We recently discussed the gathering of Democratic politicians and media figures at the University of Chicago to discuss how to better shape news, combat “disinformation,” and reeducate those with conservative views. The political and media elite shared ideas on how to expand censorship and control what people read or viewed in the news. The same figures are now alarmed that Elon Musk could gain greater influence over Twitter and, perish the thought, restore free speech protections to the site. The latest is former labor secretary under President Clinton, Robert Reich, who wrote a perfectly Orwellian column in the Guardian titled “Elon Musk’s vision for the internet is dangerous nonsense.” However, the column offers an insight into the anti-free speech mentality that has taken hold of the Democratic party and the mainstream media.
Musk is an advocate for free speech on the Internet. Like some of us, he is an Internet originalist. That makes him an existential threat for those who have long used “disinformation” as an excuse to silence dissenting views in the media and on social media.
Twitter has gone from denial of seeking to shape speech on the Internet to embracing that function. 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.”
Reich lays that agenda bare in his column while condemning free speech advocates as petty tyrants oppressing people through freedom.
Reich explains that it is not about freedom but tyranny. More free speech means less freedom. It is the type of argument commonly used in China and other authoritarian nations–and an increasing number of American academics and writers. Indeed, his column is reminiscent of the professors who have called for the adoption of the Chinese model for censoring views on the Internet.
In an article published in The Atlantic by Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”
Reich tells people not to be lured by freedom of speech: “Musk says he wants to ‘free’ the internet. But what he really aims to do is make it even less accountable than it is now.” What Reich refers to as “accountability” is being accountable to those like himself who can filter out views and writings that are deemed harmful for readers.
Reich then goes full Orwellian:
“Musk advocates free speech but in reality it’s just about power. Power compelled Musk to buy $2.64bn of Twitter stock, making him the largest individual shareholder.”
Reich insists that censorship of views like former President Donald Trump are “necessary to protect American democracy.” Get it? Less freedom is more freedom.
The column gets increasingly bizarre as Reich cites the fact that Musk has continued to express banned thoughts as proof that he is a menace:
“Billionaires like Musk have shown time and again they consider themselves above the law. And to a large extent, they are. Musk has enough wealth that legal penalties are no more than slaps on his wrist, and enough power to control one of the most important ways the public now receives news. Think about it: after years of posting tweets that skirt the law, Musk was given a seat on Twitter’s board (and is probably now negotiating for even more clout).”
Reich then delivers his terrifying warning:
“That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”
That nightmare, of course, is free speech. It is a nightmare that people like Reich and those at the “Disinformation conference” will lose control over media and social media.
Imagine a site where people are largely free to express themselves without supervision or approval. What a nightmare.
[Warning foul language and full irony]
Another day, another
Blackperson commits a racially motivated hate crime against a minority group.Black Lies Matter!
“NJ man targeting Jews warned of ‘blood bath’ before attacking victims: prosecutors”
https://nypost.com/2022/04/13/nj-man-targeting-jews-warned-of-blood-bath-before-attacking-victims-prosecutors/
Kwazi Mfume is the Blog Stooge, of course. Here he fancies himself as terribly clever for using an African-sounding name to post something negative about Black’s.
Related puppets include: Thinkthrough, James, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams, Alma Carman, Hullbobby, Ralph, Feldman and many, many more.
Which is more negative?
(1) A radicalized black man killing random people in a terrorist attack; or
(2) Saying a black man did it.
Turley’s Admin Staff should assign a numerical suffix to every “Anonymous” poster filtered by their IP address so we can tell them apart…..and be able to see which one is the genuine “ATS” and the others mere copycats.
Ralph, you’re The Stooge.
Ralph, I have been saying that, or something akin to that, for quite some time now. It is my only beef with the site. Well that and the fact that idiots like ATS and JeffSilberman (who isn’t nearly as bad a guy as Anonymous) are trying to ruin the site with a “heckler’s veto” of 1000 comments a day.
Anonymous, to quote someone that you probably idolize, “keep my name out of your mouth”. I am me, I am only me, I have never been anyone else and I never will be anyone but me. You, on the other hand, insist on keeping your “Anonymous” moniker so as to blend into the giant crowd of other people that hold on to the Anonymous flag.
People, if you are one of the other Anonymous commenters please consider picking a name that will separate you from the moronic “Anonymous” fool that poisons this site with his 100 asinine comments on every issue. “Anonymous” has the charm of Ron Klain, the subtle intelligence and glibness of Kamala Harris, the agile thought process of Joe Biden and the “normal, centered, mainstream” ideology of AOC, Susan Rice, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush and the personality of Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff.
Anonymous, go away, nobody here likes you…just like your “real” life existence. It must be awful to be you.
Oh, some of my comments are stupid and hastily typed, sure, but I’m a real person. At least I can own my occasional foolishness.
I appreciate your acumen.
All Americans, of any party, should check out the documentary “Mighty Ira” about Ira Glasser on free speech. Glasser (who is Jewish himself) largely disagreed with many fellow ACLU supporters and the Anti-Defamation League on tactics. Glasser respected both organizations and did agree with the end goals of both of those groups but disagreed on how to reach that goal.
Glasser represented Republicans and Conservative groups, in addition to liberal causes. If you want to understand Freedom of Speech in America and the First Amendment, watch this documentary. Apparently Professor Turley is also a Glasser fan.
Reich (a world class economist) had 3 of his best friends murdered by the KKK depicted in the movie “Mississippi Burning” starring Gene Hackman and William Defoe – he is a good man with real life experience. Watch that movie also, can you blame him for his strong views on this matter?
Yes, I _can_ blame him. Reich is a socialist scumbag who has more in common with Stalin than with the American Founders.
Democrats say they hate rich people but they sure do like their oligarchs such as Bezos, Zuckerberg and Soros. If they truly believed in the redistribution of wealth they would ask these oligarchs to live on say $300,000 per year and give away the other billions that they’ve earned. Instead their oligarchs give enough to keep the government regulators at bay and assure the re-election of Democrats. Musk bad Bezos good. They like the capitalistic system when it falls to their benefit while extolling the benefits of the collective to the rest of us.
What Democrats actually said they hate rich people?
“What Democrats actually said they hate rich people?”
Every single one who believes that “income inequality” is bad — and must be “rectified.”
Ronald Reagan supporters supposedly favored “small limited government” which is “constitutional” government. The U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] was designed to RESTRAIN governing authority if it strayed out-of-bounds of constitutional legal boundaries.
If Reagan were running for office today, he would have been kicked out of the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater would have been kicked out of today’s GOP. There are few, if any, Reagan Republicans left in the party.
A lot of talk without substance.
“Musk is a modern-day robber baron,”
Reich
All Tesla workers also get stock, so their compensation increased proportionately. You are a modern day moron
Musk
Reich is so far out Musk’s league that if Reich’s league exploded, Musk wouldn’t hear the sound for days.
I find these columns thought-provoking but generally cherry-picking and not infrequently framing points a bit out of proportion, with both notions -in my view- being applicable to the present case.
Incidentally, Elon Musk’s characterization as pictured by today’s article strikes me as rather naïve.
Robert Reich is just angry because Elon Musk might let everyone have their say. You can rest assured that if the Democrats continue to hold power comrade Reich will submit his list of those who should not have a voice. First on his list will be Joe Manchin and other Democrats who have stepped out of line. Lenin would be proud.
The real problem is Democrats need to compete for voters not violate free speech. Democrats will also lose voters by defending some of the the bad consequences that came from NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Some Democrats in some localities need to support 2nd Amendment gun rights. Remember “Farm Aid” in the 1980’s. Hundreds of American farmers were committing suicide due to bankruptcies and Congress did virtually nothing to help them (for 40 years)!
Democrats simply need to compete for votes! Reich is a great economist but Democrats only govern if they win elections.
Liberals pre Musk- It is a private company. 1st Amendment does not apply. ( it doesn’t). If you don’t like the rules, get off of the platform.
Liberals post- Musk. It is the end of democracy. Musk must be deterred. Some employees ( wimps) need a day off.
Jeff Bezos owns WaPo. To say it is Left leaning is an understatement. Not a public square forum, like Twitter. No threat to democracy there.
Paul,
Those kinds of caricatures are bad for society. We can individually choose not to caricature those we disagree with.
I’m liberal. My views are that (a) Twitter is a private company, and Elon Musk is irrelevant to the fact that Twitter is a private company, (b) the Washington Post is a private company, and Jeff Bezos is irrelevant to the fact that the Post is a private company, (c) as private companies, Twitter and the Post have their own 1st Amendment rights, and these include deleting content or blocking users who refuse to abide by their Terms of Use, (d) neither Musk nor Bezos are “the end of democracy,” but huge income inequality is not good for the country.
Anon,
I am not sure that my statement rises to the level of caricature. I don’t think I exaggerated characteristics.
And you think that the largest shareholder and executive chairman of a major newspaper is irrelevant? That newspaper through editorials and biased columnists help shape public opinion. As does the N.Y Post. Like I said, for lack of a better term ,Twitter is the public square. And they can censor. My point was that the attitude of some on the Left totally changed regarding Twitter after the Musk purchase. Do you dispute that? I never hear non- liberals use the term ” end of democracy”. Do you?
If you don’t pass the John Lewis bill it is ” the end of democracy”. If you don’t end the filibuster, it is ” the end of democracy”. And I live in Illinois. Gerrymandering ( end of democracy) is not solely a tool used by Republicans.
And yes, income inequality is bad. But I am not in favor of Reich’s position. At heart, he is a socialist.
I would say that I was more sarcastic than choosing to caricature those I disagree with.
My goal was not to be disrespectful. Just to point out hypocrisy
Paul: Your comment and its tone were fine. In fact, I would suggest, they were invited as honest commentary in this blog site. Thank you for your views, which add to the full spectrum here.
Paul,
“I would say that I was more sarcastic than choosing to caricature those I disagree with.”
OK. It’s sometimes hard to recognize sarcasm in writing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
“you think that the largest shareholder and executive chairman of a major newspaper is irrelevant?”
I said “Jeff Bezos is irrelevant to the fact that the Post is a private company.” He might or might not be relevant to something else, depending on what that thing is.
“That newspaper through editorials and biased columnists help shape public opinion.”
Yes. If you think there a newspaper that doesn’t help shape public opinion, or whose columnists and editorials aren’t biased, please share the name of that newspaper.
“for lack of a better term ,Twitter is the public square”
It isn’t. The public square is public. Twitter is a private company. If Twitter blocks an account, the owner of the account can still go into the actual public square to say what s/he wants.
“they can censor. ”
Absolutely. They’re a private company with 1st Amendment rights, and they cannot be compelled to host content that is contrary to their Terms of Service. They can and do censor some of the content that people tweet, and they can and do block accounts that violate their ToS. Trump’s Truth Social does the same.
“some on the Left totally changed regarding Twitter after the Musk purchase.”
OK. My guess is that the views of some on the Left AND some on the Right changed after the Musk purchase. I’m on the left, but my opinions about Twitter have not changed.
“I never hear non- liberals use the term ” end of democracy”. Do you?”
Sometimes. An example, likely older than what you have in mind: https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/11/the-end-of-democracy-the-judicial-usurpation-of-politics
It isn’t. The public square is public. Twitter is a private company. If Twitter blocks an account, the owner of the account can still go into the actual public square to say what s/he wants.
Courts have ruled that Private property, is in fact the Public Square. Just an example of the law contradicting what you want to be a bright line.
Courts have ruled the protestors must be allowed on private mall propertery to engage in public protest. Has to do with the private property owner, holding his property out to public access.
Social media is tripping some of the same wires.
Add in the Cake makers, that the govt forces to convey messages they disagree with, and diners that cannot refuse service, and you get a muddled mess of legal precedent that contradict its self.
“Courts have ruled that Private property, is in fact the Public Square. ”
You haven’t cited any.
You never looked?
Chief Justice Robert Wilentz’s opinion for the court is a paean to free speech rights and a dispirited essay on the decline of the traditional town square. Wilentz determined that because shopping malls played such an enormous role in the decline of downtown areas, they now have an obligation to provide a forum for social activists. The chief justice dismissed the delineation between private and public property as an anachronism.
Not my job to look for *your* evidence, especially given your history of making false claims.
Your claim was “Courts have ruled that Private property, is in fact the Public Square.” That’s “courts,” plural.
More importantly, what you asserted is not what the court ruled in New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B. Realty.
First, this is a state case controlled by the NJ Constitution and NJ precedent, especially State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535.
Second, if you read the actual ruling instead of relying on an article about it, you’ll find that the Court in fact notes “The United States Supreme Court has held that the Federal Constitution affords no general right to free speech in privately-owned shopping centers… However, the Supreme Court has held that a state’s constitution may furnish an independent basis that surpasses the guarantees of the federal constitution in protecting individual rights of free expression and assembly,” and the NJ State Supreme Court held “The right of free speech embodied in our State Constitution requires that regional shopping centers must permit the distribution of leaflets on societal issues, subject to reasonable conditions set by the centers.”
So (a) your one case is not relevant precedent for Twitter, because your case turns on the NJ Constitution and NJ caselaw, not on the US Constitution and federal caselaw, (b) the NJ Court did not find “that Private property, is in fact the Public Square,” and (c) even your case notes that under the NJ Constitution, the issue is still “subject to reasonable conditions set by the” private companies.
I dare you to find any court that suggests that Twitter’s Terms of Service are not reasonable conditions.
My only point. Courts have found. You make it sound like some kooky conspiracy theory. Cases have made it to SCOTUS, meaning lower court decisions and SPLIT decisions our of appellate courts. There is a body of work that can be interpreted to have standing, ie, twitter.
Your pedantry is noted. And found lacking. You always dive to the pedantic when the facts go against your ideology.
Most scholars trace the lineage of the public forum doctrine to Justice Owen J. Roberts’s opinion in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), in which he wrote: “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.”
The Courts just recently in a long series of cases all the way up to SCOTUS have ruled that when government officials use social media for government messages they have created a public forumn.
The 2nd Circuit explicitly ruled that Trump’s Twitter account was a public forum.
Whether you like it or not – there are clear circumstances in which private spaces are public forumns – and that includes social media.
With respect to twitters “terms of service”. The standard is not whether they are reasonable.
There are myriads of issues – such as who owns what, and whether the TOS constitutes a valid contract, and even if so what terms are valid and enforceable.
The strongest form of contract is a meeting of minds between two parties, it requires equal participation, equal power and equal consent.
With rare exceptions contracts meeting those requirements are completely binding on both parties.
But the less a contract is the clear meeting of minds of two equal parties the weaker and less enfoceable the terms of the contract become.
Possibly the weakest even partly enforceable contract in existance would be interative click to accept TOS’s that must be assented to, to continue a service.
One unrelated area that MIGHT provide you some clarity would be the question of Who owns your social media posts ?
Most TOS’s assign ownership to the social media company.
Do you think that if Twitter subsequently published a book of your tweets that you would not have grounds to sue them for copyright infringement ?
Or if you published a book copying many of your own tweets – could twitter sue you for copyright violation ?
I am personallly a strong proponent of bright lines in law. The courts would have been wise to find these click to accept TOS’s invalid – particularly when the TOS came after the initial agreement.
But the courts did not do that. And as a result they must evaulate each and every case and each and every clause to determine whether it is binding.
I would further note that independent of contracts courts have long held that the representations of a seller are binding – even when explicitly disown in the contract.
If you advertise free oil changes for 10 years as part of adverting cars and disown it in the sales contract – you are likely to find yourself providing free oil changes.
Twitter sold itself for many years as THE internet platform for free speech – as a public forum for free speech.
I am not sure that the courts have ever ruled on the argument that still binds them. But tomorow they could.
Overall I do not mostly care so much about this fight as so much of the right.
Censorship is a self punishing act.
John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” did not fixate on the law on free speech or the distinciont between government and private actors nor what the law should be.
His argumnt was that censsorship is harmfull – regardless of who practices it.
Further his argument went beyond – people must be allowed to speak and confronted the FACT that you harm yourself when you refuse to listen to your critics.
Even a bad critic improves your understanding of your own argument.
Knowledge is not arrived at in a vaccuum. Truth is forged in a cruicible – where competing views challenge each other.
Without challenges you can never know the truth of your own arguments.
In other words, iowan, you can’t admit that you have no evidence for your actual claim. You presented an article about a single ruling, but the ruling itself didn’t say what you asserted.
If it’s not a public square than doesn’t denial of a public service because of race color or creed come into play. Creed must include partisans because politics is their religion because atheists don’t believe in god their religious options are limited.
Those on the left assume that whatever they belive is true, and never bother to check.
They assume if they say something – it is true and requires no proof.
But anyone who disagrees must prove the truth of their assertions – even where those assertions are obviously true to impossible standards of proof.
If anonymous excercised onr or two brain cells he could certainly think of a few instances of privately provided public forumns
But he would rather snipe, demanding from you perfect proof of what is obviously true.
Many issues have multiple facets.
Whether something is works, is legal, moral or ethical are all independent.
None of us have the capacity to listen to everything said.
But if we do not listen to and address the best counter arguments to our own positions our likelyhood of failing increases dramatically.
It is those that disagree with you – the very best of those that disagree who will best point out the flaws in your own positions.
Even when you are mostly right – small errors can and will result in failure.
We NEED dissent – not just in politics, but in everything.
A company does not improve its products by fawning over those who drown it in praise.
Improvement comes from the voies of the disatisfied.
https://reason.com/1995/08/01/the-malls-in-their-court/
Actually, he did.
Regardless, are you blind to the world ?
There are myriads of privately provided public forums and people protest in those all the time.
Are you saying that Amazon can set its buildings back 1000 ft from any public space and bar free speech within that setback – such as union organizing ?
In the 19th century many big businesses owned the very towns people lived in – were people not free to speak their ?
I’ll cite two:
Marsh v. Alabama 5:3 in favor of speech.
“[T]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”
Packingham v. North Carolina
One of the problems with left wing nuts is how shallow there thinking is.
Our standards and norms and the law have been worked out over often centuries – they are far from perfect, but you can not just pretend that th law means something different than it does in one area, without cascading side effects elsewhere.
The entire leftist legal scheme turns into a giant game of wack-a-mole where each decision has unintended consequences elsewhere and ultimately law just devolves to the personal oppinion of the judge of the moment regarding the issue of the moment – and tomorow they or any other judge could rule the opposite in a related area – where a different sacred ox was being gored.
Ultimately censorship – public or private is both wrong and actually harmful.
We are seeing a version of that with the total failure of the Biden administration.
When Biden took office – the wind was at his back. He could have done nothing and had an excellent presidency.
Random chance dictated that a few things would go well, and a few baddly – but the net would still be positive.
18 months later – we have a huge mess – and it is going to keep getting worse.
This is not an accident. It is because the nonsensical policies of the Biden administration do not work.
The actions of government always have consequences.
Censorship always has consequences – it makes things worse.
The left frets about 1/6. Jan. 6th should have been a warning that the left had gone too far. Instead they have doubled down.
Those in government, the media, social media, … have conspired to control things to their liking. And the consequence is growing distrust of those institutions.
That is very dangerous.
The left should HOPE they get shellacked in the 2022 election – if they do not, if too many people question the legitimacy of that election – trust drops even further.
Actually read the declaration of independence – it is a legal justification for VIOLENCE against established institutions.
The next Jan. 6th could be 10,000 people with AR-15’s. Or it could be something different.
Regardless, those opposed to the regressive left will learn and they will gain power the less trustworthy our institutions become.
Anon,
You are correct. As far as it being a fact that Bezos is ” irrelevant ” to WaPo being a private company. That fact holds true to every stockholder of every private company. Don’t know how relevant that is to be disproving my point. That point being that when a billionaire leftist liberal has a major newspaper to further his own ideology and that is fine with those on the Left. And Murdoch has the same influence at the Post. I think that makes both of them relevant. I don’t think that Warren Buffet is relevant to the fact that Berkshire Hathaway is a private company. But he is surely relevant to many. And Berkshire’s influence on public opinion is limited. If it affects it at all. But when a non- liberal takes on the role of the majority shareholder in a public platform that doesn’t do ” journalism” or put out editorial opinion, some of those on ” your side” are up in arms. Why? When Bezos purchased his majority shares in WaPo, did any of the employees need a day off like the wimps at Twitter?
I don’t deny that other newspapers shape public opinion. That is why I mentioned the N,Y Post. My point was that a newspaper has biases that are presented by their journalists and editorials. A public forum like Twitter does not publish. And I would take it a step further, major networks especially non- cable, shape public opinion even more.
I used the term ” public square” metaphorically. I know it is not the same thing as Elmer Gantry on his ” soapbox”. I was trying to show the distinction between a ‘”Public
forum” where everyone qualifies initially to participate and a newspaper where certain criteria must be met in order to put forth a column or opinion. And unfortunately, ideology is also becoming a major criteria. I think that unbiased reporting is a thing of the past. In the last few days much of the left wing media left out the race of the suspect description in the N.Y. subway shooting. Some who did, described him as a” dark skinned man”. Not Black. Which he obviously was. That is ridiculous. And potentially harmful as far as giving the public an accurate description of a man accused of multiple shootings. I think that he is being tried Federally as a terrorist. I doubt that they would have substituted ” light skinned man” for White if the subject were Caucasian.
Some newspapers do have public opinion columns. But nothing like public opinion input on Twitter.
I am glad that your views on Twitter have not changed. And some on both sides have reacted differently to the Musk purchase. But what I am hearing is those on the Right are celebration that Twitter will likely censor LESS. Those on the Left are lamenting that likelihood.
And I have to congratulate you on your last point. Your “likely older” caveat was true. One article from 26 years ago hardly disproves my point. That would be a full decade before Twitters’ inception.
Thank you for the respectful discourse.
Paul,
I start off treating everyone respectfully, and I only shift from that when someone else is repeatedly disrespectful (S. Meyer, for example, regularly lies about and insults me and others, so I do not treat him respectfully). I much prefer to have respectful good-faith exchanges.
OT, I hope that you saw my responses to your comment about the photos purported to be on Hunter Biden’s laptop: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/13/hunter-biden-likely-to-be-charged-under-fara-if-the-justice-department-applies-the-mueller-standard/comment-page-1/#comment-2174185
Anon,
I also respond to disrespect in kind. Although it now appears that ” in kind” now falls into the same spectrum as ” that depends on what your definition of is, is”.
And I don’t remember specifically commenting on purported photos on the laptop. My only comment on the laptop was that information contained on the laptop was purposely censored by many including WaPo and the NYT. Only to change their story later..
Can’t wait for the outrage now that Musk has put in a bid for Twitter in it’s entirety. I am sure it will be ” the end of democracy”.
Paul,
My mistake, I confused you and Paul Schulte.
No Problem.
AGAIN – it is NOT possible to lie about “anonymous”.
So long as you continue to post anonymsly – every post is stand alone.
How is anyone to be able to verify your claims ?
There is no “you”. There is no identity.
It is litterally impossible to lie about someone who does not exist.
You say you treat others with respect – how do we know ?
There is no way of establishing that any post but the last one is YOU.
I keep saying that so lon as you post as anonymous you have ZERO credibilty.
That is not an insult, it is a FACT.
It is not possible to defame “anonymous”.
The core of defamation is damage to reputation.
You have chosen to have no reputation. You can not be defamed.
But then logic eludes you.
“I start off treating everyone respectfully, and I only shift from that when someone else is repeatedly disrespectful (S. Meyer”
That is a lie, and that is the exact reason for the way I reply to you. You are disingenuous, you lie, and you insult people. You don’t just do that to me, but many others. Anyone that has been on the blog for a reasonable time knows that. What makes it worse is you do so anonymously with pretend anonymous friends so you can blend in and deny your insults and lies. That is a major reason you are anonymous. I know you will have other excuses, but in the end, it is your ability to hide among others that keeps you anonymous.
Listen to what others have to say. I respond to you anonymously because you produce deceitful trash not worthwhile for those limited on time to read. I use my alias S. Meyer when I feel I have more to say.
You have provided links you didn’t read and sometimes said the opposite of what you assumed they would say. Much of your data is outdated even though you know it based on prior discussions. You play word games and try to waste people’s time with disingenuous questions. Anyone can note that you began to quote more in a more recent time frame and add an explanation (you recognized your simple linkage to garbage wasn’t working). Still, when you were caught losing an argument, you loaded your responses with lengthy statements, which had little to do with the discussion.
At one point, you began to behave better, and I lessened my antipathy toward you. Then you started to attack with phony names. I believe in responding in kind.
You created the mess with your insults, multiple names and lies. When people on a blog act like that, there is no need for conservatives to be the polite people they usually are. That politeness doesn’t work. One can’t bring polite explanations to confront a leftist who will reply with a gun.
I will say you aren’t the only one. For example, one person paints the opposition with a broad brush, pretending not to insult while insulting almost everyone on the aisle’s other side. He makes statements he never proves, and he doesn’t stop there. He insults and libels the blog owner. He shouldn’t be given any slack. Conservatives have to respond to fire with legal and legitimate fire and stop worrying that someone will criticize their actions. We already have enough of that type of person in the House and Senate.
Keep voting for Democrats and globalists, just keep on doing that, thinking that anybody at this point gives two poops about race or gender. We can turn it around, but not if half of us still think segregation (which was dem led, by the way) is till a thing. Obama was pretty much the end of all of that. their fatal mistake was in thinking he was just black and because they are racist pieces of ****, and the fact that that doesn’t matter to actual, enlightened people, and not realizing the rest of us were just going to look at ideals and law be cause of said. STOP VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. in any capacity. Even your local PTA. You are supposedly more educated, wise, empathetic and experienced than ‘the kids’; prove it in November. i dare you. I doubt you will be able to bring yourself to, but if you can, then kudos. We have. Got. To. Get. Modern. Dems. Out. Of Power. Period.
sorry for the typos. Phone dysfunction, which is likely a large part of the problem.
JAMES is the Blog Stooge, a mysterious activist who monitors these threads 12 hours per day.
James is also: Thinkthrough, Pblinca, Mistress Addams, Alma Carman, Margot Ballhere, Ralph Chappelle, N.N., Anon, Seth Warner and many, many more.
REGARDING ABOVE
You forgot to mention SAMMY. Sammy is such an obvious sock puppet troll. Said troll uses the same copy / paste talking points of that whiny Anonymous in West Hollywood. Come to think of it, you sound just like Sammy
Three days ago Anonymous said that she never calls anyone a Stooge. It’s like a child calling other children poo poo head on the playground. Whenever you ask her to explain her position she just says oh ha. The more she posts the more it becomes apparent that she is a twelve year old with higher level writing skills. Then again, she could be a forty year old who still uses the tactics of the playground.
He told us a while ago he hikes the hills outside of West Hollywood, so that means he is fit and a gay male. Straights and Lesbians dont live in WeHo, just anonymous gay sex hookup types, but in his case, one with no friends. That or he is paid by Act Blue to be their principle troll to thwart Professor Turley. Either way, poking him in the head makes him furious. But it is so much fun
Has it occurred to you that there are multiple people who post anonymously?
Has it occurred to you that by posting anonymously you become, more or less, indistinguishable from the other people whom also post anonymously? That you might catch someone else’s flak is the risk that you take when you post anonymously.
Why do you do it?
I’m well aware that some people are unable to distinguish among the multiple people who post anonymously. Other people are able to distinguish among some of the various anonymous commenters, both because people have differing political views and because people have different speech patterns (and sometimes even consistently spell some things differently).
I accept the consequences of my choices. That doesn’t mean that I have to be silent about the fact that multiple people post anonymously.
“I accept the consequences of my choices.”
You may accept the consequences, but you whine a lot.
What is said above is the same thing told by Anonymous the Stupid, who doesn’t want anyone to know how frequently he posts and wants to be able to distance himself from any post that later shows him more ignorant than usual. In addition to his anonymous postings and pretend friends, he has added and subtracted various other names and icons.
There is no dignity in such anonymity.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.
ATS, you are at issue. Generic anonymous, pretend friend anonymous, extra aliases with and without icons, lies, deceit and worst of all, massive Stupidity. You don’t even have the imagination to create a good reply.
Face it, Anonymous the Stupid, you are third rate.
“extra aliases with and without icons, lies, deceit and worst of all, massive Stupidity” exists in your imagination.
You’re a troll who doesn’t merit a good reply.
“You’re a troll who doesn’t merit a good reply.”
You have labeled yourself appropriately. If someone needs another to write a lousy reply, go to Anonymous the Stupid.
THINKTHROUGH squeals like a pig because readers are keeping track of all his puppets. So we’re supposed to think that only ‘childish’ readers are paying attention. As though ‘real adults’ don’t mind that ‘one’ creepy closet queen is writing more than half the comments on any given day.
CNN is on life support. Their news personalities are a stable of dolts.
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”
– James Carville
_____________
Robert Reich knows dependency and parasitism; Robert Reich has never created a dollar of wealth.
Robert Reich is an antithetical, anti-Constitution, anti-American communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) who advocates for the despotic “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Robert Reich is a direct and mortal enemy of the Constitution, America and Americans.
Twitter may censor on its private property, and Musk may purchase a controlling majority share in the free stock market.
The answer to every problem is always freedom, free enterprise, and free market competition.
The “climate change” movement is a cult of psychotics, for which America’s enemies have not a care or concern.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“You can’t handle the truth!”
– Colonel Jessup
_____________
The Constitution provides freedom to individual people, not to the government.
The Constitution severely limits and restricts government.
The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.
__________________________________________
The American Founders have an urgent message for America which is on the precipice of extinction:
” But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Free Speech Champion Elon MusK Forgets To Tell SEC His Twitter Stake Exceeds 5%
A Twitter shareholder on Tuesday filed a securities fraud lawsuit against Elon Musk, alleging that the billionaire Tesla CEO’s late disclosure of his stake in Twitter cost investors money and saved Musk around $143 million.
Marc Bain Rasella filed the suit in federal court in New York and seeks to represent all investors who sold Twitter stock between March 24 and April 1. He argues that because Musk waited days to declare his purchase of Twitter stock, he depressed the share price and ripped off others who sold Twitter stock.
Under securities laws, Musk was supposed to alert the Securities and Exchange Commission within 10 days after purchasing 5% or more of Twitter’s stock.
But Musk did not file his SEC paperwork until April 4, or 11 days after he was supposed to, and by that point, Musk had amassed a more than 9% stake in the social media company, becoming its largest shareholder for the price of about $2.6 billion.
Edited from Today’s NPR
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/12/1092453756/elon-musk-saved-143-million-by-reporting-twitter-stake-late-shareholder-suit-cla
……………………………………………………………
In the above column, Professor Turley writes: “Musk is an advocate for free speech on the Internet”.
What Turley doesn’t say is that Musk sometimes keeps his mouth shut if he can save an extra $143 million.
…………………………………………………………….
THE BLOG STOOGE’S RESPONSE:
“NPR..?? That’s fake news! You must be gay for reading NPR. Here’s one of my personal gay videos to embarass you”
Please cite the Constitution wherein Congress is provided any power to regulate equities markets and/or financial transactions.
Congress has no power to deny constitutional freedom, free enterprise and free markets to individuals (9th Amendment).
Regulation of free markets and financial transactions is not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
Government has no power to regulate anything other than the value of money, commerce among the States, and land and naval Forces.
What Turley doesn’t say is that Musk sometimes keeps his mouth shut if he can save an extra $143 million.
$143 million is a lot of money. unless your net worth is $260,000,000,000. Then its .0005%. Or if you are buying a car for $100,000 you hold out…to save $50. Literal pocket change.
Big numbers confuse low intellect individuals
When did Mr MusK holdings exceed 5% certainly he didn’t buy it in one transaction
David Horowitz made a wise statement. “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian waiting to get out.” This statement is a perfect description of Robert Reich. It really should come as no surprise. He has always worn a hammer and sickle armband on his sleeve. He used to only wear it at the secret meetings.
—- Horowitz!
Get the facts from the horse’s mouth.
_____________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Think, I believe Dostoevsky felt the same way.
The Left needs to censor opposing views in order to survive and be the only voice in the public square. The reason is because no one will support them in an open and free market.
welfare check might be in order for Chris Wallace
😉
Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start
https://www.axios.com/cnn-plus-cuts-warner-brothers-discovery-1be0ac3a-6952-4af0-b8e2-03dd6ae0839c.html
“Investment and projections for CNN+ are expected to be cut dramatically in response to a low adoption rate, two sources tell Axios.
By the numbers: The news giant was initially planning to invest around $1 billion in the service over the next four years.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are expected to be cut from that original investment total.
To date, around $300 million has been spent on the subscription service, which includes a sizable marketing investment.
The new company’s leadership team still has yet to decide the ultimate fate of CNN+. CNN’s new boss, Chris Licht, will start May 1.“
So you all are in favor of insisting that a corporation /must/ allow all to post whatever screed their brain vomits on any given day? How interesting.
Anonymous, I am in favor of allowing you to post whatever screed your brain vomits on any given day. However it’s obvious that you would like to put your hobnailed boot down on whatever screed that I post on this blog. Which one of us is of a totalitarian nature? I have criticized your screed but I have never called for your banning on this blog. I access this blog through the internet. According to your philosophy you would advocate for my removal from this forum because as you often tell us you believe my comments are misinformation. The difference is that I believe your comments are disinformation but I want you to keep making them because I believe in your freedom of speech. However, you display no respect for my right to speak. Your desire for speech control echos throughout history in the screams from the dungeons of past totalitarian regimes. As a piece of advise I would recommend that you would make a trip to the boot maker to get your hobnail boots properly fitted. Your doing so would greatly please The Grand Kleagle.
First time I was censored for my almost zero followers on Twitter why? because I responded to Robert Reich’s tweet about Jared Kushners deal with the Saudi’s. Reich said now who wants to Talk about hte Hunter Biden laptop now. I responded with a joke. you be the judge if I stepped over a line with this comparison. “Two hookers are at a VD clinic one gets paid $5k a throw the other $5 bucks. in this scenario Biden is cheap stupid and dirty, Kushner is just dirty.” I thought it an apt description of the comparison and Reich’s sophistry that one dollar amount obliterates the argument of what Hunter Biden is accused of, and by Robert Reich’s tacit admission these two men are allegedly guilty of the same crime and he wants to assign guilt via the negotiation of price.
What a despicable human being. When I started referring to people like Reich as little totalitarians a few years ago I did so at the risk of sounding extreme and somewhat of a provocateur. More and more he is demonstrating that those viewpoints were more accurately than I had feared. Progressives like Reich are truly enemies of a functioning democracy. Like their forebears in Russia at the turn of the 20th Century believe they are on right side of history. For many of the intellectual revolutionaries they ended up on the wrong side of a muzzle.
Yes sir. He has been a “little” socialist all of his life. And like every good socialist, he needs to suppress ideas that show his agenda is a pipe dream that does not comport with human nature. In effect, he runs a political racket with the goal of suckering the voters to empower himself because of course, he know better how to run your life than you do.
Just because Robert Reich is 76 years old, please don’t group all of the rest of the people in that age group with him. I am approaching 74 and at the total opposite of Mr. Reich. 58,000 of those “me” generation and those immediately before and after us gave their lives in the Viet Nam War. Over 1/2 of the men in my high school class of 1966 served in the military in all branches and this was common at the time. Most went on to work and raised their families just like anyone else but instead of being praised for their sacrifice like those in WW2, Korea and after Vietnam, the “me generation” service men and women were cursed and spit upon and degraded by a “grateful” nation. Reich and people of his view are a plague on this country but be careful in your generalities just because of age. Go look at that wall in D.C. then correct your statement.
I’m not sure who is responsible for creating the perception that the political Left is “elite” –perhaps it was created by the politcal Left, you know, -the “enlightened ones” who know what is best for us. Robert Reich is a case in point. The smug condescension only appears valid because suppression and censoring of opposing thought is/are the modi operandi here.
If you think the Left is elite, I have a nice piece of land to sell you 90 miles south of Key West
Person of interest in NYC subway attack had social media filled with black nationalism and hate
James also ranted against Jews, posted hatred of Donald Trump and in support of Black Lives Matter and black nationalism. In one video he expressed disappointment that Justice Ketanji Jackson is married to a white man.
https://thepostmillennial.com/person-of-interest-in-nyc-subway-attack-had-social-media-filled-with-black-nationalism-and-hate
Lin,
“ I’m not sure who is responsible for creating the perception that the political Left is “elite” –perhaps it was created by the politcal Left, you know, -the “enlightened ones” who know what is best for us.”
The right has been using that label for years. It was created by the political right. Trump and his supporters use it all the time when they speak at their rallies. The attraction to Trump from the average Joe or jane is how he often depicts issues as “us” normal people against the elites on the left.
The left is not alone in demanding suppression and censoring of opposing thought. Bans against discussion of critical race theory, banning books, criminalizing LGBTQ lifestyles, etc.
Turley seems to conveniently forget about CPAC. They to engage in ways to educate their supporters on countering disinformation from the right. Both parties are entitled to their political views and opinions regarding disinformation, propaganda, and such.
Turley unsurprisingly has been silent on the censorship and suppression of opposing thought by right-wing groups regarding the issues mentioned above.
Svelaz: you could save yourself a lot of time and verbosity by simply stating for the record, “I like to disagree with Lin.” It’s short, sweet, and to-the-point. Thanks anyway.
Lin, I could have done that, but like everyone else on this blog. I chose to put my two cents in. Plus I also had to rebut your assertion that “The smug condescension only appears valid because suppression and censoring of opposing thought is/are the modi operandi here.”
You don’t agree that the right does censorship and suppression of opposing thought?
Only on today’s left would we have a moronic WAPO columnist actually write a column about how dangerous it is having Musk buy a big part of a media business because he is so rich. She works for Jeff Bezo’s WAPO and she is decrying a rich guy holding a major media outlet. THIS IS HOW FREAKIN’ DUMB THE LITTLE GIRLS COMING OUT OF J SCHOOL REALLY ARE. Imagine the thought process that goes into sitting down to pen this idea, penning the idea, having the idea edited and then printing the idea. They are either morons or fifth columnists and either way they need to be shunned.
They are stupid, they ae evil
Robert Third Reich. His columns in the Guardian show him to be an intolerant authoritarian. Should be avoid for mental health reasons.
Little Robert Reich the Communist.