Below is my column in the Hill on one way for Elon Musk to re-introduce free speech values on his newly acquired social media platform. Pro-censorship advocates like former President Barack Obama may have given Musk a roadmap for restoring free speech on Twitter.
Here is the column:
For free speech advocates, Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter could prove the most impactful event since Twitter’s founding in 2006. The question, however, is how Musk can accomplish his lofty goal of restoring free speech values to social media. He first would have to untie the Gordian knot of censorship in a company now synonymous with speech control. The answer may be simpler than most people think. Indeed, anti-free-speech figures in the country may have given Musk the very roadmap he’s looking for: the First Amendment.
The purchase of Twitter alone will have immediate and transformative changes for free speech. The control over speech on social media required a unified front. Free speech is like water, it tends to find a way out. With social media, there was no way out because of the unified front of companies like Google, Apple and Facebook. Facebook is actually running commercials trying to convince people to embrace their own censorship. This message was reinforced by Democratic leaders like President Biden, who demanded that these companies expand censorship and curtail access to harmful viewpoints.
Now this market has one major competitor selling a free speech product. The fear is that Musk might be proven right and that Twitter could become larger and more profitable by allowing more free speech. Facebook has not had much success in convincing customers to embrace censorship, but it may find shareholders wondering why the Facebook board (like the Twitter board) is undermining its own product as a communications company committed to limited speech.
Another immediate change could be the forced exodus of a line of ardent censors from the company, with Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal (hopefully) at the head of line. Agrawal is one of the most anti-free-speech figures in Big Tech. After taking over as CEO, Agrawal quickly made clear that he wanted to steer the company beyond free speech and that the issue is not who can speak but “who can be heard.”
However, once such figures are removed from Twitter, the question is how to re-establish a culture of free speech. The answer may be in the very distinction used by Democratic politicians and pundits to justify corporate censorship.
For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations. The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.
Corporations clearly have free speech rights. Ironically, Democrats have long opposed such rights for companies, but they embrace such rights when it comes to censorship. The Democratic Party embraced corporate governance of free speech once these companies aligned themselves with their political agenda. Starbucks and every other company have every right to pursue a woke agenda. Social media companies, however, sell communications, not coffee. They should be in the business of free speech.
Democrats have continued to treat the First Amendment as synonymous with free speech, as a way to justify greater censorship. Just last week, former President Barack Obama spoke at Stanford to flog this false line. Obama started by declaring himself, against every indication to the contrary, to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything that he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.” He was able to do that by emphasizing that “The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter.”
Well, what if it did? The Constitution does not impose the same standard on Twitter — but Musk could. He could order a new Twitter team to err on the side of free speech while utilizing First Amendment standards to maximize protections on the platform. In other words, if the government could not censor a tweet, Twitter would not do so.
The key to such an approach is not to treat Twitter as akin to “government speech,” a category where the government has allowed major speech controls. Rather, tweets are very much as Musk has described them: akin to speech in “the digital town square.” If the government could not stop someone from speaking in a public forum like a town square, Twitter should not do so through private means.
The value to tying private speech to First Amendment jurisprudence is that there is a steady array of cases illuminating this standard and its applications.
Such a rule would admittedly allow a large array of offensive and objectionable speech — just as the First Amendment does in a public square. That is the price of free speech.
This is, admittedly, not a perfect fit. Twitter needs to protect itself from civil liability in the form of trademark, copyright and other violations in the use of its platforms. Moreover, most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy violations.
Social media companies long had these limitations before plunging headlong into the type of content-based speech regulations made infamous by Twitter. Musk can use the baseline of the First Amendment with these limited augmentations to re-create the type of relatively open forums that once characterized the internet.
I have long admitted to being a type of “internet originalist” who prefers precisely the digital town square concept embraced by Musk. Adopting the First Amendment standards would create a foundation for free speech that can be tweaked to accommodate narrow, well-defined limitations.
The greatest challenge is not the restoration of free speech but the retention of such a site. Notably, figures like Hillary Clinton have suddenly turned from advocating corporate censorship to calling for good old-fashioned state censorship. Last week, Clinton called on the European Union to pass the Digital Services Act (DSA), a massive censorship measure that has received preliminary approval. Coming after Musk’s bid for Twitter, Clinton and others now want to use European countries to offer the same circumvention of the First Amendment. Rather than use a corporate surrogate, they would use an alternative state surrogate to force Twitter to censor content or face stiff penalties in Europe.
Musk will have to fight that battle when it comes. In the interim, he can rally the public, as he did Twitter shareholders, to the cause of free speech.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Democrats have groomed generations of Americans to abandon right reason for the more animalistic, emotional response to programmed triggers.
This author explains the challenge Musk is facing. As we see on this blog, the Left isn’t equipped to process alternative points of view, even if they are supported by facts and evidence. For them, free speech absolutism is uncharted territory. 😱
The 1960s radicals adamantly defended free speech (though the ulterior intent was to lift the restriction on the leftist speech) and objects to any form of censorship coming from the administration. Quite to the contrary, the woke nowadays seek to establish on campus a draconian code of conduct regulating not only speech but behavior. This is precisely a paternalistic treatment that is most responsive to feelings, not reason. Consequently, adult students or faculty members have learned to invoke, even weaponize, feelings to bully others into submission. Note that this is a self-centered, inflated, and melodramatic feeling characteristic of how young children respond to the world. It is not a legitimate emotion we would expect to see in a mature and reasonable individual.
https://lawliberty.org/the-woke-psyche-on-campus/?
Olly: EXCELLENT and pertinent extraction of commentary from lawliberty.org. THANK YOU
Olly,
“ This author explains the challenge Musk is facing. As we see on this blog, the Left isn’t equipped to process alternative points of view, even if they are supported by facts and evidence.”
Really? So republicans banning discussion on race and CRT, is that being able to process an alternative viewpoint or censoring it because it’s offensive?
According to what you said. CRT shouldn’t be censored or banned from discussion in schools. It’s certainly an alternative viewpoint but the right is banning and censoring anything even remotely related to CRT because they can’t handle the idea or that they find it offensive. Would you agree that republicans should let CRT be discussed in schools? Shouldn’t student be able to determine for themselves what to think about that viewpoint?
What about the right banning books because they also provide an alternative viewpoint that some may find uncomfortable or offensive? The right doesn’t seem to be equipped to process such alternative viewpoints either.
What about government punishing companies because they have an alternative point of view regarding a law, like Disney. The right obviously can’t seem to process criticism that results in feeling… Offended.
According to what you said. CRT shouldn’t be censored or banned from discussion in schools. It’s certainly an alternative viewpoint but the right is banning and censoring anything even remotely related to CRT because they can’t handle the idea or that they find it offensive.
As I recall, you adamantly asserted that CRT wasn’t taught in K-12 schools. And no, the Right can no more ban or censor an ideology like CRT than they can atheism. They can and have presented counter-arguments to it’s theories. These debates should be welcomed in the public square among adults. What they can and have every right to do is oppose and even censor that ideology from their children’s curriculum. The grades K-8 should be focused on math, reading, writing and learning the critical-thinking process. This is more of the classical approach to education grammar-logic This will prepare them for grades 9-12 where they learn how to express rhetoric the things known to them. Until our children have developed the skills of logical reasoning and rhetoric, the parents have a duty and a right to protect them from anything they consider a threat to the development of their children.
Olly,
“ As I recall, you adamantly asserted that CRT wasn’t taught in K-12 schools.”
I still stand by that assertion. I never stated that they do. I only pointed out the hypocrisy of the right demanding CRT be banned from schools because it’s an alternative point of view they don’t like or find offensive.
Glad you agree it shouldn’t be banned. As you noted there are counter arguments against it and that’s how it should be. Not censoring it because they don’t like it, even if it were to end up being discussed in school.
CRT is not being discussed on K-8 grade but that didn’t stop the right from claiming it is being taught in those grades in order to scare and anger parents into demanding that it be censored because a few folks don’t like the idea that there’s a possibility that some of it may be true. Many of these bans against CRT are so vague that they include high school and even university level classes in some states.
It’s the antithesis of what Turley claims to support.
I only pointed out the hypocrisy of the right demanding CRT be banned from schools because it’s an alternative point of view they don’t like or find offensive.
CRT is not presented to students as an alternative point of view. They aren’t comparing and contrasting competing philosophies. CRT is the monocular lens they are forced to view their school subjects through. Parents are objecting to this CRT lens being used to indoctrinate their children. And they have every right to do so.
Olly,
“ CRT is not presented to students as an alternative point of view. They aren’t comparing and contrasting competing philosophies.”
Yes it is. If CRT is being presented to students. It is used in comparison to what they already learned. As a matter of fact it is precisely the comparison and contrast that is the most offensive to those who advocate against CRT. It’s the whole point of why it is being censored, because it gives students something to compare against what is being taught. It gives students an opportunity to consider an alternative view.
Do you have any examples of where CRT is being discussed in K-12 education as an alternative point of view, with the children free to debate and ultimately reject one view over another?
⏰ ⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰
The Evanston–Skokie School District has adopted a radical gender curriculum that teaches pre-kindergarten through third-grade students to celebrate the transgender flag, break the “gender binary” established by white “colonizers,” and experiment with neo-pronouns such as “ze,” “zir,” and “tree.”
I have obtained the full curriculum documents, which are part of the Chicago-area district’s “LGBTQ+ Equity Week,” which administrators adopted last year. The curriculum begins in pre-kindergarten, with a series of lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity. The lesson plan opens with an introduction to the rainbow flag and teaches students that “each color in the flag has a meaning.” The teacher also presents the transgender flag and the basic concepts of gender identity, explaining that “we call people with more than one gender or no gender, non-binary or queer.” Finally, the lesson plan has the teacher leading a class project to create a rainbow flag, with instructions to “gather students on the rug,” “ask them to show you their flags,” and “proudly hang the class flag where they can all see it.”
In kindergarten, the lessons on gender and trans identity go deeper. “When we show whether we feel like a boy or a girl or some of each, we are expressing our gender identity,” the lesson begins. “There are also children who feel like a girl and a boy; or like neither a boy or a girl. We can call these children transgender.” Students are expected to be able to “explain the importance of the rainbow flag and trans flag” and are asked to consider their own gender identity. The kindergartners read two books that affirm transgender conversions, study photographs of boys in dresses, learn details about the transgender flag, and perform a rainbow dance. At the end of the lesson, the students are encouraged to adopt and share their own gender identities with the class. “Now you have a chance to make a picture to show how you identify,” the lesson reads. “Maybe you want to have blue hair! Maybe you want to be wearing a necklace. Your identity is for you to decide!”
In first grade, students learn about gender pronouns. The teachers explain that “some pronouns are gender neutral” and students can adopt pronouns such as “she, tree, they, he, her, him, them, ze, zir, [and] hir.” The students practice reading a series of scripts in which they announce their gender pronouns and practice using alternate pronouns, including “they,” “tree,” “ze,” and “zir.” The teacher encourages students to experiment and reminds them: “Whatever pronouns you pick today, you can always change.” Students then sit down to complete a “pronouns workbook,” with more lessons on neo-pronouns and non-binary identities.
In third grade, Evanston–Skokie students are told that white European “colonizers” imposed their “Western and Christian ideological framework” on racial minorities and “forced two-spirit people to conform to the gender binary.” The teacher tells students that “many people feel like they aren’t really a boy or a girl” and that they should “call people by the gender they have in their heart.” Students are encouraged to “break the binary,” reject the system of “whiteness,” and study photographs of black men in dresses and a man wearing lipstick and long earrings. “It is a myth that gender is binary,” the lesson explains. “Even though we are all given a sex assigned at birth, you are not given your gender. Only you can know your gender and how you feel inside.” At the end of the lesson, students are instructed to write a letter to the future on how they can change society. “Society right now is very unfair,” reads a sample letter. “I see a lot of marches on the T.V. and I even went to a march last summer.”
The curriculum in the Evanston–Skokie School District is the perfect illustration of college-level Queer Theory translated into early-elementary pedagogy. For weeks, as the nation has debated Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, which prohibits public schools from teaching gender identity and sexual orientation in grades K–3, commentators on the political left have claimed that public schools do not teach this material and have accused conservatives of instigating a “moral panic.” This claim is demonstrably false, and the Evanston–Skokie lesson plans offer additional proof for parents and legislators concerned about gender ideology in American public schools. Queer Theory has made its way into public school curriculums for children as young as four. This development should be subject to robust political debate, not denial and dismissal from the political Left. _Christopher Ruffo
Lol!!! Anonymous, good grief. The curriculum is not indoctrination. It’s essentially teaching kids about the realities that exist around them. It’s no longer just a mom and dad that is normal. It’s now. Having two moms or two dads. Single moms or single dads. Interracial parents, and yes even a transgender parent. You can’t shield kids from these realities by ignoring what they see outside of school.
They will have do learn about eventually and school is one place to learn about it. Kids naturally are going to be curious about what they are seeing outside of school and often parents won’t even mention it and make things more confusing for them. Giving kids a very minimum a basic idea of what they are seeing outside of school is not indoctrination.
This type of teaching is indoctrination, though one without a brain might not recognize it. I am copying a portion from kindergarten, so anyone reading this realizes that Svelaz’s ideas are perverted. I would not permit any young person near him.
Kindergarten!!!
In kindergarten, the lessons on gender and trans identity go deeper. “When we show whether we feel like a boy or a girl or some of each, we are expressing our gender identity,” the lesson begins. “There are also children who feel like a girl and a boy; or like neither a boy or a girl. We can call these children transgender.” Students are expected to be able to “explain the importance of the rainbow flag and trans flag” and are asked to consider their own gender identity. The kindergartners read two books that affirm transgender conversions, study photographs of boys in dresses, learn details about the transgender flag, and perform a rainbow dance. At the end of the lesson, the students are encouraged to adopt and share their own gender identities with the class. “Now you have a chance to make a picture to show how you identify,” the lesson reads. “Maybe you want to have blue hair! Maybe you want to be wearing a necklace. Your identity is for you to decide!”
Full Curriculum Documents
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21694116-evanston-prek-3rd?responsive=1&title=1&mc_cid=d38ae03611&mc_eid=4ac790b60f
Don’t get into petty arguments with “trolls and juvenile posters”. They’re not here to add anything constructive to the blog. They are here to agitate others. Ignore them. It is easy.
They’re not here to add anything constructive to the blog. They are here to agitate others. Ignore them. It is easy.
Thanks, but your advice is unnecessary. I post on this blog because I believe I have something constructive to add to the blog.
Olly warns:
“Until our children have developed the skills of logical reasoning and rhetoric, the parents have a duty and a right to protect them from anything they consider a threat to the development of their children.”
Like religion. Blind faith is the anti-thesis of logical reasoning. Get them while their minds are most impressionable before they have had an opportunity to develop the skill of critical thinking.
Explains why there are so many jihadists in this world. Jihadists are People of Faith too.
Schools are to educate children, not indoctrinate them. You need a dictionary to see how the words educate and indoctrinate differ.
Your lack of ability to differentiate words of this nature can be attributed to a poor education where critical thinking skills were excluded.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
Teaching and indoctrination are synonymous with a slight difference in context.
Indoctrination; to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. 2 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach.
Teaching; engagement with learners to enable their understanding and application of knowledge, concepts and processes. It includes design, content selection, delivery, assessment and reflection.
Discussing CRT is not indoctrination. It’s literally the discussion of an alternative point of view which is exactly what Turley states should not be censored. Just because it is offensive to others it shouldn’t be banned or be punished because it’s discussed.
Kids today are smart enough to determine on their own after hearing both points of view.
“Teaching and indoctrination are synonymous with a slight difference in context.”
You need a bigger dictionary.
Anonymous, a bigger dictionary would still have those two words as being synonymous. A bigger dictionary would just have more words. You’re an idiot.
Svelaz:. I suggest you look up the definition of synonymous. Then go back and do an Internet search of “teach vs. indoctrinate.”
Lin,
Synonymous; a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning.
Indoctrination is nearly the same as teaching. They are synonymous.
From the ACLJ: “The primary difference between education and indoctrination is that education is objective, while indoctrination elevates one system of thought over another.”
From Wiki: ” As verbs the difference between indoctrinate and educate is that indoctrinate is to teach with a biased, one-sided or uncritical ideology while educate is to instruct or train.”
FRom animal farm: “An educated person is taught how to think, whereas an indoctrinated person is taught what to think. There is an unmistakable difference.”
From differencebetween.net: “Education involves the seeking of facts, and learning about what is the truth, and what is not. Indoctrination is aimed at influencing people to believe in facts, without being able to back up these newfound facts with anything but opinion…
“The key difference between education and indoctrination is that education refers to enabling the attainment of knowledge, skills, personal development, and habits using methods like teaching, training, and discussions in formal and informal settings, whereas indoctrination refers to propagandizing a person with ideas, …Dec 8, 2021
(shall I continue? There are hundreds more citations….)
Well done!
Lin,
“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6)
It is said, “Give us a child until he’s seven years old, and we’ll have him for life.”
It’s not called “religious indoctrination” for nothing.
Jeff,
““Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6)”
This does not have to have anything to do with religion, despite it being in the Bible. Train up a child to use manners, wait his turn, practice patience, and engage in other good habits is also applicable.
Lin, we were discussing the synonymous nature of the word “teaching” and “indoctrination” not “education” and “indoctrination” which are two different things. Nice try.
Excellent, but there is something even more fundimental.
We can not educate everyone on everything.
Even if some thing the left wished taught constituted education not indoctrination, it would STILL be subordinate to the critical things we must teach.
We have spent most of my lifetime bending our public education system to teach more and more such that there is less and less teaching of reading and writing and arithmetic, much less science.
When students gradualting from HS often can not read – why should we even expect that they gleaned any of what we tried to teach them about sex and discrimination, and …. ?
Further even if we somehow produced young adults that were free of racism and all other forms of bad discrimination, if they are incapable of performing a job, that knowledge is useless and they will be subject to discrimination simply for being useless.
A bigger dictionary will have more definitions along with more words. You never did know what synonymous means. We had that discussion a while back, and you made yourself look foolish. Do you want a copy of your ludicrous responses?
“Kids today are smart enough to determine on their own after hearing both points of view.”
You need to be taught critical thinking skills.
Discussing CRT is not indoctrination. It’s literally the discussion of an alternative point of view which is exactly what Turley states should not be censored. Just because it is offensive to others it shouldn’t be banned or be punished because it’s discussed.
Kids today are smart enough to determine on their own after hearing both points of view.
Do you have any examples of where CRT is being discussed in K-12 education as an alternative point of view, with the children free to debate and ultimately reject one view over another? From the examples I’ve seen, CRT is not being discussed and debated in K-12 as an alternative point of view. The teacher is not saying to the class, today we are going to study CRT and how it compares or contrasts with [fill in the blank]. It is literally woven into the curriculum. The students are not explicitly “learning” or “debating” the philosophy of CRT. They are being taught math, science, history, english, etc. expressed through the CRT lens. This is not “teaching” CRT, this is stealth indoctrination of CRT. And our children are not permitted to question it in the classroom.
Olly,
So you are confirming what many teachers and school administrators have been saying all along.
So why are republicans banning CRT in schools when you point out that they are not teaching or discussing it? The whole point of the banning of CRT is because it IT represents an alternative view they don’t like or that it makes them uncomfortable. According to Turley this is anti-free speech by republicans.
Regardless of how you label it, it is still just an alternative viewpoint that is being censored because it is uncomfortable or because it is an idea they think nobody should discuss.
When you teach children about thanksgiving you’re literally indoctrinating them with a very sanitized version of the real events. Obviously indoctrination is not the issue. It’s just the censorship of an alternative viewpoint.
So why are republicans banning CRT in schools when you point out that they are not teaching or discussing it?
I wasn’t surprised you completely ignored my question. Nor am I surprised you asked a question that I already answered: Because, It is literally woven into the curriculum. The students are not explicitly “learning” or “debating” the philosophy of CRT. They are being taught math, science, history, english, etc. expressed through the CRT lens. This is not “teaching” CRT, this is stealth indoctrination of CRT. And our children are not permitted to question it in the classroom.
Now, once you are able to answer the following question, then we can resume rational debate: Do you have any examples of where CRT is being discussed in K-12 education as an alternative point of view, with the children free to debate and ultimately reject one view over another?
Olly,
CRT isn’t being discussed in the classroom. It has never been until the right made it an issue.
“ And our children are not permitted to question it in the classroom.”
That’s not true. Nothing prevents children to question it.
“ This is, admittedly, not a perfect fit. Twitter needs to protect itself from civil liability in the form of trademark, copyright and other violations in the use of its platforms. Moreover, most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy violations.”
Wait a minute, Turley is anti-free speech too?
The whole point of his objection to “corporate censorship” is because they have a right to moderate content as they see fit. Here he says that he would delete (censor) racist and offensive terms?! Hey Turley, you just made a big deal about NOT censoring speech that is offensive, even if it’s racist. A racist has a different point of view according to your own defense of free speech yet here on your own blog you won’t tolerate it and do censor it rather than let “good speech” counter it. Even if it involves profanity. What a hypocrite you are. According to you moderation IS censorship. As a private blog you shouldn’t be moderating speech at all because that would go against the values of free speech you love to preach.
You want to have your cake and eat it too and as you’re stuffing your face with a nice piece of cake you continue to point your finger at those who do the same and cry foul.
Privacy violations? “A digital town square” should have no expectations of privacy it’s a town square, a PRIVATE digital town square. Where lying, gossip, racists, bigots, religious zealots, criminals, political pundits, arm chair generals, etc, etc, etc. should all be allowed to speak their minds regardless of how offensive it is according to you. That’s what you are advocating for.
The constitution does NOT prohibit censorship by private entities. But you want private entities to adhere to a constitutional prohibition that does not apply while at the same time where it does apply you are deliberately silent as government punishes companies for exercising their free speech rights and censors and encourages the burning of books. Jonathan Turley you’re a massive hypocrite.
The whole point of his objection to “corporate censorship” is sbecause they have a right to moderate content as they see fit.
Nobody has claimed corporations can’t censor speech.
Stop trying to change the debate.
Free speech is a foundational principle. Like telling the truth. Is it a principle, corporations should strive to meet? If not….why not?
Turley says “most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy violations.”
Racist and other offensive terms are protected under the 1st Amendment. Doxxing is legal. Privacy violations are often legal. Turley claims “I have long admitted to being a type of “internet originalist” who prefers precisely the digital town square concept,” while he admits to rejecting comments that are legal in the town square. He never addresses the contradiction between his self-description and his actions.
“Is it a principle, corporations should strive to meet? If not….why not?”
The “why not” is because those companies have their own 1st Amendment rights, and should not be compelled to host speech that they do not wish to host. It is, in fact, contrary to their own free speech for you to suggest that they should host speech they do not wish to host.
How about “Is it a principle, Turley should strive to meet?”
Should he allow all of the comments that he currently deletes, except for those that are actually illegal, like copyright infringement?
“Stop trying to change the debate.”
Svelaz doesn’t understand the debate.
Anonymous. (S. Meyer),
“ Stop trying to change the debate.”
Svelaz doesn’t understand the debate.”
No, YOU don’t understand the debate. You are utterly clueless as to what the conflict in Turley’s principle is. Anonymous proper pointed it out rather nicely.
If Turley can censor racist speech because HE deems it offensive despite the fact that it IS protected free speech. According to his own principles Turley shouldn’t be deleting racist speech because he finds it offensive. But he can delete (censor) it because he is NOT obligated to obey the prohibitions on censoring speech that the 1st amendment protects. It’s his right to moderate the content of HIS blog just as Twitter or Facebook have a right to moderate THEIRS. Turley is a hypocrite.
“Svelaz doesn’t understand the debate.”
He has no critical thinking skills. He is unable to stay with one thought and complete the thinking process.
Anonymous (S. Meyer) can’t have a discussion that involves substance. It’s too difficult for him so he does the laziest easiest thing, hurl insults.
Svelaz, when you develop critical thinking skills, you will look back and see the idiot you were.
Iowan2,
“ Nobody has claimed corporations can’t censor speech.”
Turley disagrees with you.
He’s AGAINST corporate censorship. He’s advocating for corporations to adhere to the same values of the 1st amendment meaning private corporations should be prohibited from censoring speech because it’s essentially a human right.
What Turley is preaching is a form of hypocrisy that goes against even a broad interpretation of the 1st amendment.
“ Free speech is a foundational principle. Like telling the truth. Is it a principle, corporations should strive to meet? If not….why not?”
It’s a CHOICE. If a corporation, company or private organization including the media have a CHOICE in how it decides what THEY want to do regarding speech. Turley proclaimed he deletes (censors) racist and offensive rhetoric or terms. While at the same time castigating companies who choose to moderate content that THEY deem offensive, controversial, disinformation, lies, etc. It’s THEIR platform. Turley has his as this blog and he’s entitled to control speech in it as HE sees fit. He’s arguing that these private corporations shouldn’t be going what he asserts a right to do with his platform, this blog.
Svelaz: I’m sorry to call you out, but your increasing and repetitive personal attacks on the good professor, and the irrefutable fact that he POSTED your comments against him, expose your own hypocrisy and loss of credibility. Ironically, the lifted paragraph from Turley’s post which you quoted is succinctly particular about which forms of speech, and how they could be handled, he is addressing. –And I respectfully disagree with you: I have seen/read mucho “lying, gossip, racists, bigots, religious zealots, criminals, political pundits, arm chair generals, etc, etc, etc.” commentary on this site. Why don’t you go find a site that is more to your liking…I see that you are a virtual DAILY–often HOURLY– reviewer of his posts and comments….
Lin, criticizing Turley for his hypocrisy is a direct consequence of exercising his free speech right. The right to free speech is not a right to be immune from criticism. “More speech” as Turley often says is the solution here, to hateful speech, offensive speech, disinformation, etc.
If Turley wishes to kick me out because he wants to censor my criticism it would prove his hypocrisy.
What Turley is preaching is that platforms like Twitter and Facebook should tolerate individuals that behave like I do because no matter how annoying, obnoxious, racist, mysoginist one may be they should not be censored of be booted out. But he reserves the right to do it because he has a right to. Because it’s a private platform, just like Twitter and Facebook.
“Lin, criticizing Turley for his hypocrisy is a direct consequence of exercising his free speech right.”
Svelaz, in this case you are correct. You have a right to be stupid.
Svelaz: WIth due respect, you say, “If Turley wishes to kick me out because he wants to censor my criticism it would prove his hypocrisy.” AS I POINTED OUT, Turley has NOT kicked you out, –and you already knew he would not, since you have repeatedly called him hypocritical in numerous posts, so your purpose for such a comment is quite revealing.
Are you and JSilberman and your anonymous alter-egos having lunch together again? Thanks anyway, bud.
Please stop replying to “trolls and juvenile posters”. Ignore them. They are not here to add anything constructive to the blog. They are agitators hoping someone will entertain them.
Sergeant Major, people have differing opinions about which commenters are “trolls and juvenile posters” and which aren’t.
The censorship advocates only censor what they fear. No one is trying to censor the Flat Earth Society or the Constitution Party. Both are regarded as marginal and having no influence.
Now suppressing the Hunter laptop story or his business dealings or Joe Biden’s knowledge of the latter, that’s different. If these matters were so patently false, why didn’t leftists destroy it on the merits or sue for defamation? To ask is to answer.
Don’t we have to suppress free speech to save it? Kind of Orwellian.
I would respect s@@tlibs more if they just admitted they see the 1st Amendment as outdated and openly advocated the adoption of European/Canadian style hate speech laws. They won’t, at least not yet, it’s probably a bridge too far for now.
And by the way, I am an advocate of traditional free speech and am not a ‘nazi’ or any other slur s@@tliibs can come up with.
antonio
Is s@@tcon a slur that you accept for yourself? Or do you only wish to dish out slurs about others while rejecting them for yourself?
Antonio,
“ The censorship advocates only censor what they fear.”
Does that include s$&tcons fearful of CRT? They clearly advocate censorship as well.
Why edit out racist epithets? I am a black man and no bc stranger to being called hateful things but I absolutely want people to be free to speak.
Apart from protecting my right to speak, having unfettered speech is a way to let the mask drop and have people reveal who they truly are.
This falls under the give them enough rope philosophy.
Great point. Free speech also weeds out those that are hiding in the bushes. In my opinion what social media needs to do is require people to use their real names and verify in order to have a presence and to post. That way, it limits the brave cowards from posting inappropriately. It ushers in accountability.
Where have all the flowers gone?
I am a pig. I speak Latin.
Turkey has sometimes censor my free speech.
Let’s see if he does it today. This article today it full of itShay. The article sounds and smells like a big artFay.. I Pray to dog before I eePay.
Musk has a tusk. Twitter will be an itShitter.
I think many conservative IT people should now look upon Twitter as a job opportunity. There should be an exodus to some extent as the ownership process moves down the road. Starting with the CEO. Moving out of San Francisco would be a start.
As far as the EU stands there is always the possibility that a new Free Speech Administration might make this EU inhibition of speech a trade issue. When there have been conflicts in the past on certain taxes and adverse EU actions on US Corporations, the Federal government has stepped in and threatened moves that would impact EU trade. A simple rule could be tariffs on products of countries where speech is impaired by the government. This would never come from the Biden administration but future administrations might look with a certain degree of hostility at American Corporations or individuals being harassed, targeted or fined by the EU over their speech, especially if the EU tries to extend their rules outside of the EU.
When a person goes to the store they expect to find what they are looking for, make the purchase and go home. If a restaurant has good food, the customers are seated, served, enjoy nice conversation and pay before leaving.
We had a wonderful spice shop within a ten minute drive. The owner seemed friendly enough and it was enjoyable to smell the teas and spices from around the world. The owner had a website and a Facebook page.
During the election, he took to Facebook on his business account in the most offensive manner regarding political matters with a single point of view. I noticed fewer customers in his shop. COVID happened and he never recovered. It is uncertain all of the details but I know he lost me as a customer. He drove off customers but still spent advertising money trying to find customers. The best advertising dollars are spent by taking care of those who already support a business.word of mouth is powerful.
Elon Musk did not become so rich by pure chance, He sees a business, like the spice shop that alienated a percentage of its customers. If he changes the platform to perform its intended function, he will significantly increase the participants and thus its value.
It is an economic decision.
I always appreciate how the love, tolerance and moral superiority crowd is always looking for ways to deplatform and censor any ideas they don’t like. And you’re a ‘nazi’, if you object, let alone question.
Thought lefties were all for free speech. What am I missing? I guess you have to destroy democracy to save it, right? I mean it’s only democracy if the correct result is obtained.
JT – just waiting for the first s@@tlib to call you a ‘nazi’.
On a different note, I am amazed that the same crowd who accused you of ‘killing granny’ if you didn’t wear a mask in the grocery are the same people who casually want to fight a ground war in Ukraine with a nuclear armed country (i.e. Russia).
The only conclusion I can draw is that covid is more dangerous than nuclear war. Maybe one of our morally superior s@@tlibs can explain. What do I know, I am a deplorable.
antonio
Antonio, so you would not support the banning of the teaching of CRT? It is after all an idea conservatives don’t like, object to, and question.
It’s an interesting conundrum isn’t it?
Criticize the left for being intolerant of ideas as you say, are you also critical of the right for their intolerance of those ideas as well?
Regardless of how Twitter goes forward, there is at least a crack in the censorship virus that the Democrats and Left have infected the US with. Anyone with a brain can hear the liberal press and liberal mouthpieces make absurd statements about their fears of what will happen if Musk buys Twitter. And anyone with a brain realizes that Big Tech has already irreperably harmed American and critical thinking. They have abused free speech and used it as a tool against conservatives. . The Dems/Libs already brought us a dystopian future. I watched a Liberal say that if Elon Musk bought Twitter it could “suppress important information in elections based on politics”. OH MY GOSH. This is exactly what Twitter did from 2016 – 2020.
– Big Tech banned the Hunter Lap Top story, which proved the Biden family’s deep financial ties to foreign nationals.
– Big Tech banned President Trump saying that the Lab Leak story was untrue when all scientists agree it was the most likely source.
– Big Tech lied about Covington Catholic when that young man has been rewarded millions based on the Press’s lies.
– Big Tech banned people who utilized the VAIRS information, Pfizer clinical trial studies, and ACTUAL families who showed their family members died or were harmed after vaccination.
– Big Tech has censored Biden criticism more than 600 times since his election
These liberals, Democrats, and the Press aren’t hypocrites they are literally the most ignorant people ever produced by the US. They are a result of the infected pedagogy of our CRT filled Education colleges. They need to be stopped. Vote with a brain USA!
They are not ignorant. They are malevolent and they seek to control the flow of information and set the terms of political debate. They are totalitarian in their inclinations. This was not true of the traditional liberal movement in America . could not imagine even a George McGovern advocating ending 1st Amendment rights. The modern progressive is antithetical to a constitutional democracy. Period.
I agree with this proposal and have advocated for it on this blog for a long time. I would be very cautious about censoring offensive speech, since it is a slippery slope. An opt out of the kind the Professor proposes might be a good compromise.
Other ideas: Objective (as possible) and transparent standards for receiving a blue check; blue checks cannot block or limit access to their twitter feed, but can only mute people; all moderation/ban decisions have to be public.
It feels like Musk is heading in this direction, hopefully! And maybe the good professor will finally be verified on Twitter so he doesn’t have to attempt the football Hall of Fame route.
Turley admits:
“Moreover, most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms.”
Offensive? The definition of “offensive” is “causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.”
Musk is going to rely upon Twitter followers to complain to his censors that they were deeply hurt or got upset by an angry tweet? Are you kidding me? This is just the kind of triggering to which Conservatives roundly object! “Offensiveness” is utterly vague. I find lying offensive; it makes me angry to be lied to. This is hardly the bright redline that Turley demands to be drawn to provide people sufficient notice.
The First Amendment protects offensive speech. It protects racist speech too! If Musk follows Turley’s suggestion, “racist”and “anti-Semitic” tweets will be censored.
Twitter will not become the platform where *anything goes* as Trumpists and Q-Anon want. They will have to watch what they say as they do now so as not to use words which some people may find offensive.
Good luck with that!
How do you know what Q-Anon wants?
Are you unaware that Q-Anon posts publicly?
No, but since when does Jeff rely on facts?
There is no easy….Democrats(who hate America) will now audit, investigate, spy on, entrap and attempted to destroy Musk!
The Socail Democrat Party are 1930’s German Socialists…that will DO ANYTHING FOR TOTAL POWER!
And NO this isn’t hyperbola
BUT it is HYSTERICAL.
“Corporations clearly have free speech rights.”
Turley hasn’t said a word about Disney’s free speech being violated by King DeSantis.
“Moreover, most sites (including my own blog) delete racist and offensive terms. That can be done through standard moderation systems or, preferably, optional filters for users to adopt on Twitter. There are also standard rules against doxxing as well as personal threats or privacy violations.”
Clearly, Turley doesn’t read the comments section of his own blog. It’s true certain words will get you blocked. I believe Karen S had a boost blocked because it contained the name, Booker T. Washington. Racist speech and personal attacks flourish on this blog.
What Turley seems to be advocating for is a forum where hate speech can go untethered. When misinformation can kill you, should it be allowed? Don’t go drinking bleach to cure COVID. Turley has long advocated expanding free speech for so-called conservatives while ignoring censorship of what he would call Democrats or the left.
aw your feelings hurt, Groomer?
So then you are in favor of violating free speech? BTW, that “sticks and stones” thing is especially true on the Internet.
How nice that you post a slur like “Groomer” to someone for whom you have no evidence of being one.
Shall others respond to you in kind?
forum where hate speech can go untethered
You can’t address something that can’t be defined.
They seem to have found a way with pornography.
What a terrible analogy. Or, just have no clue that pornography, in fact, has no definition.
Bill boards covering hundreds of acres of advertising space in Las Vegas, wouldn’t last 5 minutes if a 8.5x 11 poster in a window in Dubuque.
So no. Pornography has not been defined.
We used to have George Carlins 7 dirty words, but I don’t think that applies to our current interwebs
Pornography hasn’t been specifically defined but it is regulated. Of course, trusting someone to know it when they see it wouldn’t work in today’s environment.
What can’t Disney say?? WHY do you insist strangers teach under 8 year olds about gender and sex??? “Are you REALLY that hard up to GROOM kids?? WHY???
First of all, the law applies not only to 8-year-olds but can apply to high school seniors as well, Teachers will live in fear as to how they can respond to questions, people that know say suicides will go up. Repeating the word “Groom” isn’t really an analysis of the law and what it does.
For expressing their opinion which didn’t change the outcome, King DeSantis passed a bill to remove the special taxing District that Disney enjoys. (One of 1,844 in the state including NASCAR and The Villages). The impact on Orange and Osceola County residents is their taxes would rise by about $1,000 per household. All because the Governor got his little feelings hurt because Disney disagreed with him. DeSantis also forbade professors from Florida’s public universities to offer opinions on state laws, When they won their lawsuit, he effectively removed tenure.
https://medium.com/black-history-month-365/understanding-floridas-don-t-say-gay-bill-be1fc9914334?sk=72f37272b0bfece5944fa77b3b3a8ae8
“The impact on Orange and Osceola County residents is their taxes would rise by about $1,000 per household. “
Why would their taxes rise by $1,000?
Who was paying that $1,000 before?
Disney was thru it’s Reedy Creek special tax district. Disney was paying for all it’s infrastructure; roads, fire dept, etc.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/21/disney-special-district-florida-taxpayers-could-face-a-1-billion-debt-bomb-if-dissolved.html
” thru it’s Reedy Creek special tax district.”
Who was paying Reedy Creek?
“First of all, the law applies not only to 8-year-olds but can apply to high school seniors as well, Teachers will live in fear as to how they can respond to questions, people that know say suicides will go up.”
Three errors. The law is only through third grade, teachers always live in “fear,” and I assume “people that know” are the ones that presently are hysterical that Twitter was sold.
As usual, you just make up facts based on what you believe to be true. The law also provides to sue anyone saying something they feel isn’t “age appropriate,” or “developmentally appropriate.” That is so vague that it excludes nobody. You didn’t address the additional suicides, is it because you don’t care?
“The section of the law that says there may be no classroom instruction by school personnel or outside groups on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in the 3rd grade or below, also adds; or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
People can always sue. When teachers abuse their authority, it is difficult to write a law to prevent abuse. However, the law was explicitly written for third grade and below. You shouldn’t have a problem with that. I’ll guess that most of the bloggers here who have had children do not want their 5-8-year-olds to be taught about sexual activities and alternate sexual identities. I think they want their children to live in innocence no matter what sex the child is.
The last sentence you copied has always been part of the codes. What is your objection?
“The law was explicitly written for third grade and below.”
You really do just make it up as you go along. Here’s the full text. Anyone willing to look can see the exceptions.
https://www.scribd.com/document/557934452/Don-t-Say-Gay-Bill
Outside of the law regarding 8-year-olds and younger, the law is less explicit and follows the intention of the Florida School system.
Tell us what in the rest of the law doesn’t comply or is hateful. Alternatively, let us know what you object to.
Schools are meant to teach basics. They are not supposed to dwell on religion, politics, and all the other topics where there is considerable disagreement within the community.
It’s the governor dwelling on religion and politics. In Florida, if you disagree with DeSantis, you’re screwed.
You originally asked a reasonable question which I responded to. You’ve now veered off into your imagination so good day.
Let us see what you are trying to tell us:
1)You cannot tell us what is wrong with the rest of the Florida law.
2)You cannot justify your previous comments.
3)You have little regard for those that believe differently than you.
No one veered off. You linked to something, but you didn’t know what it said.
Disney! Did you bother to read the article I provided? DeSantis’s bill is having problems because the State is committed not to do anything that affects bondholders so it may all go away anyhow. The point I’m making which you haven’t addressed is that the whole bill was intended to take deny Disney it’s First Amendment rights which was the topic.
Deny what rights?
I can’t see what you’re responding to. Without context I’m saying that Florida’s governor is denying Disney its First Amendment rights.
Two thing to consider:
First, just because you (Disney) have a right to say something doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for saying it
Second, elections have consequences
So the precious First Amendment only applies when you’d like it to? What election changed the First Amendment?
Disney is not prevented from expressing themselves.
Enigma, that is the biggest issue that Turley has been conveniently ignoring. Disney being punished because of its “wokeness”. I direct violation of Disney’s free speech rights. Book bans where even republican legislators openly admit to wanting to burn offensive books.
Turley’s criticisms of Twitter’s of “anti-free speech” is a struggle of consolidating a constitutional prohibition that even by his own admission doesn’t apply to private entities. He is for forcing private companies to carry speech against their policies. His own blog wouldn’t tolerate the kind of speech he claims he desires.
Caveat Emptor. No one is responsible for people who takes any information or advice they find online or from any other source for that matter and doesn’t do a bit of independent research.
If you are dumb enough to eat Tide Pods or drink Drano or what have you because you read someone online telling you to do so, that’s on you. Such is the price of free and open expression. No one should e in the business of protecting people from their own poor critical thinking skills.
Up next the “Ministry of Truth”! Under the guise of Disinformation Governance Board.
1. Don’t get ahead of yourself, Professor. He will not own Twitter until September at the soonest but The Swamp has not even begun to fight this takeover. It could get bloody.
2. The only number I can find is that 25% of Americans subscribe to Twitter. If that is accurate (I think it includes all the fake people on Twitter divided into 330,000,000), then who cares particularly when half of them are people like those in my area who use Twitter just to “friend” the Beach Department Twitter feed to see if there any parking spaces open at the beach
The importance ascribed to Twitter may be a function of the significance it seems to have for so-called journalists and public intellectuals, many of whom seem to use it to take guidance and to amplify their views. I find it interesting that this view of Twitter’s importance is shared by both the right and the left, by Fox opinion commentators and by MSNBC. It may be doing more to define the terms and limits of debate than is apparent from the numbers who use it.
. It may be doing more to define the terms and limits of debate than is apparent from the numbers who use it.
Yes, this is a truism I am attempting to include in forming my opinion. twitter has an outsized influence, considering how few posters, and an almost hegemonic influence of a few posters. corporations respond to a twitter storm, when at most it might by several dozen, controlling hundreds of bots.
twitter is not an instant public opinion poll. It is often a deliberate coordinated effort of the few.
Musk doesn’t intend to protect free speech. He will silence his critics. He has one interest Elon Musk. The right wing is over the moon because they believe he will silence any criticism of them. We have seen what Republicans think of free speech in Florida. The only speech allowed is that which agrees with DeSantis…another ego ascendant.
Mr Holmes do you ignorant of what Democrats have ACTUALLY done….or just lying?
Do you really think kids should be harangued by teachers regarding sexuality? Or should they be learning how to read, write, and do math problems?
The three Rs are really the 4 Rs.
Reading, (W)riting, aRithmetic, and RACISM.
Ignorance is strength!
Free speech isn’t for parents according to Holmes. I guess grooming is more important.
I am very cautiously optimistic that Musk will take this tact. I am not sure how he can thought meet the coming EU standards and still be true to US 1A standards. The technology to censor content to meet EU standards, but still allow free speech for the US could be quite a challenge. Let’s hope he is successful, as I don’t see the EU not adopting censorship standards.
I believe Musk has already said he will follow the laws of each country. Even if he were to do what the Professor suggests in the USA, it would not apply elsewhere
Easy rule for Democrats to remember about a corporation’s right to free speech: Disney has one, Citizens United does not.