Free Speech, Media, Politics

Freedom is Tyranny: Robert Reich Goes Full Orwellian in Anti-Free Speech Screed

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]

 

249 thoughts on “Freedom is Tyranny: Robert Reich Goes Full Orwellian in Anti-Free Speech Screed”

  1. Speaking of disinformation, do you remember the border patrol agents who were accused of wiping immigrants from Haiti. They have finally been cleared. The Democrats were so concerned about the spreading of Covid that they overlooked the fact that only one percent of people in Haiti have been vaccinated. https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/haiti/. Bring us your tired, your hungry, your infected so we can use them as political tools to keep our power. Biden said the border agents would have to pay before their was an investigation. Mr. race baiter in charge.

    1. Another left wing nut conspiracy theory bites the dust.

      Do those on the left tire of being Wrong ?

      How low is the IQ of those who can not learn from their mistakes ?

      It has taken Biden 18months to bring back stagflation – it took 20 years to create it the first time, a severe recession to end it and 40 years before anyone was stupid enough to bring it back.

      Just Remember – YOU DID THIS.

  2. Jonathan: Elon Musk has upped the ante. In a hostile takeover attempt he has offered $54.20 for all of Twitter’s shares and will take the company private. This, no doubt, will be welcome news for you and many of your loyal followers. MAGA fans are excited by the prospect Trump will be back on Twitter. Fox contributor Lara Trump is excited–calling Musk’s move a “fantastic” opportunity for her father-in-law and conservatives to finally have a platform to express their views. As if Fox is not good enough.

    Musk is the world’s richest man. He has his hands full with Tesla and Space X. Why would he want to take on Twitter? Speculation abounds because Musk has largely remained mum. He has said he thinks Twitter should be a subscription service with fees paid up front to discourage people signing up and leaving in a few months. I doubt Trump would want to pay for access to Twitter. Although Trump and Musk are friends the former may be ambivalent because Musk’s bid has driven farther down the value of “Truth Social” that has been tanking on its own in recent weeks.

    Musk may have a hidden agenda. Biden’s new budget calls for a 20% billionaire tax. That would be bad news for Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and other billionaires who pay little or no federal taxes. In 2018 Musk paid no federal taxes. By owning Twitter Musk would have a huge platform to fight Biden’s tax proposal. Would anyone who supports a billionaire tax be permitted to comment on Musk’s Twitter? If Trump’s social media platform is any indication it is highly unlikely. That would make a mockery of your claim that Musk is a “free speech originalist”.

    Musk has one other problem. He was not born here. He was born in South Africa of a Canadian mother and South African father. For those out there like Donald Trump who believe Obama was born in Africa they should demand Musk provide copies of his citizenship papers before being allowed to buy an American company.

    1. “Obama was born in Africa they should demand Musk provide copies of his citizenship papers before being allowed to buy an American company.”

      Biden was involved in selling companies to China that were useful to China’s military. Hillary Clinton sold 20% of our Uranium to Russia. Let’s get real. The Democrats and, to a lesser extent, some Republicans have been selling out America while in office.

    2. Duh so owning a business is the same as qualifications for becoming President. Does that mean we can arrest Ariana Huffington.

    3. Who cares ?

      It would be hard for Musk to screw up Twitter worse than it is.

      A musk takeover would be a dilema for the snowflakes working there.

      Musk might expect more from them than censoring their ideological enemies.

      Further, Musk is offering a substantial amount of money. It is fairly likely that he sees something of significant value that is being misrun.

      And I strongly suspect he is right. I left twitter as it started to drive out rational discourse.
      I am sure there are many more like my. Twitter’s value will likely increase under Musks management.

      Further uncorking Twitter will pose a problem with the Rest of Social Media. Privately owned there would be nothing FB and Google could do regarding Twitter – except Compete.

      But who knows Musk might F’up – like he has done each of his other endeavors ?

      Regardless, I am not interested in fixating what Musk might do.
      Even destroying Twitter would be a public service. But I doubt that is what he has in mind.

    4. There are plenty of american companies owned by foreign governments.

      BTW Musk is a US Citizen.
      He may not be eligable for president, but he is otherwise as american as the rest of us.

    5. God, you left wing nuts and “hidden agenda’s”, and dog whistles and other such nonsense.
      The “right wing conspiracy theories” have proven true. The left wing ones – NOT. You are horrid judges of reality and clueless about the actual intentions of others.

