“It is a great artistic loss for the Met and for opera.” Those words from the Metropolitan Opera Manager Peter Gelb makes it sound like soprano Anna Netrebko has died or lost her voice in some accident. In reality, Netrebko was cancelled for failing to denounce Vladimir Putin. As with the criminalization of support for Putin in some countries, the termination of Netrebko is an attack on free speech. It is perfectly bizarre for the Met to stand against tyranny by attacking free speech, the very right that combats tyranny in all forms. This is not just the day that the music died for Netrebko, it is the day that free speech died at the Met.
Despite my strong support for Ukraine and condemnation of Putin, it is important for advocates of civil liberties and free speech to be vigilant in calling out such abusive measures. It is during wartime and periods of social discord that the greatest abuses can occur for those with dissenting or unpopular views.
Before addressing this latest controversy, it is also important to respond to rather fowhat has become a rationalization on the left for attacks on free speech in recent years: the First Amendment only protects speech from government crackdowns. The First Amendment is not the full or exclusive embodiment of free speech. It addresses just one of the dangers to free speech posed by government regulation. Many of us view free speech as a human right. Corporate censorship of social media clearly impacts free speech, and replacing Big Brother with a cadre of Little Brothers actually allows for far greater control of free expression.
As I have noted earlier, while liberal writers and artists were blacklisted and investigated in the 1950s, liberal activists have succeeded in censoring opposing views to a degree that would have made Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) blush. Rather than burn books, they have simply gotten stores to ban them or blacklist the authors and artists.
For these companies, there is no value to protecting the speech rights of dissenting voices with powerful politicians, academics, and even some in the media demanding more censorship.
Now back to the Met. According to media reports, Met officials “made several attempts to convince Netrebko, who has made statements critical of the war, to rebuke Putin but failed to persuade the singer.” That sounds a lot like coerced speech: say these words or you can no longer sing at the Met. That sounds a lot like something Putin is doing in Russia as we speak. Saying that “well, we are not Putin” is not enough when you are acting in the same way by punishing political viewpoints.
Netrebko has had 192 performances at the Metropolitan Opera and is one of the world’s most celebrated singers. Did she lose the ability to hit such high notes due to the low note she strikes on politics?
Other Russians have faced backlash over their past praising of Putin or failure to condemn him now. One such example is Washington Capitals forward Alex Ovechkin. Frankly, I have never been a fan of Ovechkin not only because I am a Blackhawks fan but he has previously praised this blood-soaked tyrant. Like Netrebko, he has appeared in pictures with Putin. However, I would be the first to oppose any effort to bar him from the ice due to his political views (as tempting as they may be at the next game against Chicago). Unlike the Met, hockey officials generally supported the players.
Yet, Gelb bizarrely says “Anna is one of the greatest singers in Met history, but with Putin killing innocent victims in Ukraine, there was no way forward.” No way forward? How about a free speech path where you allow an artist to perform for her art alone. Gelb and others can then use their free speech to condemn Putin or criticize Netrebko without silencing her on the stage.
Netrebko has publicly stated that “I am opposed to this senseless war of aggression, and I am calling on Russia to end this war right now to save all of us. We need peace right now.” Even that statement should not be necessary as a condition for her to perform. Are all opera singers now expected to repeat mantra-like the view of the Met or the majority?
When many artists opposed the Vietnam War, there was widespread support for their free speech rights in opposing blacklisting. The same was true during the McCarthy period. Now, the very same people who celebrate such struggles as defining moments in our history are seeking to cancel artists for their political views. In this case, Netrebko is not even being targeted for saying something offensive but rather for not repeating the position of the majority on the war. Years ago, I wrote that there was a dangerous trend toward compelled speech: “The line between punishing speech and compelling speech is easily crossed when free speech itself is viewed as a threat.” We appear to have crossed that line.
In the end, the Met succeeded in silencing a talented artist because she would not use her voice to support the view of the majority. In doing so, the Met embraced orthodoxy over art.
I have previously noted that the growing anti-free speech movement among artists and writers is self-destructive. Artists against free speech is like athletes against fitness. Artists need free speech to be able to create and perform freely. To see artists leading an anti-free speech movement is a form of self-condemnation.
The Met is a private organization and thus they have a right to not associate with those who have views they don’t agree with. This is nothing like in Russia because that is government suppressing speech. I would say that I expect better from JT but I don’t.
A reputation of a remark made under a different name and icon so I will repeat my comment, but add that compelling speech goes one step further than free speech being denied.
You are confusing yourself, which is not unusual. Many people work at the Met and other similar places that would not associate with certain people they work with. Your vision is so narrow that you miss that point and don’t recognize how foolish your statement is.
Your statement also explains why you don’t get along with people.
Should be: “A repetition of a remark made under a different name “
Sammy, so you have a restaurant with a lunch counter and you do not allow black people to sit at your counter. Do you have a the right of association on your side to justify your actions. I find it interesting that Sammy calls loudly for the right of association in one instance and then is opposed to the right of association on another instance. Bernie Sanders went to Russia for his honeymoon. Bernie also praised Castro https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/sanders-defends-castro-cuba-comments-cnntv/index.html. So where is the cancellation of Bernie Sanders by the left. His progressive platform is still considered with respect by left leaning voters. I do not agree with this singers’ lack of condemnation of Putin but I will never ask her if she is now or ever been a member of the Communist Party so that she can be black balled. We’ve seen this drama played out in the past but some of us have never learned the lesson. Those who have no knowledge of history are doomed to repeat it. The repeating is sadly sickening.
Freedom of thought is basic and it includes the freedom to be silent. You can voice an opinion or decline to voice an opinion. When I was at one university the professors were asked to put a rainbow decal on their office door to show that their office was a “safe place”. I would not do that even though I was not anti-gay in the same manner as not putting an American Flag on my door after 9/11 even though I am patriotic. We cannot have independence of thought, opinion or even attitude without the freedom to not reveal thoughts unless we wnat to. Consider the microphones in the faces of those leaving polling areas. You can report your choice but you shouldn’t be expected to. That is why we have secret balloting- it helps with not being pressured. In one Statistics class I had an honors student who had to do an extra experiment- she wanted to poll sorority members on ther choice on the election between Obama vs McCain. She chose two sororities that seemed to be made up of students with similar backgrounds. She had one sorority turn in folded pieces of paper with their choice written on the inside. The results were about 50% each way. The other sorority was asked to have a show of hands. The results were 90% to 10% for Obama. Secret ballots help with independence of polling results. She was an Obama supporter herself but in her remarks paragraph she reported that anyone publicly supporting McCain on campus was usually screamed at for being racist. So the next time you are asked to give a view, you can give a view, not give a view, say you have no opinion or even “Mind your own business” and for obnoxious questioners: “F U , Hitler.”
The Metropolitan Opera should be non-political, but I suspect the Met is run by many left-wing PC folks who do not hesitate to deny speech or compel it. The Met made such controversial decisions before and draped their choices under the banner of artistic freedom. Compelled speech doesn’t represent freedom and, based on the Met’s history, is an act of hypocrisy.
Let me mention an opera performed at the Met several years back, “The Death of Klinghoffer,” which involved cold-blooded murder. As a random innocent Jew, Klinghoffer was executed by Palestinian terrorists and thrown overboard to drown at sea. It was pre-meditated murder, not just death, as the title makes it seem. It was creating a platform of moral equivalence for Palestinian terrorists.
People heavily protested the opera because it gave legitimacy to the murder of a helpless innocent wheelchair-bound Jew on the Achille Lauro celebrating his wedding anniversary. While one might be able to squeak in a debate about artistic freedom, one has to ask themselves how the Met can suddenly cancel artistic freedom and instead compel speech based on a political situation where a lot of fog prevails. The PC crowd at the Met has won and proven themselves, hypocrites.
Admiral Jeremiah Denton figured out how to deal with compelled speech. Just blink in Morse code, TORTURE, during the speech and we’ll know it was forced.
“To see artists leading an anti-free speech movement is a form of self-condemnation.”
It’s abstract art at its finest.
The anti-Russian insanity reminds me of the anti-German insanity that began not long after WW1 started: Germany speaking people were tormented; books by German authors were burned; symphonies around the country refused to play anything written by German composers; and best of all, the University of Pittsburgh refused to sing its own Alma Mater because it was a Hayden melody. Such idiocy. We fall for it every single time.
Oops! Typo. That was meant to be “German speaking” not “Germany speaking.”
Does Turley believe in freedom of association?
The tension between freedom of association and freedom of speech is central to this scenario, yet he ignores it.
IF freedom of association is a right, then bakeries cant be sued. And service can be refused at a lunch counter. The EEOC is unconstitutional
All I am saying. SCOTUS, has in fact, separated the two.
Apparently you failed to notice that Turley isn’t discussing legal rights (it’s entirely legal for the MET to make this decision). He’s discussing what he calls “free speech as a human right.” I wasn’t discussing legal rights either.
BTW, you’re confusing employees and customers.
You are confusing yourself, which is not unusual. Many people work at the Met and other similar places that would not associate with certain people they work with. Your vision is so narrow that you miss that point and don’t recognize how foolish your statement is.
Your statement also explains why you don’t get along with people.
Allan the Chihuahua barks his impotent little bark.
BTW, you’re confusing employees and customers
Which Group does freedom of association not apply?
People are going to have preference their opinions as to a “right” or manners, is being debated.
I encourage you to edit “People are going to have preference their opinions as to a “right” or manners, is being debated,” so that it’s grammatical and your intended meaning can be discerned.
As for “Which Group does freedom of association not apply?,” are you asking about legal rights? If so, I’ll remind you again that Turley’s column isn’t about legal rights. If not, then clarify what you *are* talking about in your question.
I’ll remind you again that Turley’s column isn’t about legal rights.
So free speech is not a core value society should encourage? I disagree. Free speech is a basic human right. The constitution prevents the federal govt from infringing on basic human rights. The constitution did not invent them.
There are only rights. What you are referring to is enumerated rights held by the people. Not some privilege bestowed by government.
In your reply, you’ve demonstrated that:
a) you’re unwilling to clarify whatever you meant by the unclearly-worded “People are going to have preference their opinions as to a “right” or manners, is being debated,”
b) you’re also unwilling to make explicit whether you’re referring to legal rights in your question “Which Group does freedom of association not apply?,” but imply that you’re instead talking about “basic human rights,” and
c) you ask a question and then presume to know the answer.
What if she supported Hitler?
I agree with your Hitler comment. I don’t believe that a private company should employ anyone who openly supports a Hitler-type. Yet forcing an employee to mouth any particular approval or disapproval is wrong. But it is not a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, which applies only to government actions.
I don’t believe that a private company should employ anyone who openly supports a Hitler-type.
Who decides who is a “type”. That includes all registered Republicans (as determined by leftists) Is it just Hitler? What about Mao? Casto, Stalin, Che?
All people directly responsible for deaths of their own people, several, into the millions.
Who decides? The employer does. Remember, I am talking about terminating an employee who openly supports a “Hitler-type” or any ideology which “their” employer opposes. Exceptions would be where there are legal (statutory) limitations on an employer’s freedom of action.
So I can fire my employee that voted for Biden, and still supports Biden, because I “think” his policies are like Hitlers?
Remember we are still in the midst of people believing President Trump colluded with Putin, and was his agent, at least an unknowing agent. Despite every investigation has turned up nothing at the best, and was actually propaganda spread by the FBI, DoJ, State Dept, and others.
Members of Trump’s Campaign colluded with Russian agents: Manafort with Kilimnik, and Stone with Guccifer 2. I don’t know whether Trump himself colluded with Putin, but we all know that Trump publicly asked Russia to help him, and Russia did help him.
Members of the Biden family and Biden himself colluded with Russian “agents”. That is true. The above statement is false.
Biden didn’t ask for help. He was given it on a gold platter.
Exceptions would be where there are legal (statutory) limitations on an employer’s freedom of action.
For instance, they should lose NEA funding.
A person’s personal feelings, by themselves, do not justify compelled speech.
Many rights can cause conflict. People like you, who wear blinders, cannot evaluate where one right ends and another begins.
Personally, not knowing much about the opera world , I searched for some background on the artist and this controversy.
