. While there may be one vision for the group, each member looks at the project from their unique perspective and they use their unique talents accordingly. Church is no different. We may gather for one vision, but each and every one of us have a very unique role to play in the Church body.
The best example of the above definition of group-think is the Democratic party today. They are being led by a fringe group of radical leftists and if anyone dares to defy their vision, they will be destroyed by the group. Just ask Joe Manchin. The Republican party can have their own group-think identity problems, but nothing like the Democrats.
“Know your enemy.”
– Sun Tzu
________
University of Miami’s Mary Anne Franks and, by extension and association, the University of Miami are direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution and of the United States of America when they establish and support this position.
It certainly provides “Aid and Comfort” to America’s clear and present enemies, China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Iran et al., to watch as America is attacked from within by treasonous communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).
____________________________________________________
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
GOP legislatures and Republican Governors in nine states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, and North Dakota) have passed legislation restricting speech in the past year.
Republican legislatures in nearly 20 additional states have introduced or plan to introduce similar laws restricting or chilling speech in classrooms and government.
There is absolutely no liberal equivalent to the conservative abuse of legislative super-majorities to attack and curtail freedom of speech. The call is coming from inside the house, Jonathan.
“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.”
****************************************
Here’s hoping Dr. Franks does perform “the last full measure of devotion” in her losing cause. Martyrs get known; victors get everything else.
More of Turley’s pearl-clutching attacks on Democrats. Many people don’t know much about McCarthysim and don’t realize that people were hauled before Congress and accused of being Communists, including members of the military, and thereafter suffered severe consequences if they were outed by friends or others. (Ever see the original “Manchurian Candidate”?) If you were an actor or screenwriter, for example, you were blacklisted, and prevented from working, in many instances, for years, just because of your politics. Look up Dalton Trumbo if you don’t believe me. Claiming that “[f]aculty and editors are actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views” is disingenuous. Faculty and editors do not by any measure have the powers of members of Congress, which includes subpoena powers and the ability to destroy careers due to the power and connections of Congress. Therefore, this comment by Turley is way out of line, but sadly, becoming all too common since he sold his soul to Fox News: “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.” No, Turley, there is nothing going on now that is comparable to McCarthysim, and you are at least exaggerating, if not outright lying by attempting to compare the situations. Anyone in academia who is forced or pressured to leave can get another job somewhere else. There’s always some right-wing place they can go. And, oftentimes, the right-wingers are not being punished for their speech or political per se, but for things like refusing to denounce the Big Lie, just like Turley refuses to do. Treating people like Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Trump as normal or their conduct as worthy of respect should get someone in academia fired.
Perhaps we can begin gutting the First Amendment now with a public burning of Frank’s “The Cult of the Constitution”?
Certainly she cannot object to doing away with her own “aggressively individualistic” composition.
So your a self admitted communist Natacha. Every single person called out by McCarthy was a communist. And we the American people have awakened to fact that just because a person shines shoes, sells papers on a corner, is a banker, or any type of work , if they facilitate the flying of planes into buildings they are a terrorist, they dont have be bomb makers. The Have You No Shame remark was uttered by at best a ill educated opinionated reporter,A useful idiot,or by a committed communist himself. There is an easy $50,000 to be made if you can show that anybody named by McCarthy wasn’t. I know who and what Dewey did to our K-12 students,poisoning their minds with the autonomous individual, atheist, communist, drivel. At the end of WW11 we executed many teachers in Germany.
Here’s one of those American Marxists writing and writing and writing.
You and Natacha should consider relocating to Chile. New, self-proclaimed 35-year-old communist has been voted in. You could most-likely have a 35+ year neo-Stalinist paradise there. Enjoy.
Gabriel Boric, Chile’s new President Elect, has a resume that is similar to Barack Obama: no accomplishments, no significant career history, no experience whatsoever in any adult organization other than “community activism”.
The Smurf and Atari generation are in power now. That explains it.
And what Germany did on its own territory was of no concern to Poland, England, and France.
I prefer boldly individualistic. We are all made in the image of God and He said, “I am”, a rather pointedly individualistic reply. Since we are made in His image, then our individuality matters.
There was a time when Russia, under Putin, wanted to join NATO. Had it done so, NATO would have greatly expanded to the East. So it makes no sense that Putin is now concerned about NATO expanding to the East. He should be ecstatic.