      Musk’s agenda is right out in the open, to make money through innovation.

      As to Biden’s Billionaire tax – that is DOA.
      But lets say it does pass – if democrats really want to destroy the economy that badly – what the F, let them.

      Biden inherited the wind at his back. Trump left him a booming economy raring to get back to work after stupid lockdowns.
      He left him a world at peace, with the US strong and energy policies that would assure that continued.

      Today Biden faces gale force headwinds of his own making.

      Covid is an random act of nature – hopefully.
      Inflation is not.

      Most americans beleive that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine but for Biden’s election.
      They are likely right. Putin would have been in a much weaker position but for Biden’s failed energy policies.
      Sanctrions are meaningless – when the people of Europe need Russian gas for heat, electricity, ….

  3. Full disclosure: Not a Trump fan but many Trump supporters are missing the bigger point. Trump is currently being labeled a “boogie man” for things he might do in the future not actual documented past criminal violations.

    In the 21st Century – using my measuring stick – the biggest violator of federal criminal statutes (including felony crimes) – was the George W. Bush Administration. The criminal violations are well documented and most of those committing the crimes have fully admitted to perpetrating the crimes. The U.S. Department of Justice has simply failed to investigate or indict these crimes. Easy, easy prosecutions with slam dunk convictions. The DOJ also allowed evidence to be destroyed by not investigating sooner. (Ie: cell phone, email records, etc were only stored 3-8 years back then depending on which telecommunications company held the records).

    Since many Trump supporters and Democrats disliked the Bush Administration why not go after these easy convictions? The Bush guys violated way more criminal statutes than Trump did.

    1. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations is likely expired for the Bush Admin crimes.

      As for “Trump is currently being labeled a “boogie man” for things he might do in the future not actual documented past criminal violations,” I wouldn’t use the label “boogie man,” but my concern is also for his past actions where there’s considerable evidence of his having committed crimes, such as conspiracy to obstruct the vote count and campaign finance law violations. I want them fully investigated, and if the DOJ has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then I want him indicted and tried.

      1. There is no evidence.
        FEC crimes have been ruled on for the Clinton Campaign.
        Everything else was taken up in two i impeachments and failed. NO Crimes.
        President Trump is the most investigated President ever. The results of those investigations have proven President Trump to be the most ethical ever.

        1. “There is no evidence” of WHAT?

          For example, there’s evidence of Trump having conspired to obstruct the vote count. Judge Carter discussed some of the evidence in his recent ruling. There’s also evidence of Trump having violated campaign finance law, though the statute of limitations has likely expired, and of having knowingly omitted his debt to Cohen from his required financial disclosure on form OGE 278e and then falsely certified the form, which is still within the statute of limitations.

          1. Trump did nothing illegal. Democrats did a lot that was illegal or contrary to voting laws and state constitutions.

        2. It is worse than that the investigations and impeachments of Trump have exposed REAL crimes by those on the left.

          While the left might be shifting on the Biden laptop – because it is obvious that Biden/Harris are a disaster and can not get elected dog catcher in 2024,
          Democrats seem blind to the fact that the stronger the evidence against the Bidens the more corrupt the impeachment of Trump.

          That is huge. Biden did not impeach Trump – the entire democratic congressional body did.

      2. Anonymous, there is ample evidence that Santa Clause “might” have kicked a reindeer and the goose “might” have actually laid golden eggs. Sorry to get you so excited

  4. I love how you respond to hypocrisy being called out publicly by claiming It’s ‘anti free speech’, Turley.. Especially when I’m acquainted first hand with your reverence for censorship and speaking in bad faith. But hey, you just keep on being you. S’all good.

    Eb

    1. Well atleast you are using a signature.

      Free speech is a right and a principle – even if argued by hypocrits.

      Regardless you have claimed hypocracy without any evidence of any kind.
      demonstrating hypocracy requires more than innuendo.

      Further, you are making a claim of moral failure of another.

      The burden of proof is on you. Claims of moral failure are inherently one of few actual binaries.
      Either they are true or the claimant is a liar.