I believe this link gives a pretty good history on the arts and war , from WWII to today.
https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2022/03/03/1084246378/arts-organizations-putin-supporters
I almost always agree with Professor Turley, and I agree with his points here about censorship. I have to question, however, why he chose to preface his essay with his own personal condemnation of Putin. I for one do not know enough about what is happening in Ukraine to condemn Putin. Yes, I obviously agree that war is horrible and the deaths in Ukraine are horrible, but I do not trust the media to give us the full, honest facts about Ukraine. What I see in the media is a full-on propaganda campaign to paint Zelensky and the Ukrainians as absolutely spotless heroes and Putin and the Russians as irredeemable devils. The history of independent Ukraine is short and marked with tensions between western Ukrainians and Ukrainians in the east and south who have strong ties to Russia. The media, of course, depicts the discord as one-sided aggression on the part of Russia and Russian sympathizers. I do not know whether this depiction is accurate or not, but, again, I do not trust the narrative from the media. Some expert observers have said that Russia has a legitimate concern about Ukraine joining NATO and installing missiles on its soil. To me this situation sounds quite similar to the threat of Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba in 1962. As I recall, the media did not condemn Kennedy for threatening war over the installation of those missiles. The Russian attempt to install missiles so close to American borders was clearly a provocation, and Kennedy made it clear that America would go to war to prevent the installation. Putin, I believe has expressed for several years a similar concern over NATO missiles being installed so close to Russia’s borders. He views the threat of NATO on his borders as a provocation. Why are his concerns less valid than our own? I am not saying that Russia’s invasion is justified. All I am saying is that we have not heard the other side from the media or our government, and I don’t believe we ever will. And all of this censorship and cancelling is designed to make sure no one even suggests that there is another side to the story.
Putin didn’t simply threaten war. He started a war. So despite your despite your desire to analogize to the Cuban missile crisis, it’s not analogous.
“I have to question, however, why he chose to preface his essay with his own personal condemnation of Putin. ”
How about: that’s what he thinks, and this is an op-ed discussing his views.
So. if the Russians had ignored Kennedy’s threat (like Ukraine and NATO ignored Putin’s threat) and Kennedy had carried out his threat, then Kennedy would have been condemned just like Putin. Yeah, you’re right. Not analogous at all. Are you serious!? You honestly do not see how the two situations are similar? The only difference is that the Russians backed down in the face of Kennedy’s threat, but Ukraine did not back down. As I said, I am not saying that the Russians are justified, but at least I can recognize that there may be another side to the story that we are not hearing.
As for Turley’s personal opinion, of course, he can say whatever he wants. I am just questioning why he thought it important to express an opinion that has no bearing on the issue of censorship. I am also questioning the basis for his opinion, since so much of the “information” about the situation is pure propaganda.
You cannot possibly know what Kennedy actually would have done in your hypothetical situation, and you shouldn’t pretend to know.
Kennedy did not invade Cuba, and Putin did invade Ukraine.
I did not suggest that I know what Kennedy would have done. I am saying that if he had followed through on his threat, according to you, he would or should have been condemned, just like Putin. You, however, refuse to even consider that the two situations are very similar. I know, I know…”Kennedy did not invade, Putin did invade.” Let me ask you a simple question. If the Russians had not backed down, would Kennedy have been justified in invading Cuba, or should he be condemned like Putin?
I would have condemned Kennedy, just as I did condemn GW Bush for starting an unnecessary war that cost us in lives, dollars, moral standing, and more.
If you would have condemned Kennedy for following through on his threat, then I assume you would have condemned him for making the threat. But Kennedy was not condemned at the time except by the Russians, the Cubans and their allies.
You shouldn’t assume.
You shouldn’t draw inferences about an actual event based on a counterfactual. You shouldn’t draw inferences about what someone would have done in 1962 based on how they reason 60 years later.
You already told me you would have condemned Kennedy if he had invaded Cuba. So, would you have condemned his threat or not?
You initially asked about a counterfactual.
You’re now asking about a fact, not about a counterfactual, and the appropriate question is what I did, not what I would have done (“would have” in what new counterfactual circumstances?).
In 1962, I didn’t condemn Kennedy for making the threat.
You should note, that few condemned Putin when he said he was just interested in “freeing” two defined areas in eastern Ukraine.
Only when his acitons proved is justification a lie, die Putin earn international condemnation.
Actions not intentions are what is judged.
“Kennedy did not invade Cuba, and Putin did invade Ukraine.”
The Presidency: The Bay of Pigs Invasion
Well, Russia has also stated for many years his desire to “ get the band back together” , in that he sees the former Soviet states as part of mother Russia Territory .
Which is why many if not most former Soviet states wanted to be part of NATO, some of which now are.
Their concern was ( and still is) that Russia would attempt to take their sovereign country by force – and of course, that is where we are today.
Kalingrad oblast, that weird piece of land now has nuclear armed missiles pointed at Poland and Lithuania by poor misunderstood Russia (Sarcasm) .
Correction : “ well, Russia”… should read “ well, Putin……”
I never heard of Kalingrad oblast before I read your comment. Very interesting.
I am not trying to portray Russia as misunderstood, but I am thoroughly skeptical of the anti-Russian propaganda blitz. Also, I think there are parallels between the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and what is happening in Ukraine that are worth examining.
Pud,
” I for one do not know enough about what is happening in Ukraine to condemn Putin.”.
Turn on the TV…open your eyes and your mind…..and ask yourself why are Russian Military Forces committing atrocities and war crimes against the Civilian population of Ukraine.
Hopefully you have at least the IQ of a head of Cabbage and be able to grasp there is no reason under the Sun that justifies what you see going on with your own eyes.
For crying out loud….you don’t even have to turn the volume up to hear what is being said about it to understand the evil of what is being done to infants, children, women, and men who are not wearing uniforms or carrying weapons.
When the Russians pull the plug on the Ukraine National Electrical Grid…..what will you say then…..that you just don’t get it?
If you have the IQ of a head of cabbage, you should know that what is shown on TV is at least 90% propaganda. You are watching what someone has selected for you to see and are buying into their narrative. I am willing to concede that your interpretation may be correct, but it may also be just what has been fed to you by the media. And, if you are correct, are you willing to jeopardize American lives to defend one corrupt country from another? And are you willing to even consider the possibility that Russia has a legitimate interest in keeping Ukraine out of NATO? Would you feel threatened if Mexico was considering signing a mutual defense agreement with Russia or China?
He views the threat of NATO on his borders as a provocation.
NATO has never provoked any conflict. their roll has always been defensive, and never strayed from that.
Gee, the missiles Russia wanted in Cuba were strictly for the defense of Cuba, which, by the way had been attacked by forces supported by the United States (remember the Bay of Pigs). “Defense” is often a point of view, and yours is very narrow.
“Defense” is often a point of view, and yours is very narrow.
That’s a long way to say my statement of fact is correct. Or are contending Russia/USSR has never taken over territory and population by force. I’m not going bother looking up how often NATO has taken over territory.
For as long as the grass grows, rivers flow & the wind blows the govt’s promises to……….
***********
There’s been a plenty of interesting news/history pieces I’ve been seeing/hearing the last few years.
Below is one guy’s views/comments on Pax Americana:
43:38 min long if one finds the time.
***
World War 3 Engineered by Globalists: Russia/Ukraine is the Great Reset
31,927 views
·
Mar 4, 2022
26
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
Support Infowars and find the latest deals on the products you need at infowarsstore*com
Jay Dyer of ……………… guest hosts The Alex Jones Show to break down the buildup to World War 3 and how the war in Ukraine will lead into the Globalists’ Great Reset takeover.
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=62228f63445e8b4e25e0d510
******
& this master list if one wishes to glance:
https://www.banned.video/
NATO invaded or “intervened” in Iraq (first war), Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya. And the U.S. has participated in many invasions.
Free speech does not demand open ears. Free choice is primary.
Work on your attention to details.
Jerry is not the same person as Jeff, and here you are condemning Jeff for what jerry said.
Anonymous said:
“Jerry is not the same person as Jeff, and here you are condemning Jeff for what jerry said.”
Thanks for noticing! Not even my relation!
Forced speech – very Soviet and, of course, very modern liberal. When is their tired act over? We need a new play.
mespo…..A new play? How about “Our American Cousin”…….and we buy Joe Biden a box seat on opening night? 😎
HIllary Rodham Clinton co-starring as Mary Todd Lincoln!
👍mespo!
Nicely done this piece. Thanks
This is just the latest in the self-destruction of the arts. As Heather MacDonald has eloquently shown, the neo-racist pursuit of “equity” in music, ballet and our museums has subordinated aesthetic standards to ideology. Compelled speech professing commitment to the prevailing view is the next step. We are fast approaching the triumph of ideology over standards of excellence that prevailed in the cultural revolution in China.
Well said Daniel
I fell head over heels for Netrebko when she performed as Susanna in Mozart’s opera “The Marriage of Figaro” in San Francisco over 20 years ago. She’s put on a little weight since then.
I agree with Turley.
Another blow to free speech:
“RT America ceases productions and lays off most of its staff”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/03/media/rt-america-layoffs/index.html
This happenstance was all too predictable given the censorship of RT America by many Little Brothers:
“DirecTV Drops Russia-Backed RT Channel “Effective Immediately”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/directv-drops-russian-rt-1235101912/
It’s ironic that Turley remains silent as the human rights of the RT propagandists are being violated. Will Turley condemn those broadcasters which censored RT America NOW that it has been CANCELLED?
To date, crickets….
You are right, of course. Lefties are generally obnoxious but they do not seem to recognize the huge difference between banning/criminalizing/silencing speech and compelling it. Both are wrong, but the latter is an invasion and destruction of the mind whereas the former is “merely” the imprisonment of it.
I completely agree with your sentiments. But this happens every time war fever takes over doesn’t it? How were Germans treated in WWI? Japanese in WWII? New technology makes it easier, but the spirit is the same. Would you use the phrase “blood soaked tyrant” to describe George Bush for his attack on Iraq (and Afghanistan for that matter) or Nixon and Johnson for the war against Vietnam? i would. From the perspective of their victims, they were no different than Putin.
I hate when fake intellectuals like JeffSilberman equate America with fascists or communists abroad. Of course Jeffy uses Bush, Nixon and ok LBJ while not mentioning the dead caused by Obama or Clinton and of course good little Jeffy would never bring FDR or Truman into the idiotic equation. Jeffy, name the country that we took over and made part of the US. Is Iraq the 51st state? Is Afghanistan? Would you equate the Taliban or Saddam with Zalensky? See how dumb you are.
Little contrarian minds like Jeffy like to say that if the government executes a guy that raped and killed women or children then “we are no better than them”. Well genius, when you kill a guy that kills women we are NOT LIKE HIM, we are making a point about how important the women really were. Equating Putin with George W. Bush is asinine, but that is our little minded Jeffy.
Moral equivalency, what a bunch of crap.
When we turn a blind eye to evil….it prospers.
Attacking Free Speech is a lesser evil than damning the evil being perpetrated by Putin and his Military.
Neither is right or proper but one far exceeds the other on the Wrongness Scale.
Raising the attack on free speech to the level of mass murder of innocent people is a Sin.
Committing Mass Murder should be a Mortal Sin that is zealously prosecuted then we can discuss the lesser Sin of harming Free Speech.
As we see there situation in Ukraine become the greatest travesty in the past fifty years….exceeding even that of Rwanda (another case of the Western World looking away) perhaps we shall look back and rightly question anyone who did not take a principled stand to support the People of Ukraine as we see them suffer under the yoke of an evil dictator.
Let’s pray Putin gets his State Funeral in the very near future and all of the Russian Troops decamp from Ukraine.
Then we can determine how much Russia has to pay for the restoration of the Ukraine.
The blind eye to evil in the West has a log in it. “Blood-soaked Tyrant”? Putin? What about what is euphemistically called “FOREIGN POLICY” in the US, which purports to confer the right to start wars and violence in other countries without the (somewhat reasonable) excuse that someone is constructing a wall of missile bases along the border a few minutes flying time from one’s capital. Libya Iraq Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the list is long and shameful.
All this hypocrisy and flag-wagging pomposity is emetic and self perpetuating in the absence of anything of truth in the legacy media.. There is a simple solution which is to get a security agreement with Russia concluded ,as they have been asking since day 1.
This has never been any different from the Cuban Missile Crisis run in reverse. Kruschev was leader enough to back off. The dribbling ass in the White House does not easily bear comparison.
http://www.tarableu.com
Thug impulses are getting stronger in our society.
This increasingly a belief among many people that it is OK to bully others into desired behavior.
Just read some of the lefty posts on this blog trying to force Turley to say certain things about Fox.
(Can’t remember which lefty is particularly obnoxious, but many of the posts veer beyond hectoring and are insulting.)
Thug? Maybe. I see it more like a bunch of suburban middle school girls are making policy.
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out