So this professor thinks the 1st and 2nd amendments are “Aggressively Individualistic”; I wonder what this irrational professor thinks of the next eight Amendments?
Read the first ten amendments for yourself…
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are all specifically granting/protecting individual rights, as in “the people”, and limiting the power of the government.
The political left’s actions in regard to the 1st Amendment and the speech of those they disagree with show us that they truly believe in the false notion “rights for me but not for thee”, actions based on that kind of thinking will destroy the Constitution and the United States of America.
The 21st century’s progressives are anything but “progressive”. Using the word “progressive” to describe these 21st century Democratic Party extremists is an oxymoron; the ideology, policies and actions of “progressives” are actually regressive to the point of being culturally and socially destructive. These ignorant 21st century “progressives” and their army of intimidating social justice warrior “brown shirts” have literally become the totalitarian evil they have professed to be against for years.
When the oath is taken that says, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”, Mary Anne Franks and her anti-Constitution totalitarian ilk are exactly the kind of soft coup domestic threat to the Constitution that needs to be addressed in the 21st century. Mary Anne Franks and her anti-Constitution totalitarian ilk are thinking like Stalinists and Fascists and they seem to want to regress our country and drag it into the abyss. They’re fools.
Witherspoon,
It’s just ONE professor at some backwoods university. Sure the views are certainly controversial and radical. But Turley paints the narrative as if this is some National movement. It’s not. He’s conflating various events and mischaracterizations into a movement that doesn’t exist.
Too many commentators here are reading WAY too much, as is Turley, into the opinions of these professors. This is not really new. This has always been the norm in university campuses. Think about it. Critical Race Theory was conceptualized in the late 1960’s in the wake of the civil rights movement. There are professors still discussing the benefits of Marxism or communism or socialism. Some have proposed adopting some variation of those philosophies in our own country for decades. Controversial for sure, but not something new. Turley is just noting that there are still those fringe thinking professors. He just makes it seem like it’s what every liberal believes. Turley is just being political and its fair to criticize or mock his views.
Svelaz wrote, “It’s just ONE professor at some backwoods university. Sure the views are certainly controversial and radical. But Turley paints the narrative as if this is some National movement. It’s not. He’s conflating various events and mischaracterizations into a movement that doesn’t exist.”
It seems to me that debating with someone that seems to refuse to see the obvious anti-free speech pattern that has been clearly shown by Jonathan Turley and many others to exist and is being promoted in colleges across the USA is futile. Your false premise is that the movement doesn’t exist, therefore any argument based on that premise is false.
Witherspoon, there is no movement. The only reason you see a pattern is because Turley has been cherry picking these occurrences from fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college or “university” and tying them into some movement that is allegedly all over the country.
Most of what Turley describes as anti-free speech or an attack on free speech is a consequence of free speech itself.
He cites media, social media, academics, etc. what Turley conveniently leaves out is that free speech isn’t just about the ability to express one’s views. That’s not really the dispute. It’s the implied right to be heard. Free speech isn’t about that. The 1st amendment doesn’t entitle anyone to an audience or a venue to express them. It only gives you the right to express it without being punished or censored by government. Can private social media platforms censor your content, posts, etc.? Of course they can. Can private universities censor speech, require certain beliefs, etc. absolutely. Can state universities censor speech, or deny speakers. No, BUT can students? Students are not government entities or officials. Can they demand a speaker be denied the opportunity to speak. Yes they can. Is the university obligated to abide what they students want. No.
Is the shouting down of a speaker also a form of free speech? I think so. Do i believe it’s right? No. It’s rude, obnoxious, and counterproductive, but it’s still a form of free speech. Parents shouting down school board members are exercising their free speech to do so. Why can’t students?
It’s not a movement. It’s just Turley making it to be one by putting on a narrative tying all these incidents as if they were coordinated. It’s the ability of being able to see what’s always happened with the instant availability of information the internet allows one u to do. Before the internet there was no way Turley would have known that there was a “movement” of attacking free speech on college campuses. Think about it. That’s how McCarthyrism ran rampant. Because paranoid individuals started seeing “patterns”. It’s much easier to fall into that kind of mentality with the availability of the internet.
Svelaz wrote, “Witherspoon, there is no movement. The only reason you see a pattern is because Turley has been cherry picking these occurrences from fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college or “university” and tying them into some movement that is allegedly all over the country.” etc, etc, etc…
You completely forgot these words of wisdom that were shared with you a while back; “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”.
So Turley is the only one “cherry picking” these things? You must be living under a huge rock. What this totalitarian Mary Anne Franks is proposing is exactly what people like me have been warning about for years; the end result of all the anti-free speech rhetoric and anti-free speech silencing actions is the destruction of the 1st Amendment. This proposal was inevitable, totalitarians cannot resist the temptation to strip those they oppose of their rights.
“There’s none so blind as those who will not see.”
Your stated opinion shows either willful ignorance or a utterly blind bias; either way you are dead wrong.
This movement to silence anyone that’s not parroting the political left’s hive mind propaganda has been going on for quite some time now. The Constitution is getting in the way of “progressive” totalitarians. There have been books written about it, here’s one that written back in 2015 by a real life classic Liberal Kirsten Powers called
The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.
Feel free to proudly wear those industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders (#CorneliusGotchberg) that you’re hiding behind but once you take them off there is a new reality out there waiting with bated breath for you to join.
Witherspoon, again. It’s not a movement. You state you have been warning people for years. That gives us an insight into your views that have been going on for years. You’re just like those professors Turley finds. Fringe thinkers who are convinced that some sinister movement is afoot. Those are all the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists. I’m not surprised.
I didn’t forget your “words of wisdom”. They don’t apply here because nothing I’ve said is untrue.
You’re just like those people McCarthy relied on for ferreting out “communists” in the community. People so gullible and naive that they will see “patterns” supporting their preconceived notions of a nefarious “movement”.
“You’re just like those people McCarthy relied on for ferreting out “communists” in the community. “
The problem is McCarthy was right despite him not being a likable guy. There were communists in the government and that was proven again and again with the latest being the release of the Venona files.
What we are seeing today is the worst type of McCarthyism we have ever seen, and it is more dangerous. Civil libertarians fought against the tactics of McCarthyism but there are less Civil libertarians around today. Turley is one of them, and that is why despite his coming from center left he is liked by those on the right.
You are a danger to free people, Whitherspoon is not.
S. Meyer,
A broken clock is right twice a day. McCarthy often used coercion to force confessions out of innocent people. He was consumed with the overzealous belief that communism was everywhere in America. He succeeded in turning people into mindless snitches who reported to officials any tiny hint of anything deemed communist. He instigated multiple witch-hunts which eventually led to countless lives ruined over false allegations and any association with perceived communists or even alleged communist activities.
Libel ran rampant during his anti-communism witch-hints.
“A broken clock is right twice a day.”
Svelaz, you barely obtain that. For some reason, you were programmed to be wrong all the time, but occasionally your programming fails. Then you barely look intelligent.
The left is known for coercion and worse. That is why over one hundred million died in the last century outside of war. As proven many times, you don’t know your history, and you don’t know what you are talking about. You are one silly dude.
“McCarthy often used coercion to force confessions out of innocent people. ”
Tell us more in detail about what McCarthy did. Let me make sure you recognize he was a Senator and had nothing to do with HUAC, but you don’t know any of that. Kennedy was on HUAC. By the way, did you know that McCarthy only revealed one name? That name was a partner of Welch’s who was being pushed to be on a committee that involved national security. Welch was a Democrat Senator. Typical.
McCarthy was nasty and unlikeable, but he didn’t do that much. You wouldn’t know because you are ignorant of almost any topic.
S. Meyer,
“ Tell us more in detail about what McCarthy did.”
Sure, but first I don’t know why you needed to assert that he was a senator. I wasn’t questioning whether he was or not. That was just like those random nonsensical comments you put out when you struggle to cobble together a coherent sentence.
Anyway,
“ What these transcripts show, above all, is someone who is desperately trying to push a conspiracy theory, using all the badgering, bullying tactics in private that he was known for in public,” said David Oshinksy, a McCarthy biographer and professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin who has reviewed excerpts of the papers. ”There is no smoking gun here, and there is really nothing that will do McCarthy or his advocates any good.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/us/transcripts-detail-secret-questioning-in-50-s-by-mccarthy.html
You should read the article in its entirety. Shows I was right.
One interesting tidbit about it was that Roy Cohn was interrogating people for McCarthy in his quest for finding communists everywhere. Do you know who he is? Cohn was the personal lawyer of Trump’s father. His hero according to Trump.
No wonder Trump himself is so insistent on claiming the election was stolen. He’s just following in McCarthy’s footsteps as bad conspiracy theory nut job.
“Sure, but first I don’t know why you needed to assert that he was a senator.”
I had to. The wording of your reply demonstrated you didn’t know much of anything about him. That is typical of your nonsense.
“You should read the article in its entirety. Shows I was right.”
That you have to link doesn’t say much, and I didn’t say McCarthy was a nice guy or wasn’t engaged in horrible interrogations of people, but the ones that paid the highest price were the ones before HUAC. The release of the Venona Papers demonstrates that what the NYTimes is suggesting is wrong.
A lot of people were interrogated. That was atrocious, but the fact remains there were communists in government handling national security secrets. Did your article tell you that? McCarthy was not a nice fellow, and he did manipulate the press, but he never came close to using the press the way the left and Democrats have used it today.
Did you read the link? Did you understand the link? No. Why don’t you pick out those that paid the price HUAC exacted. You can’t. Like Anonymous the Stupid, you can only link, and you do that poorly.
Take note of one sentence: “jail time for perjury, none of the witnesses ever did.” How about that? The way these committees handled themselves was terrible, but Democrats didn’t learn, did they? Look at what they are doing today. Look at how your sick mind doesn’t learn from the errors of McCarthyism.
One last thing. The one name on McCarthy’s list that he released was a Democrat. a Welch law firm partner who had communist connections. That was after Welch continuously hounded Cohn and McCarthy to release the names.
Every time you open your mouth, you look stupider. I keep thinking you have reached the bottom, but you haven’t.
S. Meyer says,
“ If I am so uninformed, Anonymous the Stupid, you have plenty of ways to correct me, but you don’t know much of anything until you read the day’s talking points and follow their links. McCarthy has been dead a long time, so there are no present-day links. ”
LOL!!!!!!! BWAHAHAH!!!!!!!
“McCarthy has been dead a long time, so there are no present-day links.” Whut?! Huh? S. Meyer, what do links have to do with McCarthy being dead? Links are always present whether you’re dead or not. Jesus dude you really are the dumbest poster here.
There are no present-day links because McCarthy is dead. LOL!!!!!!!!
Svelaz, not only do you prove yourself ignorant but also a liar at the same time. You quoted a portion of what I said out of context and then made believe it stood alone while saying: “Whut?! Huh? S. Meyer, what do links have to do with McCarthy being dead? ”
My words follow, but this should remind all that you lie without conscience and likely are too dumb to know what the word conscience means.
This is not the first time you have done that to me or anyone else. This was just one time of many.
However, thank you for telling Anonymous the Stupid again that he should have plenty of ways to correct me but can’t because he is Anonymous the Stupid.
My statement regarding McCarthy was as follows:
“If I am so uninformed, Anonymous the Stupid, you have plenty of ways to correct me, but you don’t know much of anything until you read the day’s talking points and follow their links. McCarthy has been dead a long time, so there are no present-day links. You are stuck. You might have to learn the subject matter.”
Anonymous wrote, “I didn’t forget your “words of wisdom”.”
So am I supposed to deduce from this comment that Svelaz and one of the multiple Anonymous commenters is the same person?
Svelaz/Anonymous wrote, “That gives us an insight into your views that have been going on for years. You’re just like those professors Turley finds. Fringe thinkers who are convinced that some sinister movement is afoot. Those are all the hallmarks of conspiracy theorists.”, “You’re just like those people McCarthy relied on for ferreting out “communists” in the community. People so gullible and naive that they will see “patterns” supporting their preconceived notions of a nefarious “movement”.”
Typical, typical “progressive” retort; a progressive gets caught spewing false gaslighting rhetoric by someone that uses actual facts to refute the false claims and the “progressive” jumps to making implications and accusations that the deliverer of actual facts is some kind of nut case. This kind of argumentation is beyond unethical, it’s immoral.
Anonymous wrote, “They [words of wisdom] don’t apply here because nothing I’ve said is untrue.”
That’s a non sequitur, as in a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Here’s the fact, the words of wisdom that were referred to were “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”; here’s the logic, there is absolutely nothing in those words of wisdom stating or implying that what is spoken must be “untrue”. You’re not just wrong again, your dead wrong again.
Again Svelaz/Anonymous or whoever you are; “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”, you’ve effectively removed all doubt.
I rest my case.
Witherspoon,
“ So am I supposed to deduce from this comment that Svelaz and one of the multiple Anonymous commenters is the same person?”
No, however that one comment was me. I accidentally hit “post” before I could finish filing in the required fields in order for my usual icon and name. Anonymous posts are those those from people who don’t fill out the email and username fields when posting. I’ve never posted anonymously. I have no reason to. However S. Meyer does it constantly.
“ Typical, typical “progressive” retort; a progressive gets caught spewing false gaslighting rhetoric by someone that uses actual facts to refute the false claims and the “progressive” jumps to making implications and accusations that the deliverer of actual facts is some kind of nut case.”
It’s not gaslighting. It’s an accurate observation based on your own unhinged rhetoric and opinions. You ARE a nut case. It’s pretty self explanatory according to what you have been saying.
“ Here’s the fact, the words of wisdom that were referred to were “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”; here’s the logic, there is absolutely nothing in those words of wisdom stating or implying that what is spoken must be “untrue”. You’re not just wrong again, your dead wrong again.”
Witherspoon, Jesus man, get a grip. My response to your “words of wisdom” wasn’t about those words. It was about what I said previously. Obviously you can’t keep track of a discussion much less argue logically. You’re just making it more and more obvious that you’re simply a conspiracy theory nut job. Maybe you should follow your own “words of wisdom”. They would do you more good than they would for me.
“I’ve never posted anonymously. I have no reason to. However S. Meyer does it constantly.”
To make things clear. When I post to normal people, I use my name, S. Meyer. I FREQUENTLY USE ANONYMOUS when I post to you because your posts are stupid or repetitive. Why should I waste anyone’s time that is not interested? I am upfront. All anonymous emails should be deleted, including my own.
I generally use anonymous when responding to Anonymous the Stupid (AKA ATS). The reason is apparent.
I sometimes use anonymous with anonymous individuals and those with no ethical and moral values on occasion. That is rare and generally directed to senseless people.
Sometimes I forget to add my name. That is my bad. Sometimes, I use the initials SM at the end of what I write and a generic anonymous to make sure one knows it is me.
All that being said, I think generic anonymous posting on the blog is terrible, as is the continuous use of more than one alias. If everyone stopped reading anonymous postings, they wouldn’t exist, but that will not happen. I do the best I can and, using the guidelines above, post anonymously so that my anonymous postings can be taken out to the trash with all the rest.
Svelaz wrote, “No, however that one comment was me. I accidentally hit “post” before I could finish filing in the required fields in order for my usual icon and name. Anonymous posts are those those from people who don’t fill out the email and username fields when posting.”
I’m not too sure that I actually believe what you wrote but thanks for at least trying.
Svelaz wrote, “You ARE a nut case.”
I’m a hard man and I’ve written a lot of pointed things around here but I’ve never ever called anyone a nut case like you just did. You just ended any semblance of civil discourse and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re trolling.
Svelaz wrote, “It’s pretty self explanatory according to what you have been saying.”
Actually what you’re doing is extrapolating cherry picked things to absurdity based on your own biased tunnel vision while completely ignoring actual facts that support my opinion and render your opinion toothless. What you are doing is bigoted ad hominem attack dog nonsense.
Svelaz wrote, “My response to your “words of wisdom” wasn’t about those words. It was about what I said previously.”
HA!!! Only a blithering idiot or a liar would make such a claim when the evidence proving that you’re wrong is right there in your very own comment. If I applied Hanlon’s Razor to your statement I’d have to conclude that you’re stupid but I don’t think you’re stupid, I think you’re an intentional trolling liar trying to gaslight others; therefore, Hanlon’s Razor doesn’t apply. Yes Svelaz, you’ve burned your bridges. Your choices, your consequences.
I gave you a second chance after the heated “Jussie Smollett and the “Time of Deceit”” discussion and your subsequent apology but now I think it’s fair to reassess based on old and new information. I tried, you blew it; this current thread of commentary has confirmed my original opinion that you’re an internet troll and a gaslighting liar. You can’t say I didn’t give you a chance to fully redeem yourself.
All that said, go troll somewhere else because I’m not going down any more of your absurd gaslighting rabbit holes.
It’s not a movement. It’s just Turley making it to be one by putting on a narrative tying all these incidents as if they were coordinated. It’s the ability of being able to see what’s always happened with the instant availability of information the internet allows one u to do. Before the internet there was no way Turley would have known that there was a “movement” of attacking free speech on college campuses. Think about it.
Okay, I thought about it. You’re a philosophical mess. First, according to you, there is no movement. Then, free speech is not a right to be heard, it’s a right to speak without government infringement. Private institutions can silence speech, public institutions cannot, but students can. Only fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college or “university” are silencing speech. That there was no way to see a pattern, or “movement” attacking free speech on college campuses before the arrival of the internet.
So what have we learned from you? That free speech is under attack and the internet has exposed this to be more than just minor skirmishes in distant corners of the country. That before the age of the internet, the American people wouldn’t have suspected there was a pattern of censorship building momentum. That if left unchecked, they would wake up tomorrow without a 1st amendment right, because they had been gaslit by their trusted media outlets that all was well. That not only has a tree fallen in the woods; entire forests are being decimated and an army of useful idiots are stunningly trying to convince observers there’s nothing to see here. And even if they do see it, it’s normal and for the good of the country.
Damn!
Olly,
“ Only fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college or “university” are silencing speech.”
No, I said fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college have always had these radical and controversial ideas. It’s always been there. That’s not an attack on free speech. It’s an exercise of it.
Free speech is not under attack. Turley and most of those hyperventilating about such a notion are forgetting that just because you have the right to free expression and the right not to have government censorship and punishment because of critical or unfavorable views doesn’t mean you have a right to be heard. Nobody can be forced to hear such views. Nobody has a right to require a venue to express these views.
The 1st amendment only prohibits government from punishing you for speaking your mind. It doesn’t protect you from criticism and even heckling by others who are not government. Free speech is not absolute.
No, I said fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college have always had these radical and controversial ideas.
Speaking of patterns, you have a pattern of trying to reframe your own comments into an entirely different meaning. As if readers couldn’t discern the incongruence of the competing comments.
The only reason you see a pattern is because Turley has been cherry picking these occurrences from fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college or “university” and tying them into some movement that is allegedly all over the country…Before the internet there was no way Turley would have known that there was a “movement” of attacking free speech on college campuses.
The totality of your comment implied JT saw a pattern that would otherwise not be seen were it not for the availability of the internet. It would be more accurate to assert the free speech attacks on college campuses have become so ubiquitous, that free speech, in comparison, is now a practice of fringe professors at backwoods colleges.
OLLY wrote, “Speaking of patterns, you have a pattern of trying to reframe your own comments into an entirely different meaning.”
It’s called moving the goalposts or lying. Either way you look at this kind of rhetoric it’s deceitful BS.
It’s called moving the goalposts or lying. Either way you look at this kind of rhetoric it’s deceitful BS.
That’s the result of Svelaz “building his house on sands.”
OLLY,
It appears to me that the only time Svelaz opens “his” mouth is to change socks.
Olly,
“ The totality of your comment implied JT saw a pattern that would otherwise not be seen were it not for the availability of the internet.”
No, JT didn’t see a pattern. He created a pattern to claim there is one. Cherry picking isolated incidents and characterizing them as a movement because he is putting them all together is not “seeing” a pattern. There’s a distinction.
“ Speaking of patterns, you have a pattern of trying to reframe your own comments into an entirely different meaning.”
No, it’s reframing JT’s assertions in a different perspective. Turley sometimes plays loose with the facts and obviously plays to his more gullible readership.
“ It would be more accurate to assert the free speech attacks on college campuses have become so ubiquitous, that free speech, in comparison, is now a practice of fringe professors at backwoods colleges.”
It only appears to be ubiquitous because Turley is only using these isolated incidents and few radical professors doing what they always do to portray it as something much bigger than it really is when in fact it is not the kind of foreboding movement he claims it is.
No, JT didn’t see a pattern.
You’re seriously going to claim you know what JT sees? He’s a free speech absolutist. That’s his hammer. And perhaps he sees every violation of free speech as a nail. The incidents, as you suggest may seem isolated, but if your view is in the trees, you will never perceive them in their totality until you zoom out and see the forest. If you were to plot them on a map of the United States, you would see how widespread these isolated incidents are. And when you examine each incident, you will see the pattern of whose free speech is being violated. JT didn’t create the incidents, he reported them. He didn’t create the pattern, the pattern was created by each incident.
The fact pattern of these free speech violations is undeniable and systemic.
“. . . fringe professors in some backwoods or little known college or “university’ . . .”
“fringe”?! “backwoods”?! You’re clueless.
The attack on free speech, which is an academic movement, was started by the likes of Stanley Fish, long at Duke University, and Richard Rorty, long at Princeton, UVA, and Stanford.
The trolls like Svelaz will never concede any point because that means not controlling their political narrative. Its a tact from Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”. Politics is their religion.
See:
The Second Great Age of Political Correctness
GREG LUKIANOFF | FROM THE JANUARY 2022 ISSUE
Reason.com
In 2015 alone, there were multiple high-profile free-speech blowups on campus. Perhaps most famous was the confrontation between sociologist Nicholas Christakis and students at Yale that began over school guidance about inappropriate Halloween costumes.
In 2017, there was outright violence at Berkeley and Middlebury College, with activist students using force in response to speech they opposed. (At Middlebury, a professor named Allison Stanger was permanently injured in a melee during an appearance by the author Charles Murray.) Then came 2020, with hundreds of high-profile examples of attempts to get professors and students canceled, all across the country.
One might assume that the increased media attention and the numerous high-profile incidents of campus speech crackdowns—including violent confrontations caught on video—would have definitively demonstrated that the campus free speech situation has become dismal. Yet not only were there debates about whether campus speech was really in crisis but new arguments appeared insisting that campus censorship and academic freedom simply weren’t problems at all.
Libertarianism is self-organizing. Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is [unqualified] monotonic. Conservativism is moderating. Principles matter.
I am triggered by Professor Franks. I think we need some muscle over here/
So-called intellectual academia is the greatest threat to America.
OT, anyone else notice the increased message traffic about various things being a “threat to our democracy!”?
From H Clinton, to some former generals, to the “Squad.”
Famous quotes from Svelaz:
“God is a moron.”
His logic that follows doesn’t demonstrate any intelligence whatsoever.
(Another commenter followed saying: “Svelaz, What a dumb comment.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/17/all-speech-is-not-equal-biden-taps-anti-free-speech-figure-for-transition-lead-on-media-agency/comment-page-1/#comment-2026173
Humans are stupid. I can’t stand them. I hate their guts They should go the way of the dinosaurs.
I denounce the weaponization of the word “weaponization”.
Isn’t aggressive individualism the theme of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments? In fact, this list is not nearly complete, but the point is that his approach is entirely too timid.
As kenb5602 notes, the individual acts as a check upon other individuals, as well as groups and the government. It is the individual, including the idiosyncratic outlier, who assures that a given society does not become unbalanced and degenerate into a ‘closed’ system. The individual is the key political institution, even if the smallest, who keeps asystem ‘open,’ or so Locke and others argued.
Families can, have, and do play a similar role, and they are crucial to the development of the individual, but a society in which families are sovereign tends to a state of oligarchy in which clan is pitted against clan, leading to blood feud and anarchy, until their ability to judge and punish is assumed by a state which must be impartial and even-handed or it risks becoming the tyrany of a dictator, a majority, or a collective — and tyrany, even in the name of social justice, is an unstable and untenable solution to the need to both contain and nourish human nature, whose flaws rigid ideologies and closed political systems tend to magnify and distort.
Franks might want to read a bit more widely, say Machiavelli on Titus Livius, Montesquieu on law, Mill on liberty, Bergson and Popper on open societies, or Koestler on gods which have failed. Doing so might deepen her understanding of human nature and the law, and persuade her to be a bit more modest and measured in her arguments and opinions. As it is, she seems similar to too many public intellectuals — clever ideologues who embrace simplisitic arguments and offer superficial solutions to complex problems.
I write this as someone who took years to appreciate how fortunate were are that our Founding Fathers acknowledged the flaws our nature contains (which utopian ideologies cannot do), studied the lesson that history offers (which narrow specialists have no time to do), read widely (which pundits rarely do), and sought to lay the basis for a system which was both firm and supple enough to allow our natures free play and assre the security of our future (which only a handful of leaders have managed to do).