  5. When I attended Berkeley in the 70’s my poly sci prof argued that political correctness was one of the biggest threats to America and her way of life. This led to vigorous debates in and after class. Fascists, Commies, Anarchists, and Moonies were all allowed to speak their mind. We disagreed but we all learned to listen to better understand the other guy AS WELL AS OURSELVES. The free speech movement was born there, now it is buried there.

    1. Well said. I recall the Mario Savio free speech movement at Berkeley. There was a decent balance of liberal as well as conservative professors and department heads at Berkeley for quite a few years after that. But at a certain point, an imbalance began to erode the balance, which in part has led us to today, where there is no balance and no freedom of speech.

  7. The left’s ideas can’t win any more, so now they hate free speech. Quite short sighted.

      1. “I’m a lefty. I don’t hate free speech.”

        Wake us when you become something more than a lefty pipsqueak.

      2. Given that we do not and can not know who you are, that all your posts are on off – how is your reply meaningful ?

        How can we tell it is truthful ?

        It can not be measured against your other posts – there is no means to know what other posts are yours.

        You are not only not a real person, you are not even an established fake person.

        You are one of thousands of cluster bombs that have no known relationship to each other.

        Therefore by defintion you have no credibility, you are not entitled to beleif.

        No one should beleive you are a lefty, or that you favor free speech.

        All we have is a single post from an anonymous source.

        There is no YOU,
        by posting completely anonymously you abandon identity.

        That is your right.

        But you can not have it both ways.

        You can not have the sheild of anonymity and the credibility of identity.

        1. “You are not only not a real person …”

          You think I’m a bot? SMH.

          1. You are not a bot. You are Anonymous the Stupid trying to hide. You fail because most, if not all, of John’s posts against the anonymous persona have been against you.

            Paul can take note of that if he wishes.

  8. Imagine that. How long before the Left cancel Adams since their beloved BLM Narrative cant possibly be dismantled? Hades forbid.

    “Eric Adams rips BLM, anti-cop activists after night of NYC shootings”

    Mayor Adams slammed Black Lives Matter and anti-police activists Wednesday after a night of bloodshed across the city that left more than a dozen people shot.

    “Where are all those who stated ‘Black Lives Matter?’ ” Adams said on NY1.

    “Do an analysis of who was killed or shot last night. I was up all night speaking to my commanders in The Bronx, in Brooklyn. The victims were black,” the mayor said.

    Three people were killed and at least 13 others were wounded in a series of shootings that rocked parts of The Bronx and Brooklyn late Tuesday and early Wednesday, police and sources said.

    NY Post

      1. My Guess is that had Musk accepted the board seat he would have been required by SEC rules to be much more careful in his public remarks and actions.

        Essentially putting Musk on the board was an effort to domesticate him.

        As a private investor he has no obligation to other twitter shareholders – he can say things or take actions that might harm Twitters shareholder value – atleast in the short run, without having to deal with the SEC.
        That would not be as true if he were on the board.

        Further the Biden SEC is likely dangerous to him.

        Regardless, I do not know what Musk is up to. But he is up to something.

        Right now he has significant power over Twitters share price, and no obligation to protect it. He can buy or sell shares, drive the price up or down, and privately or publicly say or demand whatever he wants.
        Or he can go start something else.

  10. Sulivan was essentially a 5:4 decision.

    4 Justices would have gone much further and pretty much eliminated libel of a public figure and possibly all libel.

    There is merit to this positions – even from those angry at the censorious modern left and the institutions co-opted by it.

    And we are seeing that play out in real time – albeit slowly.

    People increasingly do not trust the media and social media.

    Ultimately censorship – even private censorship – and defamation law is a form of censorship is on net harmful.

    The left rants about consiracy theories and misinformation – but not only is the left less and less trusted – but censorship actually makes censored positions more credible and more trusted – atleast to some.

    The left wants to claim it is what was SAID that causes Jan. 6th.
    Ir is equally arguable that it was what was not allowed to be said.

    Little infuriates people more than being silenced.

    Turley called for Biden to support audits of the election shortly after. That was a wise call and should have happened.

    I am personally more focused on the lawlessness of the election – which also eroded trust.

    But the failure to have real scrutiny made it MORE beleiveable – atleast to some people that there was very serious fraud.

    Censorship diminishes the most well reasoned opposition to a view, but it STRENGTHENS more radical views.

    As Mill noted – when all we know is our own view – we know little.

    The most effective means to discredit “misinformation ” is a Brandeies noted – with more speach – with argument.

    Real argument – debate is the cruicible that burns away the chaffe.

    Without that fiery cruicible – falsehoods gain traction – and the worst falsehoods do best under censorship regimes.

      1. I would strongly recomend that you actually read something regarding the criticality of free speech.

        A start would be John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”. There is a modern language update by the heterodox academy called “All Minus One” if you can not cope with 19th century english.

        “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
        JS Mill.

        You and the modern left seem to beleive it is OK to protect yourselves from ideas that you do not like.

        When you do so you harm YOURSELF. ,

        We are talking about more than the freedom to shout your views into a cave to hear them echoed back.

        You harm yourself and the world arround you when YOU deprive yourself of the best and most vigorous exposition of those ideas that are at odds with your own.

        None of us learn from an echo chamber.

        Even good ideas fail more often than they succeed. Success in most everything requires more than beleiving you are right, it requires more than being mostly right.
        It requires working hard, and then observing results, listening to criticism, learning aadpting and trying again.

        Fail to do that – and you can actually make thins worse – even if you are mostly right.

        2. John, you claimed “The left wants to claim it is what was SAID that causes Jan. 6th. Ir is equally arguable that it was what was not allowed to be said” (emphasis added).

          I asked about the italicized text: What was not allowed to be said?

          You have not answered that question.

        3. ILL have to re-read Mills. When I was young l loved G B Shaw ,not so much now

          1. It is not about loving him.
            It is that he is mostly right.

            J.S. Mill dances arround utilitarianism, and SOMETIMES his concept of fundimental rights is too soft.

            But I doubt there is a better defense of free speech anywhere ever.

  12. Jonathan: In endless columns you complain about how conservatives have been cast out–threatened with the loss of their “free speech” rights, or even their jobs, by determined liberal elites who want to stamp out “disinformation”. You must live in an alternate universe–not the one I see. Today, conservative and right-wing opinion is everywhere. Just look at this chatroom. You brag endlessly about your millions of followers. Jesus had only 12 disciples. Yet you are the Messiah of conservative thought in the US. You brag that Fox (your employer) is the most watched cable news outlet–the network where 24/7 conservative and right-wing opinion is de jure. You post 24/6 here, in the Hill and elsewhere. No one censors you. You are not banned. Even Donald trump, banned from Twitter and Facebook, manages to get out his opinions–even though he doesn’t even use his own social media platform. Now the billionaire Elon Musk wants to control Twitter so he can re-instate Trump’s account and make it look more like Fox. Yet you bizarrely claim Musk is a “free speech originalist”. Don’t expect Robert Reich to appear on a Musk controlled Twitter. Under Musk Twitter will be a “free speech” forum for only the rich and powerful. It will look like the social media in Russia, Hungary and other autocracies. But this just shows how you have distorted what is actually happening. No one looking at the media landscape today can seriously argue conservative opinion is being marginalized. In fact, it is expanding. New conservative and right-wing sites pop up all the time–notwithstanding the failure of Trump’s platform to get any traction.

    But, hey, I get it. I think I know the reason for your constant angst. You are nostalgic for the 1950s and 60s when we revered founders like James Madison, one of your heroes. Now he is criticized for being just another slaveholder. That really rubs you the wrong way. From 1492 to about 1992 “Christopher Columbus” was not a bad word. He was celebrated with cities, streets and schools named after him. Now young school kids are told the truth–Columbus was the brutal oppressor and killer of indigenous peoples. That’s a bridge too far for you. It’s a knife in the heart of the traditional white interpretation of our history.

    Now the country is split right down the middle between red and blue states–between those who want our children to learn the truth about our history and those who want to censor it and are banning books. We’re like Athens and Sparta. The Athenians wanted to argue the meaning of “ethics” and “truth”. The Spartans wanted to burn down everything. We have become a tribal and fractured society where there is no room for compromise. Some, like the governors of some southern states, want to succeed again! They want a second Civil War.

    So what is to be done? We can’t go back to the time when only old white men made all the rules. And we can’t give up our cell phones, laptops or the internet. Colin Quinn, the comedian, has a great standup on Netflix. He talks about this dilemma: If Sprint were to offer you a free lifetime subscription with free yearly cell phone upgrades–in exchange you have to kill your brother. Quinn thinks a fair number would have to think twice about that offer. Same with the internet. We can’t give it up. It gives us anonymity. We can sit in our house in our underwear and call someone else in a chatroom an “ass****” without fear of being punched in the mouth. Something I might have faced back when “free speech” meant weekly library discussion groups or get togethers at the local tavern. Then we had to look each other in the eye. Now we sit thousands of miles apart and exchange insults.

    Our ancestors settled disputes with swords or pistols. There are some in this country today who think the same. They were there at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and are just waiting for the next opportunity to strike. They don’t want reasoned or civil debate. They want to win at any cost. They are led by Donald Trump. So stop complaining about this “age of rage” when you are a big contributor.to the paranoia of some in this chatroom and elsewhere who actually believe they are an endangered species and want to take the country back–way back! If you and your conservative brethren are in the minority you have only yourselves to blame. You refuse to admit as Bob Dylan sang “The times they are a changing”. As a sign of these changes we now have a new black woman associate justice of the Supreme Court–the first in American history. Something we should celebrate but you won’t celebrate. Why is that?

    1. Mr. McIntyre has conflated way too many historical falsehoods in his effort to support Reich over Turley in the debate about free speech. Of course, he is free to say what he wants but that doesn’t mean anyone will agree with him. He will likely presume that the non-agreement is based on conservative prejudice against his liberalism–but it’s not.

      1. Free speech is a liberal value.
        Those opposed to speech are illiberal, not liberal.

        WE forget that the liberal left 60 years ago shut down places like Berkeley to secure the right to free speech.

        Today’s left is illiberal.

        1. “Forgotten”? Hardly. I was in grad school when the Marxists at Berkeley protested for the right to use profanity in public discourse. Being successful in polluting the public discourse, they went on to Chicago and the Democrat Convention of 1968, where they assisted by distraction the Marxist takeover of the Democrat Party.

          However, the infiltration of Marxism into American’s social and corporate fabric had even an earlier start.

          My uncle, Dr. Theodore Kreps, went off to college, with the blessing and assistance of my grandfather, to become a minister. but ended up attending Harvard University, where he took his master’s and PhD degrees in economics, and also taught at Harvard before joining Stanford GSB faculty in 1930. His primary class, “Business Activity and Public Welfare”, a course he introduced in 1931, was a forerunner of present day Stanford GSB courses in “corporate social responsibility”. Known in and outside the school as a crusading economic liberal, Ted often used the phrase “social justice”. He was active in government during the 1930s and 1940s, holding posts in the National Recovery Administration and the Works Projects Administration, and serving as an economic adviser to the U.S. Maritime Commission, the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, and the Temporary National Economic Committee. During World War II, he was an adviser to the Office of Price Administration and the Board of Economic Warfare and in the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations was staff director of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress. He was author of six books and numerous articles on prices, the chemical industry, and the relation of business to government. He was a master at using the labels “liberal”, “progressive”, “social democrat”, “socialist”, etc., as cloaks to conceal his true identity, a disciple and student of Karl Marx. A Marxist.

          His students, future CEOs of American industry, took with them principles of Marxism taught to them by my uncle. They did their “Long March” through their institutions to arrive as leaders at the top. Along the way they helped other Marxists into positions of authority in those corporations, which included the entertainment and news industries and academia. The results are what we have now, fascist corporations that follow the lead of Marxists in Congress, as represented by the “Progressive Congressional Caucus”, bent on suppressing the Rights enumerated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that “little book” which they hate. The Marxists often admit that while the government cannot pass laws that nullify the unalienable rights listed in our founding documents, private corporations can limit free speech and mold public behavior and thought on their social networks while hiding behind Section 230. That is the definition of fascism, corporations working on behalf of the government.

          1. The problematic left today does not call themselves liberal.

            People like Turley, Derschowitz, Greenwald, call them selves liberal – and they are.

            I am happy about this the 18th and 19th century meaning of liberal is today libertarian,
            and I want the term liberal back.

            Regardless, for the most part those on the left – those who are not 60’s liberals. do not call themselves liberal.

            This is an instance where I will be happy to call them what they want – progressive, or post modern, or just leftists.

            Free speech was a liberal value in the 20th century.

            The major 20th century threat to free speech came from the right.

    2. Dennis you are correct that there is no shortage of conservative views.

      Censorship is more destructive to those who employ it than it is to its victims.

      I would note that the primary victims of censorship today – with few high profile exceptions are those on the left.

      It is leftists, censoring leftists for being heretical.

      Regardless, though Turley is correct about censorship.

      I am perfectly happy to see the left self destruct.

      You are NOT phasing the right.

      Just take the Hunter Biden story – tens of millions of people heard it reported correctly – on those conservative sites you rant about.

      Others heard it misrepresented on the left wing sites.

      The result is the slow destruction of the middle.
      And the middle is obviously not shifting left as a result.

      Supressing the Truth about Hunter Biden may have gotten Biden elected, but it has a high cost for those who engaged in it.
      Many many people no longer trust you, and that number grows.

      Censorship destroys the credibility of those who deploy it and bolsters the credibility of the most extreme who are being censored.

    3. You make some points worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, we are not teaching our school-age youth about the value of debate, of argument, with verbal or physical threats of violence. It taking the country ‘backward’ to the days when debate and argument were civil values, and taught in our educational system, going ‘back’ is not to be condemned. I’ve always wondered why ‘moving forward’ is the mantra when moving ‘upward’ would be a better expression of where we want society to move. But thank you for your thoughts – they’re good ones to think about and chew on.

      1. Richard Lowe: Appreciate your thoughtful comments. In the second sentence of your comment I hope you meant to say “without” not “with”. The purpose of my comment was to point out that Turley exaggerates “free speech” threats to conservatives. Conservative opinion is everywhere. Trump gets to say whatever he wants on multiple forums–even though he has avoided his own “Truth Social” platform–perhaps because it does not reach enough people. Robert Reich is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But Turley thinks any criticism of Elon Musk is a threat to Turley’s concept of “free speech”. That’s not how I read Reich’s column.

        If you haven’t seen it suggest you watch “Midnight in Paris”–a Woody Allen movie starring Owen Wilson on Netflix. It’s about an aspiring novel writer who magically finds himself transported back to Paris of the 1920s, rubbing elbows with Pablo Picasso, Matisse, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, TS Elliot, Gertrude Stein, Hemingway and other famous artists every night while his wife is having an affair with a friend–right under his eyes. He mistakenly thinks an earlier epoch is better than the present. Toward the end of the movie he realizes he is delusional–you cannot recreate a past when things were slower and simpler so he reluctantly returns to the present where he meets the girl of his dreams. The lesson of the movie, I believe, is that despite all the problems of the present nothing is solved by returning to an earlier epoch. Turley is much like Owen Wilson’s character. Turley mistakenly believes that life was better when James Madison and Christopher Columbus were honored and revered not criticized. So if we want to move “upward”–to use your word–we need to honestly confront our demons, our history with all its warts. The truth is nothing to fear. It gives us perspective and the ability, hopefully, to prevent making the same mistakes of the past.

        1. These sort of comparisons are dependent viewpoints. NAZI’S might disagree.

      2. IF we can not teach our kids critical thinking,
        then the least we can do is assure that they graduate competent in Reading Writing and Arithmatic, that is far more useful in the real world than multiplicity of genders, and racism.

        In the real world your value is ultimately based on what you can produce.

        If the left actually succeeds in destroying that – they will condemn us all to poverty,

        1. John, have you looked at the new math quiz?

          him + zie = terself
          vir X ter = hirsuta
          em – emself = e

  13. I’d wager that Reisch does NOT find the raw power of tech oligarchs with whom he agrees at all problematic. Just those with whom he disagrees. THEY must be silenced, deplatformed, and demonetized. Because his inner totalitarian “hates them forever, Precious!”

  14. they think of us as product, to be farmed, the internet as their pipeline with additives to grow us and keep us calm

  15. I think Reich went completely mad after that movie gig and seeing all that socialist guild stuff. Who could blame him with all that singing and dancing:

  16. Robert the third Reich. Robert Irrelevant. No one is much concerned with anything he says.

    The Muppet Show should replace Statler and Waldorf with Reich and Fauci. Heckling freedom has finally made them a joke.

  17. Maybe Reich’s view of “American Democracy” has little resemblance to the Bill of Rights or the Rights of Man or anything written by John Stuart Mill.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks

Discover more from JONATHAN TURLEY

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading