“Hate Speech”: LinkedIn Disables Air Force Vet’s Account After Criticizing Loan Forgiveness

We have discussed the expanding censorship programs at Twitter, Facebook, and other social media. These programs have notably targeted conservative viewpoints on contemporary controversies. Now, LinkedIn has added its company name to this ignoble effort, according to an Air Force veteran whose account was disabled after criticizing the calls for loan forgiveness. The site declared opposing the Democratic plan for loan forgiveness to be “hate speech.”

Smith is the founder of the non-profit organization Code of Vets, a group created in honor of her father who died at 57 after years of struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. Like many Americans, she opposed the loan forgiveness calls from Democratic members and has shared her own use of military service to help pay for college.

Smith posted her take on student loan forgiveness on vasrious social media platforms.

“I am not responsible for your student debt. I grew up in poverty in NC. Ate from a garden, name was on community Angel tree for Christmas, bought clothes from yard sales & if I was lucky, on a rare occasion Sky City. I joined the Air Force then went to college. I made it happen.”

LinkedIn then disabled or restricted her account as well as her Code of Vets account. LinkedIn told Smith in an email that the Code of Vets post “goes against our policy on hate speech,” according to a screenshot she shared on Twitter.

LinkedIn has not responded to media inquiries, which is typical of social media companies. The company simply said that she can appeal.

If this is the entirety of the posting, it is hard to imagine a more glaring example of bias and censorship. Someone in the company simply supports loan forgiveness and declared opposition to the Democratic plan to be “hate speech.”

Both public and private censorship leads to an insatiable appetite for silencing those with opposing views.

This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

Social media companies seem to have written off conservatives and others with dissenting views. They have also readily embraced censorship as a noble task. Indeed, after the old Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was criticized for his massive censorship efforts, Twitter replaced him with CEO Parag Agrawal who has expressed chilling anti-free speech sentiments. In an interview with Technology Review editor-in-chief Gideon Lichfield, he was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment.  Agrawal responded;

“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.

One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention.”

He added that Twitter would be “moving towards how we recommend content and … how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”

178 thoughts on ““Hate Speech”: LinkedIn Disables Air Force Vet’s Account After Criticizing Loan Forgiveness”

  1. Just looking at Jack Dorsey, I really wouldn’t want him collecting my garbage, let alone telling me how to think about anything. The same goes for his successors. How’s that for some “hate speech”?

    1. Actually, I think Dorsey’s brain got infected years ago with his lust for power. He was not always the Jack Dorsey he became in recent years. And by the way, I think garbage collection/sanitation engineering (euphemism of the left) is a necessary and honorable profession.

    1. I will remember her as a stupid woman who got caught up with a mob that illegally interrupted Congress’s certification of the EC vote and who was killed by a USCP officer as she attempted to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby through a broken glass panel in a locked door after she was warned to stop.

        1. Sometimes.

          It depends on the details.

          There are certainly other examples of cops being cleared after killing people who do not stop when ordered. If you want to see multiple other examples, Google something like police officer cleared killing “stop when ordered”

          Babbitt was trying to break into the Speaker’s Lobby, which opens directly onto the floor of the House, after most of Congress was evacuated from the House chamber, but some members of Congress and staff were still in the House chamber. The Speaker’s Lobby is a highly restricted space; few people other than members of Congress have authority to enter it. The door was locked and barricaded, and she was attempting to climb in through a glass panel in the top half of that locked door after the glass was broken by Zach Alam. He is being prosecuted for multiple crimes that day, including breaking the glass in that door. He shouldn’t have broken the glass, and she shouldn’t have tried to climb through it.

          1. Despite the ignorant reply above, Babbitt served in the military, was an MP and was heard trying to quiet the crowd as she did in the military. For all we know, that is what she was trying to do by peacefully going through the broken window. She was one of the crowd, so maybe she felt people would listen. (That worked in NYC)

            In any event, climbing unarmed through the window with hands and feet occupied into an empty room where there were only armed police officers does not mean she should be murdered, and then the investigation of the murder be kept secret. There were other officers there who did not shoot.

            Anonymous the Stupid likes to make long stories, but he is the type of guy that would have people shot dead in the street if they Jaywalked and weren’t of the right political position.

            He is hateful, as proven in his own words. He twists the truth since he won’t admit that Ashli was no threat to anyone. Because he knows his position is wrong, he flooded the post with non-relevant information, Zach Alam, and tried to push Zack’s potentially criminal activity to the murdered Ashli Babbitt.

            I don’t think he is lying except attempting to change the truth in this response. He didn’t have to write so many words about the location etc. He could have said the room was empty but for several police officers. That our resident liar won’t tell people.

            Keep it up Anonymous the Stupid. We all know who and what you are, and it isn’t pleasant.

            1. @ Seth- spot on.

              Ashli Babbitt was an unarmed 105-pound woman. An Air Force veteran who served her country with distinction in the Middle East. A loving wife. An American. A human being who did not deserve to die at the hands of the Capitol Police.

              Progressive Democrats dehumanize Ashli Babbitt. They celebrate Ashli’s death. Why? Because of her political views. For the same reason they celebrate the censorship of Gretchen Smith, another Air Force veteran and the subject of today’s blog post. Ashli Babbitt and Gretchen Smith are Exhibits A and B for how blind hatred for their political opponents has infected the ideology of the left. How the left will do anything to silence views they view as a threat to their power. Literally anything.

              Comments like ATS’ are typical of an ideology consumed by hatred and inhumanity. Why do progressives espouse such open, venomous hatred for Ashli Babbitt? Because they are terrified of ideas. Terrified of ideas that they cannot control. Terrified of ideas that pose a threat to their power.

              Fortunately, Americans have a much more positive vision of the future. Americans understand the profound power of ideas. Ashli Babbitt’s memory serves as a reminder of a nation where Americans – of all races, nationalities, and political viewpoints – can work together as a unified people to build a stronger America. The most powerful idea of all.

              1. No, Epstein, I do not “celebrate” Babbitt’s death, I do not “hate” Babbitt, and I do not “dehumanize” Babbitt. You cannot quote anything from me to substantiate your allegations. You simply wish to believe those things about me, so you allege them without evidence.

                There are very few people in the world whose deaths I might celebrate. Hitler. Stalin. Other genocidaires. I wouldn’t dehumanize even them. They were very human. I may hate a few people in the world, but she isn’t among them.

                Babbitt served the country, but that doesn’t excuse her lawbreaking. Unfortunately, Vets sometimes go on to commit crimes. Babbitt broke several laws on Jan. 6 (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 1752), and she was in the midst of breaking 40 U.S.C. § 5104(2)(A) when she was killed. Byrd warned her; others who were there, like protester Thomas Baranyi, have stated in public that “[officers] were saying ‘Get back! Get down! Get out of the way!’; she didn’t heed the call … and they shot her in the neck.” You cannot deal with the fact that the USCP had tried to evacuate the House chamber, but there were still members of Congress and staff in the chamber, and Byrd had a duty to protect them. If Pence or Trump had been in the room, Secret Service would have been the ones to shoot her. I wish that she had survived, but she didn’t, and I will not treat her as a martyr.

                “they are terrified of ideas.”

                BS. You again wish to believe that about me, so you allege it, even though it isn’t true.

                1. Deflect and dissemble as you will, but the American people are sickened by the progressive left’s callous disregard for the humanity of their political opponents. Americans are likewise nauseated by the left’s systematic suppression of political dissent and the free exchange of ideas as they desperately cling to what remains of their fading political power. Ashli Babbitt? Gretchen Smith? Just a little collateral damage for the greater progressive cause. By any means necessary, as the saying goes.

                  But the left’s attempt to dehumanize Ashli Babbitt and Americans like her is doomed to failure. More than that, they are backfiring. Why? Because the power of ideas is far greater than the left’s ability to suppress them. Ashli Babbitt’s memory reminds Americans of a positive future. One in which all Americans reject the politics of division and come together, as a united people, to build a stronger nation.

                  1. You are the one dissembling here. You lied about me, and I pointed out that your claims were false, and now you’re lying some more.

                    I am not deflecting OR dissembling.

                    I do not “celebrate” Babbitt’s death, I do not “hate” Babbitt, I do not “dehumanize” Babbitt, I am not “terrified of ideas.” I do not see Babbitt or anyone else simply as “collateral damage for the greater progressive cause.” I do not believe “By any means necessary.”

                    You cannot quote anything from me to substantiate your allegations. You apparently wish to believe those things about me, so you allege them without evidence. They are false. You apparently prefer to believe something false than accept my actual beliefs and actual claims.

                    I dare you to have a trruthful discussion of the facts of Babbitt’s death.
                    I doubt that you’ll choose to do it, but maybe you’ll surprise me.

                    1. “I do not “celebrate” Babbitt’s death ”

                      I listened to what you said about Ashli Babbitt, and others have heard. You enjoyed what you said and how you said it here and elsewhere. It’s disgusting, but that is how far you have sunk emotionally. You are not much different than those that did the dirty deeds for Stalin and Hitler.

                      We do not have the complete records of Ashli’s death. You want us to trust people that have been lying for the past six-plus years. You want to trust the Adam Schiff type because that makes Ashli’s death that tasty to you.

                      We have been fed the data that liars have chosen to provide us. All different groups are suing for information that should have been disclosed but wasn’t. That proves you to be a liar because the requested material would have been released if there was nothing there. As it is, we are gradually seeing the disgusting lies that lie at the feet of the left.

                    2. Ashli Babbitt was not, as you so callously described her, a “stupid woman.” Your statement is dehumanizing and offensive to her memory. And to call her a stupid woman who got caught up in a mob is wildly misogynistic to boot. Having watched the past several years of progressive excess, Americans have learned that progressives are blind to their own prejudices. Especially when it comes to their political enemies. Unfortunately, you have succumbed to that same blindness.

                      In behavioral science, psychologists even have a name for it- Type B denial. There is even a parallel concept in critical race theory. The first, and hardest, step on the road to recovery? Recognizing that you have a problem. Recognizing your own prejudice.

                      Ashli Babbitt was an Air Force veteran, a loving wife, and a human being. An unarmed, 105 pound woman who posed a mortal threat to exactly no one. Americans have seen the tapes. Educated themselves on the facts and circumstances. They know that troubling facts surrounding her death have been swept under the carpet by a power structure intent on protecting their own. But like the Russia collusion hoax, the Alfa Bank scandal, and Hunter Biden’s laptop, the truth can’t be hidden forever.

                      In the meantime, Americans have rejected the progressive ideology of division. We have our sights set on a positive, unified future for the American people. It is the power of an idea that can’t be suppressed.

                    3. Epstein, I shouldn’t have called her a “stupid woman.” I don’t know much about her as a person, and I shouldn’t have made a broad claim. So I’ll retract that phrase. I do know that she made stupid choices on Jan. 6, including the choices to illegally break into the Capitol and attempt to illegally obstruct the EC vote count, and the choice not to obey the order to stop her illegal entry into the Speaker’s Lobby through broken glass in a locked and barricaded door.

                      If you believe that the phrase “stupid woman” “is dehumanizing and offensive to her memory,” then you shouldn’t be using phrases like “the progressive disease,” which is likewise dehumanizing and offensive.

                      I have no idea what you’re referring to by “You enjoyed what you said and how you said it here and elsewhere.”

                      You have a lot of gall to tell me “You are not much different than those that did the dirty deeds for Stalin and Hitler,” when I’m a Jew who lost relatives in the Holocaust, and I have never harmed anyone in my life. You are trying to dehumanize me for disagreeing with you about Babbitt’s death. Apparently you’re not concerned about dehumanization when you think it aids you.

                      “to call her a stupid woman who got caught up in a mob is wildly misogynistic to boot.”

                      No, it isn’t misogynistic. Both men and women stupidly got caught up with the mob that illegally interrupted Congress’s certification of the EC vote that day. Some of those who’ve been charged have said so in their statements to the court. In fact, some of the Proud Boys planned ahead of time to use average protesters, whom they referred to as “normies” and “normiecons.” Here’s part of a Proud Boy planning exchange about that on the morning of Jan. 6 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.229064/gov.uscourts.dcd.229064.111.1.pdf):
                      UCC-1 [unindicted co-conspirator]: I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today
                      Person-2: Would be epic
                      UCC-1: The state is the enemy of the people
                      Person-2: We are the people
                      UCC-1: F–k yea
                      Person-3: God let it happen . . . I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust
                      Person-2: F–k these commie traitors
                      Person-3: It’s going to happen. These normiecons have no adrenaline control . . . They are like a pack of wild dogs

                      The PBs wanted to get the “normiecons” riled up, so they’d lose control and attack.

                      “The first, and hardest, step on the road to recovery? Recognizing that you have a problem. Recognizing your own prejudice.”

                      Do you recognize your own prejudices?

                      “troubling facts surrounding her death have been swept under the carpet”

                      Please do identify what “troubling facts” you allege “have been swept under the carpet.” I’d be happy to look at evidence with you.

                      “In the meantime, Americans have rejected the progressive ideology of division.”

                      Conservatives here make at least as many divisive comments every day as liberals do. You literally told me that I’m “not much different than those that did the dirty deeds for Stalin and Hitler,” but apparently you don’t recognize it as divisive. SMH. How about you retract your much more offensive claim about me, like I retracted calling Ashli Babbitt a “stupid woman”?

                    4. Sorry Epstein, I just realized that I mistakenly mixed up comments from you and from Meyer. Meyer is the one who wrote “You enjoyed what you said and how you said it here and elsewhere,” and “You are not much different than those that did the dirty deeds for Stalin and Hitler.”

                      I was wrong in saying that that came from you.

                      But it raises a new question: will you call Meyer out for using dehumanizing and divisive language?

                    5. “I shouldn’t have called her a “stupid woman.” and later, you repeated my words about you, “You enjoyed what you said and how you said it here and elsewhere,”

                      ATS, you then continued talking about dehumanization, which referred to the dehumanization of ATS. You are alive and not innocent. Ashli was murdered.

                      You demonstrated your mindset. Ashli was a “stupid woman,” you said. Ashli was a 105 pound, unarmed, an unthreatening woman who was killed while her legs and arms were occupied and in clear view. She might as well have had her arms tied behind her back while she faced a firing squad.

                      There was no pause in your hate or derision of Ashli despite all of that. You do not understand the gravity of the situation as you compare it to the banter on this list. You act just like those mindless fools that did the dirty deeds for Stalin and Hitler. Being Jewish doesn’t change the facts on the ground or prevent you from being as mindless as those that killed so many.

            2. The investigation wasn’t “kept secret.” Hundreds of pages of interview transcripts and other evidence, have been released to the public. Byrd was investigated, and he was cleared.

              You are a troll who regularly posts lies like “he is the type of guy that would have people shot dead in the street if they Jaywalked and weren’t of the right political position.” You are apparently so hate-filled that you cannot control your desire to lie about people who have different views than you. Over and over and over and over, you lie about the people you disagree with. That is why your nickname is Meyer the Troll Liar.

              1. “The investigation wasn’t “kept secret.” Hundreds of pages of interview transcripts and other evidence, have been released to the public”

                You are such a liar. Look at how long it took to get the information we got. There is still information we need that is not being released. That is proof that something is amiss and that you are a liar.

                This is not personal information. This is information on the problems at the Capitol building, the death of Ashli and the arrest of many people that should not have been arrested. This type of information should be open to the public because it demonstrates criminal actions by leaders in charge and those below. They do happen to be Democrats, but should that surprise anyone?

            3. Thank you, Epstein. I agree with keeping Ashli’s name in the forefront. She was murdered, and the truth is hidden. Anonymous the stupid can’t see how ugly his words are, but what should one expect from such a despicable human being.

              Never forget Ashli.

        2. “So not stopping when a cop tell you to do so is grounds to kill someone?”

          He doesnt do women. Then again, gay men block him on Grindr. So now you know the rest of the story

          😉

      1. Thank you, Anonymous the Stupid, for revealing the type of person you are so I don’t have to.

    2. Ashli Babbitt is a sad, and now dead, example of the axiom: “Everything Trump Touches Dies”. More examples:

      Trump Magazine–went nowhere
      “Paris is Out” Broadway play financed by Trump that flopped
      US Football League: Trump purchased the New Jersey Generals: flopped
      Atlantic City Casinos: 3 of them, all failures
      Trump, the board game: sales went nowhere
      Trump, the airline shuttle: another failure
      Trump beverages: 2 beers and lagers plus two soft drinks, and then, there’s Trump Vodka: all flops
      Trump University: $25 million payout for defrauding “students”
      Trump Tower, Florida: condo project that went nowhere
      “Go Trump” travel bureau: flopped
      Trump Mortgage company: failed
      Trump Magazine: another disaster
      Trump Steaks: went nowhere; Trump tried purchase beef from a vendor to whom he already owed a large amount for supplying steaks to his failed casinos;
      Trump Steakhouse, Las Vegas: nope
      Trump International Hotel: began bleeding money from day one, and Trump failed to keep promises to do renovations and other work to the building; now is trying to sell it
      “From the Desk of Donald Trump” a website that also went belly up.
      “Truth Social”: shaping up to be yet another failure.

      Then, there’s the 6 business bankruptcies and thousands of lawsuits filed by vendors and contractors for his failure to pay his valid debts. So, please explain to me, if you can, why you Trump fans believe this creature could do anything right other than self-promotion? Each of these projects was an effort to trade on his massive ego without any business, marketing or financial savvy behind any of them. Bear in mind that his Daddy financed his start in business and continued supporting him well into his forties. Just looking at this list, is it surprising that he trashed the successful economy he inherited both by botching the pandemic and starting a trade war with China, resulting in computer chip shortages and supply-chain backlogs that are contributing to inflation, that he alienated America’s allies and had to turn to Russia (where he tried to borrow money to build a hotel with a penthouse for Putin as an incentive) to help him cheat? Doesn’t this help put into perspective his desperate need not to be branded a “loser” and why he would continue supporting a pathological mass murderer like Putin who got him into office once by spreading lies about his opponent? This person is NO leader. Why don’t you Trumpsters wake up and see the facts that are staring you in the face? Trump wants the office of President for his EGO, something Putin knows and leverages, and if he gets back into office, he will try to repay Putin by pulling the US out of NATO. We will then be drawn into another world war to defend our NATO treaty allies if this happens. NATO needs the US to defend democracy in Eastern Europe against Russia. Ukraine’s war to preserve democracy is our war, too.

      And, before you start calling me names again, bear in mind that each of these monumental failures are FACT, not opinion.

      1. @Natacha-

        Ashli Babbitt was an unarmed 105-pound woman. An Air Force veteran who served her country with distinction in the Middle East. A loving wife. An American. A human being who did not deserve to die at the hands of the Capitol Police.

        Progressive Democrats dehumanize Ashli Babbitt. They celebrate Ashli’s death. Why? Because of her political views.
        For the same reason they celebrate the censorship of Gretchen Smith, another Air Force veteran and the subject of today’s blog post. Ashli Babbitt and Gretchen Smith are Exhibits A and B for how blind hatred for their political opponents has infected the ideology of the left. How the left will do anything to silence views they view as a threat to their power. Literally anything.

        Unfortunately, Natacha, comments like yours are typical of an ideology consumed by hatred and inhumanity. Why do progressives espouse such open, venomous hatred for Ashli Babbitt? Because they are terrified of ideas. Terrified of ideas that they cannot control. Terrified of ideas that pose a threat to their power.

        Fortunately, Americans have a much more positive vision of the future. Americans understand the profound power of ideas. Ashli Babbitt’s memory serves as a reminder of a nation where Americans – of all races, nationalities, and political viewpoints – can work together as a unified people to build a stronger America. The most powerful idea of all.

        1. “Remember Ashli Babbitt
          -January 6, 2021”

          Natch is an armed 300+ pound, 70+ years old womyn, harboring every known and unknown bug belonging to STDs. Of course she hates Ashli Babbitt (RIP) who was a beautiful woman and did not run away from her reflection in the mirror. She was athletic, fit, confident and did not cower to men. Then there is 300+ lb Natch who has broken every mirror in her home upon getting 200 feet from them, and acts aggressive behind a computer anonymously. Pity her.

      2. “Everything Trump Touches Dies”

        By recent count, his businesses generated some $450 million/year in sales. His personal net worth is about $2.5 billion.

        The only deadly touch here is your nihilistic desire to destroy a wealth creator.

      3. Natacha, as usual, you list things that you know nothing about. One can’t deal with numerous erroneous statements, so I will pick two.

        Let us start with “Trump University: $25 million payout for defrauding “students” That was previously discussed in-depth, but either your memory is faulty, or you don’t care if you look foolish.

        The Trump University case against Trump failed. It wasn’t until Trump ran for President that it was revised as a nuisance case. Settling was less expensive than litigating it and winning. You are an ambulance chaser.

        “Trump, the airline shuttle: another failure”

        The eastern shuttle was dying, and Trump decided to take it over. The war in Kuwait occurred, causing an oil shortage, hurting the entire airline industry, not just Trump. Trump sold the airline and probably didn’t end up making or losing significant funds. However, it saved a lot of jobs for those people who would be let go when the eastern shuttle failed. All those people will tell you they were grateful to keep their jobs. As an aside, one of the employees credits Trump for paying for his wife’s cancer treatment (out of Trump’s own pocket) after his insurance coverage ended.

        Most new business adventures fail, so an individual failure does not judge a man but rather how he did in the long term. Trump is a billionaire, and you remain ignorant and short of money.

      4. Natacha, you are a waste. Every response you provide is a list of hate that is inappropriately cataloged. I offered explanations for two things showing how little you know and why all should ignore your comments.

        Let me go further with some generalizations and specifics. The vast majority of new business adventures fail, so it is not unusual that some of Trump’s attempts failed. That is a good thing because it means he has the where with all to try again and succeed. He did. Trump’s successes far outweighed his failures. That is why he is rich, and you are poor.

        There are several other things you need to know. Trump didn’t own all of those things you mentioned. He was good at what he did, and frequently other people took charge. He made money, so the failure is theirs if the business fails. You have a brand just like Trump. Trump’s brand is gold. The Natacha brand is a contaminated forest that no one likes to visit.

        Another item, businesses rise and fall. That doesn’t mean that the entrepreneur doesn’t know his business. It’s part of being an entrepreneur. Just like the airline hit terrible times for the airline industry as a whole, the same thing happened to the gambling industry in New Jersey. Additionally, the top people that ran Trump’s casinos in NJ died in a helicopter crash.

        You might think sound executives to be replaceable because you wouldn’t know how to run more than a poorly run mom-and-pop store, but good employees are hard to find. That alone was a disaster for the casino.

        Let’s see if you can respond to this answer. Let’s see if you can add helpful information to anything you say. Based on your history, I would presume NO.

    3. What I will remember is the restraint used by the police; by all rights, she should have been one of many.

  2. Sammy said at 10:48
    It is kinda amusing when someone who had the government pay for their college complain about the government paying for other’s college.

    Also Linkedin has a free speech to not host speech they don’t want to.
    This is my response.
    Sammy, the government did not pay for college. The government only guaranteed the loans for college. The student still had to pay the loan back. If you don’t understand how things work you shouldn’t make a comment. My college tuition was paid for by the government but my living expenses were not. I left a job in 1965 to go into the Marine Corps. I was earning five hundred dollars a month at my civilian job. My fist paycheck for my first month in the Marine Corps was for ninety dollars. My last paycheck four years later was for two hundred and fifty dollars. I served in harms way. You’ll have to excuse me if when I hear about free college for today’s student it sticks in my craw.

  3. What would happen if Prof JT started suspending the leftist loonies who storm the blog each day? He could use the leftist criteria “if you don’t agree with me it’s hate speech”?
    As far as loan forgiveness the Dems will be amping that cry as we draw closer to the midterms and beyond. Gen-Y is all in for that.

    1. Margot, perhaps you’re unaware that Turley has blocked some liberals and some conservatives from commenting, including Elvis Bug, By the Book, and This is Absurd.

      Turley is free to do this. He can block anyone he wants. Other times, he and Darren also remove comments without blocking the commenter. He can remove whatever comments he wants.

      He’s just hypocritical to insist that others engage in “no censorship” when he chooses to engage in censorship himself.

      1. Anonymous. I have been posting on this blog for a number of months now. I’ve seen calls to lynch Trump on this blog. It would take a lot to be censored on this blog. You hide behind the cloak of us not knowing what they said to have their comments taken down. I’ve seen you call other posters stooges, idiots and trolls without being censored. You expect us to find weight in your tempest in a teapot accusation of Professor Turley using censorship. Small teapot small thinking.

        1. Bingo. He literally knows nothing…all bluster, all manipulation, talking points straight out of Act Blue’s “Saul Alinsky” Rules for Radicals, particularly Rule 1.

          William Buckley captured Saul Alinsky well on the following link

          https://www.conservapedia.com/Saul_Alinsky

          Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
          Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
          Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy.
          Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
          Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
          Rule 6: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
          Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.
          Rule 8: Keep the pressure on.
          Rule 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
          Rule 10: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
          Rule 11: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
          Rule 12: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
          Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

        2. Ti T, I am not the Anonymous who calls others “stooges.” In fact, I’ve told the Anonymous who insists that there is a single blog “stooge” with multiple sock accounts that he looks as ignorant as Meyer does in calling multiple people “ATS.” Here is an example where I’ve responded to the guy who posts the claims about a “blog stooge”: jonathanturley.org/2022/03/14/putin-or-peace-international-economics-rather-than-international-law-may-prove-the-answer/comment-page-2/#comment-2166286

          For examples of comments that were deleted, see the 11:03am comment archived here:
          web.archive.org/web/20220117161623/https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/17/themyth-of-bipartisanship-kyrsten-sinema-becomes-the-latest-victim-of-rage-politics/
          And the 10:18 AM comment archived here:
          web.archive.org/web/20210430154145/https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/30/georgetown-professor-under-fire-for-reading-the-n-word-in-a-class-on-free-speech-and-racism/

          I couldn’t care less what you think of my opinions. It’s a fact that Turley calls for “no censorship” but chooses to engage in censorship himself.

          1. “as Meyer does in calling multiple people “ATS.” “

            That is why when you responded to that post you did so with Stupidity and Silliness.

          2. Anonymous, there is one Anonymous on this blog who disagrees with your positions. You are the Anonymous who always disagrees with Professor Turley and you have called other posters idiots. You might get away with this with someone who is new to the blog but you can’t fool people who are here everyday. In my post I addressed how you do hate people but the only one point you addressed is whether you call other posters names or not. That’s your style. One other thing. It would be better if you provided links that are accessible.

            1. Ti T, those links ARE accessible. Just copy and paste them into your browser’s address bar. All I did was remove the “https://” at the beginning of the address, because otherwise my comment would be rejected for having more than 2 links.

              You need me to provide them in separate comments because you’re too lazy to copy and paste them?

              Here’s the first one:
              https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/14/putin-or-peace-international-economics-rather-than-international-law-may-prove-the-answer/comment-page-2/#comment-2166286
              You can do the other two for yourself.

              1. Anonymous, you have commented that Professor Turley has censored others comments on this blog. You offer a link that says nothing about your being censored but only that you couldn’t post more than two links in any one comment. You obviously found your comment in the archives so please explain in what way were you censored. You make your own argument against your own argument. How do your comments remain in the archives if they were deleted? At one time I posted a comment with more than two links and it was too was not allowed. The reason for my comment not being allowed was explained to me. I understood but unlike you I did not attribute it to censorship. You should be careful Anonymous. There might be somebody under the bed or behind every door.

                1. “You offer a link that says nothing about your being censored but only that you couldn’t post more than two links in any one comment.”

                  No, Ti T, I offered 3 links, not 1.

                  In the first of the three, I corrected your false claim “I’ve seen you call other posters stooges.” I’ve never called anyone a “stooge.” That is a different anonymous commenter, and I’ve called that anonymous commenter out as “sound[ing] as confused about people’s identities as Allan S. Meyer,” and I gave you a link to a comment thread where I did that.

                  In the other two links, I gave you examples of OTHER people being censored by Turley. Because my claim was simply that Turley “can block anyone he wants. Other times, he and Darren also remove comments without blocking the commenter. He can remove whatever comments he wants. He’s just hypocritical to insist that others engage in “no censorship” when he chooses to engage in censorship himself.”

                  You wish to make this all about me. I won’t join you in playing that game.

                  “unlike you I did not attribute it to censorship”

                  You’re a liar. I did not equate the link limit with censorship.

            2. Why are there so many anonymous’s? What a joke. Use a name. I skip by all comments by anonymous, because they aren’t worth reading…(as well as many others…like Natasha)

              1. Wen, you are correct. One should skip over anonymous comments. Most are stupid, and the ones that aren’t are replying to repetitive, silly comments that need not be read by intelligent folk.

      2. “Margot, perhaps you’re unaware that Turley has blocked…”

        Margot, the above commenter is fond of informing readers how the blog is managed, the identity of authors, who is whom, who is blocked (no one), etc. Trolls from “Act Blue” troll farm flock to this forum to give the impression there is more of them (the Left) than the rest of America (middle of the road, the Right, etc).

        Only one person knows the details of how the blog is managed, Professor Turley, or his paid employees. No has a clue because they do not have access to IP addresses, headers, etc. Any claims to “inside knowledge” on the managing specifics of this blog is wishcasting.

      3. Anonymous the Stupid, there are always some controls unless there is complete anarchy. The idea is to keep the controls to a minimum and let things develop organically.

        That is something you can’t do. As a fascist, you seek to control but BS your way around criticizing Turley for keeping the blog free from foul language and sexual predation. Your alternative is destruction, offensive language and predation. It sucks to be you.

    2. The divisiveness started with Hillary when Bill was president. It continues to grow because the left embraces vitriol and hate (see their comments on here)

      *** America is still paying the price for Hillary Clinton’s treachery ***
      https://nypost.com/2022/04/09/america-is-still-paying-the-price-for-hillary-clintons-treachery/

      Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee’s Russian collusion claims against Donald Trump in the 2016 election helped created a more divided country.

      However this era of angry polarization, crime and violence ends, it will be left to historians to decipher how America got so far off track. Instead of building on our unprecedented prosperity and role as the world’s ultimate superpower, we declared war — cultural, political and social — on each other. Even our nation’s Founders are not spared.

    3. Margot, our leftist posters scream bloody murder if they’re censored on this blog but they don’t care if a person serving her nation is censored by Linkedin for saying that she doesn’t think that the government should forgive student loans. The leftist are masters of the double standard.

      1. I’m a liberal commenter, and I don’t “scream bloody murder” if I’m censored on this blog. I totally support Turley’s First Amendment right to censor comments as he sees fit.

        I just think he’s a hypocrite for claiming to support “no censorship” when he engages in censorship.

        1. You scream blood murder all the time, and when that doesn’t work, you insult the Professor.

  4. Professor Turley, you just have to accept the fact that Linkedin, Twitter, and Facebook are all just Democratic Political Action Committees. They should be subject to the laws considering in-kind campaign contributions. They are indeed private companies and they are not subject to any laws requiring public decency. Nor are they subject to any laws requiring fairness. They are who they are. However, your pointing out who they are is very much appreciated

    1. What was once the party of the working class is now the part of the Big Tech oligarchs.
      This young lady is everything the left hates: She was poor, she decided to do something to improve her life, joined the service and got a college degree. She made a better life for herself. She is not beholden to anyone.
      That is a great American success story.

      1. I’m a member of the left. I don’t hate her. I don’t hate the poor. I don’t hate when people decide to do something to improve their lives. I don’t hate people who join the service. I don’t hate people who get a college degree. I don’t hate people who make a better life for themselves. I don’t hate people who aren’t beholden to anyone.

        You are deluding yourself.

        1. Anonymous, you say you don’t hate her but you defend her speech being curtailed, you say you don’t hate the poor but you defend policies by the Democrats that have kept them poor and made them even more poor for decades. You say you don’t hate people who try to make their lives better but you attack parents who are trying to make their children’s lives better by not allowing them to brainwashed by your friends on the left. You say that you don’t hate people who don’t want to be beholden to any one but you support a government that wants to take care of people from the cradle to the grave to keep them beholden to their political party. You have demonstrated your hate on this forum many times. The person who is deluding herself is you.

          1. Ti T,

            I defend everyone’s First Amendment rights. She has a First Amendment right to go into the actual public square to say what she wants. LinkedIn has a First Amendment right to delete content per its Terms of Use. Apparently you do not want LinkedIn to have First Amendment rights.

            “you defend policies by the Democrats that have kept them poor and made them even more poor for decades.”

            You allege whatever you find convenient.

            1. Anonymous, how hard is it to look at the leftist policies in Detroit and Chicago that have made the poor worse off. These cities have been run by leftist leaders for fifty years. You tell us that you are a leftist but you take no responsibility for leftist policies that have created a hell hole for the black community in these cities. Yes you are a leftist and like the leftist in Detroit and Chicago you turn a blind eye to the fruits of your labor. It’s all right your leftist friends have had the power and to you and them that’s all that matters. It is sad to see a women who can not hear but it is far more tragic to see a women who can see and will not see.

    2. TiT,

      Teacher’s pet or what? I bet you would sit in the front row of Turley’s classroom.

  5. OT: All we get are lies from the left and complicity from the FBI
    ———
    Two Acquitted in Whitmer Case, FBI Misconduct Central

    Dan Chappel, the lead informant and government’s star witness known as “Big Dan,” explained how he brought the makeshift group of alleged “militia” members together after he was hired by the FBI in March 2020. Chappel created encrypted chat groups and organized excursions for field training and surveillance of Whitmer’s cottage. (He, along with other FBI informants, posed as leaders of two “militia” groups, at least one of which was created by the FBI.

    On at least five occasions, Chappel offered Fox a $5,000 credit card, which Fox repeatedly refused.

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/08/two-acquitted-in-whitmer-case-fbi-misconduct-central/

    1. Anonymous they were a conspiracy of twenty four people twelve of which were FBI agents. This reminds me of Obama selling guns to the Mexican Cartels so that when they killed somebody the FBI could trace the guns.

      1. “Obama selling guns to the Mexican Cartels so that when they killed somebody the FBI could trace the guns.”

        +++

        I don’t think the purpose was to trace the guns. In fact they immediately lost track of a lot of them and identified some of them only when they were involved in crimes, like the murder of a Border Patrol agent.

        Obama had been saying the cartel guns were mostly coming from American gun shops. But they weren’t. So to make the claim true they bought guns from American gun shops and handed them to cartels. They broke American law and Mexican law and caused many deaths but, as usual, nobody was held to account.

        I think something similar happened during the oil well blowout in the Gulf. They had argued that offshore drilling should be limited because of dangers to the environment. When there was an actual blowout it seemed like federal agencies were actively interfering in local efforts to control the spill, almost as if they wanted a disaster to confirm their arguments against drilling. Fortunately, nature took care of the problem despite the federal interference. I suspect there was disappointment in DC when Mother Nature stepped up and solved the problem.

  6. Why would Linkedin choose to censor someone over this subject? Is it hate speech? Is an opinion about college loan forgiveness racist? Is it homophobic? Is it transphobic? Is it misogynistic? Help me out hear. I’m trying to find the hate. Is it hate censoring speech or is it just the censoring of speech that they do not agree with? The left is always talking about fairness. Lets say that your a young man in the construction trade. You have worked overtime to afford to buy your tools. You’ve worked hard to buy a truck. You pay the mortgage on your shop. You’ve done these things to assure your future. You had to borrow money to make your dreams come true. A young person goes to college to make his dreams come true. Is it fair then to forgive the loans of college students but not the loans of the construction worker? I understand. You want to forgive the loans of the soft handed college students but you don’t give a damn about forgiving the loans of the callous handed man who builds the big houses you live in. If you speak out in support of the man with the calloused hands they shut you down. You speak of fairness on the left and I throw up.

  7. Jonathan: Linkedin, Twitter and Facebook can ban anyone they want. They are private companies not bound by the 1st Amendment. They can ban Trump but they can’t silence him. Trump could use his own social media platform, Truth Social, but he has chosen not to do so–probably because his new platform has become an embarrassing fiasco. So Trump has used rallies to get out his message that are widely covered by the mainstream press. Last night Trump spoke at a rally in Selma, North Carolina. He told the crowd: “I think I’m the most honest human being, that God ever created”. A lot in the crowd laughed. God was not laughing. There are at least 30,573 documented false or misleading claims by Trump–and that was just during his four years in office. Almost everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth these days is false or misleading. When someone tells you they are the “most honest human being God ever created” my only advice is to hold on to your wallet!

    And it now appears Trump’s son, Don Jr., may now be caught up in the Jan. 6 web of conspiracy. Stewart Rhodes and other members of the oath Keepers have been charged with seditious conspiracy. So far the intellectual authors of that conspiracy–Trump, John Eastman, Ginni Thomas, et al, have avoided accountability. But now it appears Don Jr. was also involved. Text messages Mark Meadows has turned over to the Jan. 6 House Committee show Trump’s son was telling Meadows “we have operational control” and “multiple paths” exist to overturn the election and keep Trump in power. So now the net widens to include Trump’s kids in the conspiracy. AG Garland has a lot on his plate. That’s probably why he has asked for another 100 DOJ attorneys.

    1. Every time the Leftists commit these acts….they create yet more Republican Voters…..and I tip my hat to them when they do.

      2022 is coming folks….and the best way to react to actions like this one by Linkedin is to support those that were done dirty….and then go register and vote Republican at every level of Office on your Ballot.

      When you do…include as many others with you that shall do the same.

      If the Left wants to keep screwing up….well as we say in the South…..”Bless Their Hearts!”!

      An added thought…..ya’ll seen any Biden/Harris Bumper stickers lately?

      The nearest thing to that I have seen is a “Thanks Joe!” sticker at every gas pump I have used in the past month or so.

      1. Ralph says:

        “well as we say in the South”

        You are a Southern boy? Now, who would have thought.

  8. You can trust Marxists to act like Marxists

    ***

    Parag Agrawal
    @paraga
    “If they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.”
    5:29 AM · Oct 26, 2010

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/29/22808756/twitter-ceo-parag-agrawal-jack-dorsey-bluesky-moderation

    “Agrawal has also hinted at how he’ll address one of Twitter’s biggest challenges: moderation. In a 2020 interview with MIT Technology Review, Agrawal said that Twitter’s role is to build a healthy place for conversing online, suggesting that could come at the expense of allowing people to say whatever they want. “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation,” he said.”

    ***

    Which is why it is delicious that Texas has banned abortions, a woman is now in jail for having one, Florida, Alabama and other states are banning grooming children in schools with the Left’s gender dysphoria religion, and more

    1. “a woman is now in jail for having one”

      No, Lizelle Herrera was arrested and then released from custody, and hopefully her case will help result in the Court finding Texas’s abortion law unconstitutional.

      You should not find that law “delicious.” As Justice Sotomayor wrote, “It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry,” and if the law is not overturned, then every state will be able to do the same for all of your rights.

  9. I hate speech. Especially when someone gets up at the podium and yaks to a crowd. That’s why God invented farts. And why dogs know how to fart when preacher starts talking.

  10. “The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.”

    I support the First Amendment, but I do not pretend that more speech is a “solution to bad speech.” Turley shouldn’t pretend this either. More speech doesn’t “solve” bad speech.

    “If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges.”

    No, Twitter absolutely does NOT “serve the same communicative function” as a private telephone call. Twitter is more like a megaphone for public speech. Turley should stop using the false analogy to private phone calls.

    “Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.”

    Those people sign up to use a service consistent with the Terms of Use of that service. Private companies can have whatever Terms of Use they want, as long as the Terms abide by our laws. The company has its own First Amendment rights to regulate speech on the company’s site. People who are unwilling to accept the company’s Terms can take their business elsewhere. Turley keeps insisting that companies give up their own First Amendment rights, which is frankly a shameful approach for someone who claims to support free speech.

    1. Anonymous says:

      “The company has its own First Amendment rights to regulate speech on the company’s site.”

      If you watch the nightly news, the broadcasters blur images of the grotesque faces of dead civilians in Bucha. Some viewers may object to the sanitizing of the brutal war crimes.

      What would Turley have to say for that undeniable censorship?

  11. “I have described myself as an Internet Originalist: The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship.”

    You may describe yourself that way, but you and Darren censor comments on this blog. You are not someone who practices “no censorship.”

    1. ATS, the phone company can use limited censorship as well, but it is limited in the fashion Turley describes. You are conflating too many things together.

        1. Silly response. Try again.

          ATS, the phone company can use limited censorship as well, but it is limited in the fashion Turley describes. You are conflating too many things together.

            1. Another one of your Silly and Stupid remarks. Deal with the discussion.

              ATS, the phone company can use limited censorship as well, but it is limited in the fashion Turley describes. You are conflating too many things together.

              1. Allan, repeating your stupid comment doesn’t make it less stupid. Social media companies are not like a phone company. Unlike private phone calls, social media is public, and the companies simply provide a megaphones for that already-public speech.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, I repeated my response to give you a second shot at responding to substance rather than acting like a silly child.

                  All companies have differences, but the companies under discussion have a lot of things in common, are subject to various laws and benefits, and conflict at times with social norms and other laws and rights. All have to be accounted for, not just the dead flat-line responses you provide

  12. It is kinda amusing when someone who had the government pay for their college complain about the government paying for other’s college.

    Also Linkedin has a free speech to not host speech they don’t want to.

    1. REGARDING ABOVE

      Sammy is a known groomer, who uses multiple sock puppets to give the impression he is surrounded by an army of likeminded commenters. He is a lone paid troll bent on disrupting this forum and push his employer’s Act Blue talking points, which is funded by George Soros

        1. If you were they would be wasting their money, but then again who knows, you lie under this alias and you lie under all the others as well.

    2. Uh, there is a HUGE difference between paying for college thru years of commitment to serve in the military or getting a LOAN and having it forgiven. The tax payer ultimately pays your debt and gets nothing in return. Next, you will take out a mortgage on a house and expect the People to pay for that.

      1. When the D party sees a need for votes from yet another group of the we-vs-them folks, it will find a way to promise that federal taxPAYER$ will repay those debts as well – freeing the debtors to vote D and spend their money in a way other than repaying a loan.

    3. It was this Air Force veteran’s service that made her eligible (as in “paid for”) college tuition. The “government” didn’t just shell out the $$ for tuition; all those who served earned the benefit promised to them as part of their compensation for time in the USA military. This benefit is quite different from the situation of those who knowingly incurred debt, but would now be excused from repaying – in whole or in part, depending on the whims (as in need for votes) of the D party.

      1. Here, you call Sammy “ATS.” You’ve also called Jeff “ATS,” you’ve called Svelaz “ATS,” you’ve called Bug “ATS,” … You are deluded.

        You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid (ATS), aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

        1. Yes, I believe Sammy to be Anonymous the Stupid. Can I prove it? No. Does it make a difference? No.

          You have used many different aliases in an attempt to lower the numbers you post on the net. There is good evidence for me to tie you to Sammy. That is your problem. You want to weasel out of your multiple aliases and pretend friends that you use to pat you on the back.

          You have no credibility, but I do as S. Meyer or Allan S. Meyer. You hate that fact because you can never gain your credibility back. If a few people don’t believe my conclusion that you are Sammy, so be it. It matters little to me but apparently a lot to you.

          As far as others where I mislabeled you, let me deal with that even though we dealt with it before when I described your mistakes. Firstly you have posted literally thousands of responses, and there are thousands of other responses under the anonymous label. Considering the numbers where some posts are so short, it is inevitable that I will make a mistake. I once called Svelaz ATS and admitted so. It was posted anonymously, and on reflection, I recognized it as Svelaz. At the same time, you accused me of another mistake, but I pointed you to your misinterpretation of your conclusion. I was right, and you were wrong. As far as Bug is concerned, he generally posted with some sort of identification. If he forgot, I might have made one or two mistakes, but forgive me, he is as dumb as you are. [Take note, how would you know who these anonymous posters are? The answer is that it is quite easy to note certain features of all posters.]

          In conclusion, out of the thousands and thousands of anonymous postings, I may have erred on a couple, which might number less than the number of fingers you have. That is a good job. You don’t like to be exposed. Too bad. If you post anonymously, you face being misnamed. That is your problem.

          In the meantime, it is relatively easy to recognize most of what you write. You lie, twist data, flood responses with data and link to things when you don’t know what the link says. You are a waste of time, but I have plenty to spare.

            1. Slilly ATS, I showed you as the liar you are. Deal with it.

              You have no credibility, but I do as S. Meyer or Allan S. Meyer. You hate that fact because you can never gain your credibility back. If a few people don’t believe my conclusion that you are Sammy, so be it. It matters little to me but apparently a lot to you.

                1. Fine, Anonymous the Stupid, you can believe what you wish, but don’t you think these silly replies prove you are Stupid? Add to that you are Anonymous. Therefore you are Anonymous the Stupid. I am Allan S. Meyer. I am known. I am not anonymous.

                  Do you see where your logic fails? Now, stop being Stupid and deal with your problems.

    4. When you join the military you sign a pledge that means as a service member you will sacrifice your life for this country. Education is a benefit paid for through blood, sweat, and tears.

      Those who attended college using government loans simply gave their word that they would repay those loans. No one forced them to take out the loans. No one forced them to attend college.

    5. Sammy, the government did not pay for college. The government only guaranteed the loans for college. The student still had to pay the loan back. If you don’t understand how things work you shouldn’t make a comment. My college tuition was paid for by the government but my living expenses were not. I left a job in 1965 to go into the Marine Corps. I was earning five hundred dollars a month at my civilian job. My fist paycheck for my first month in the Marine Corps was for ninety dollars. My last paycheck four years later was for two hundred and fifty dollars. I served in harms way. You’ll have to excuse me if when I hear about free college for today’s student it sticks in my craw.

    6. Not a good comparison. Smith earned her college education by entering and fulfilling a contract where she agreed to serve in the military and in return the government agreed to compensate her for her services in part by paying for her college education. People who take out government loans to pay for their college also enter into a contract with the government. In their case they agree to payback the money with interest in return for the government paying for their college. Now they want to break that contact without fulfilling their end of the deal. Smith lived up to her agreement and fulfilled her end of the deal. Major difference!

  13. Social media companies are sowing the seeds of their own regulation.

    Conservatives oppose (or should oppose) regulation, but we cannot allow the hijacking of the public square.

    Like banks, utilities, and insurance companies, social media has to be regulated so that its extraordinary power does not inflict injustices on the community.

    1. Nothing is preventing you or anyone else from going into the actual public square and saying what you want. The public square is not being hijacked.

      Large private squares created by private companies are not the public square.

        1. Some parts of the internet are part of the public square, and other parts of the internet are not part of the public square. Some websites and networks are publicly owned, and others are privately owned. Turley is discussing privately owned companies and privately owned websites.

          1. Privately-owned companies that are doing for the government what the government cannot do for itself under the Constitution abridges the rights of those companies, as do the laws that protect those companies. The laws helped to those companies ,and by acceptance of the benefits, those companies became the public square.

          2. Anonymous: These outfits didn’t create the internet. When they do this type of censorship, they ought to be tossed off of the internet for doing so. Let them lay new wires and cables with their freaking name on them after paying cities and towns everywhere for the privilege of digging up their streets. Then they can control their own little Google/Twitter/Apple/Linkedin wires.

            1. Glad to know that you do not want private companies to have First Amendment rights. How patriotic.

              The internet as it exists today has no single creator. Parts were created by multiple governments and parts were created by private organizations, including for profit companies and non-profits.

              1. First Amendment rights are not unlimited though anonymous seems to think so. He’s a hypocrite, so let’s hear what he says about the topic when the shoe is on the other foot.

                1. You are Meyer the Troll Liar, and one of your favorite ways of lying is pretending that people believe things they don’t believe.

                  I absolutely agree that “First Amendment rights are not unlimited”!
                  Among the limitations: perjury, defamation, child p0rn, copyright violation.

                  No one has a First Amendment right to use a private company’s site contrary to the company’s Terms of Use.

                  1. “You are Meyer the Troll Liar, and one of your favorite ways of lying is pretending that people believe things they don’t believe”

                    I frequently quote what you say and have proven myself credible. You have not done the same. You hide behind the generic anonymous name.

                    “I absolutely agree that “First Amendment rights are not unlimited”!
                    Among the limitations: perjury, defamation, child p0rn, copyright violation.”

                    We agree on this, but there is more.

                    “No one has a First Amendment right to use a private company’s site contrary to the company’s Terms of Use.”

                    The company’s policy cannot violate the law, and there are certain less tangible items that prevent companies from having total power.

      1. Of course Anonymous says this because Anonymous agrees with the censorship. Thanks for that…Well guess what Anonymous? Many of us DO NOT AGREE with the censorship of this viewpoint. These companies are the new public square and clearly this is anti-free speech.

        1. They’re private companies, and they have a First Amendment right to censor comments according to any legal Terms of Use.

          If you don’t like their Terms, don’t use them. I’ve never had a Facebook account because I don’t like their Terms. You can make that same choice.

          1. Even their First Amendment rights are abridged. Rights conflict and laws conflict. That is what makes these things so difficult to decide.

            When a person is as Stupid as Anonymous the Stupid, that person can only think in one direction. Don’t expect much thought, contemplation or knowledge from Anonymous the Stupid.

              1. What a Stupid person you are, ATS. I state it always that I post anonymously when there is nothing new, especially to you. I want people to save time and throw out these ridiculous responses with no name attached.

                I will post this anonymously to prove it, so you don’t have to waste people’s time sending them all over. How much more idiotic can you be?

                SM

                1. I’m just making clear why you are both the true Anonymous the Stupid and also Meyer the Troll Liar

                  1. You are calling others on the blog dumb, bu inferring that they don’t know I post anonymously to save people time from reading cr-p. I’ll sing my initials here so people know its me even though everyone else but you can figure it out.

                    SM

    2. Monument says:

      “Like banks, utilities, and insurance companies, social media has to be regulated so that its extraordinary power does not inflict injustices on the community.”

      Conservatives are for LIMITED government, not for regulation!

  14. In 2013 I wrote that Orwell was right in predicting in “1984” the emergence of “Big Brother,” but wrong in positing it as government; it was private industry. And I was wrong — or at least I failed to predict — that private industry would censor us. When I grew up in the fifties, if one person said he didn’t like what another said, the second would reply, “Hey–it’s a free country.” No one says that anymore, because it isn’t.

    1. Mr. Silver,

      An individual is entitled by law to sue another individual into potential bankruptcy for defaming them by lying (or being indifferent to the truth) on the premise that the libeler damaged the victim’s reputation. The consequences of being sued into oblivion is damn chilling upon a person’s freedom of speech, is it not? But we accept it.

      Why then do we object to a person’s freedom of speech being likewise chilled by his being shamed, ostracized and de-platformed for lying (or being indifferent to the truth) though he does not actually damage an individual’s reputation? Is not protecting the public square from equally damaging lies as important as protecting peoples’ reputations? Since the government is prohibited from doing so (except in specific situations) who will?

      “Freedom of speech” does not mean freedom from ALL consequences. It means only freedom from incarceration or a punitive fine which is all that a government has the power to do to its citizens. Because the First Amendment applies against government, Turley posits the freedom of speech as a human value. Accordingly, I don’t advocate rudely heckling an individual in the act of speaking because I can shun, stigmatize and boycott that speaker after the fact as an exercise of my freedom to express myself in the event I object to his speech.

  15. They (the self-appointed guardians of acceptable speech) may be approaching that bridge too far in that their glaring affront to the constitution is beginning to rankle more than just the usual constitutionally well-aware blogger but is gaining traction with thinking adults across the nation. It was one thing to impose the tyrannical under-carriage of communism into nations such as Russia and Venezuela where the heritage of freedom was not so well established in the minds of the middle class, but to attempt to do this, even oh so slowly and subtly, here is beginning to raise concern with parents and religious leaders who stlll have the where with all to understand the implications (I offer Disney and CRT in public schools as prime examples of mis-judged over reach).

  16. Many of the things posted on the internet are done anonymously. If the internet companies exercise no supervision and libelous things are posted, how can the libeled person seek justice? The comparison that Mr. Turley makes to calls over Verizon or Sprint ignores the public character of internet postings.

    1. Lawrence says:

      “The comparison that Mr. Turley makes to calls over Verizon or Sprint ignores the public character of internet postings.”

      Agreed. Turley’s comparison between private phone communications and public internet postings is facially absurd.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: