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.
With respect to Chairman Clinton’s views, we are not Europe. Our First Amendment is unique and has served as a beacon of light for all trying to achieve a liberal democracy, something the progressives/socialists oppose.
By “we are not Europe” and “our First Amendment,” do you mean the United Mexican States?
The guaranteed right of freedom of speech as set forth in the First Amendment only applies to government action. Yet, Turley says: “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.”
There’s nothing “dishonest” about being factually-correct, and Turley, if anyone is being dishonest, it’s you, because you DO know better, but since you have sold your credibility to Fox, you disregard the things you theoretically teach your students about what is and is not covered under the First Amendment. The First Amendment speaks only to governmental entities denying someone the right to speak. Twitter is a privately-held company that offers a service to those to sign up for the service and agree to its “Terms and Conditions”, one of which is not to incite a riot by spreading a lie like Trump did. Twitter is NOT a public square because it requires execution of a user agreement and agreement to follow the “Terms and Conditions” of use as conditions for using the service. And, private companies regulate the content of speech all of the time–for instance–they don’t allow use of racially-offensive language or defamatory remarks to be used in their name. Even some governmental entities regulate speech: schools don’t tolerate students using language or wearing clothing containing slogans that are racially offensive, anti-Semitic pro-White Supremacist, obscene or demeaning to people with disabilities, by way of example. Even YOU, Turley, censor the contents of this blog, which is, I assume, the reason we no longer see the ignoramus postings by Squeeky, Girl Reporter. So, you are just, once again, pandering to the disciples.
Jonathan: You and your conservative brethren are ecstatic about Musk buying Twitter. It’s like Moses parting the Red Sea because, in your words, Musk will “untie the Gordian knot of censorship in a company now synonymous with speech control”. A few days ago Musk pledged: “I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means”. Hold on for just one minute. Already we have some indication of how Musk will deal with his “worst critics”. Public Citizen, a progressive advocacy group, that has been highly critical of Musk for years has just been blocked from replying to Musk’s tweets. Is this the “digital town square concept embraced by Musk” you have in mind? Blocking Public Citizen doesn’t seem the way to promote free speech.
Musk has a long history of racism and sexism at Tesla. His ant- LGBTQ views are well known. I suspect these views will be amplified on a Twitter owned by Musk. When billionaires are allowed to own major media that’s not good for free expression. Murdock owns Fox (your employer) and the WSJ. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon and the Washington Post. That much control over the mass media by a few billionaires is not good for democracy. Under Musk Twitter will reflect mostly his views or that of his fans and promoters. Musk wants to be the center of attention at all times. He’s a narcissist like Trump. Musk, like Trump, thrives by creating chaos. On Wednesday, he threw out another wild and bizarre idea: “Next I’m buying Coca-Cola to put the cocaine back in”. For those who don’t remember Coke was originally made using cocaine. The drug was removed from the recipe at the beginning of the 20th century. Allowing Musk to buy Twitter is the worst thing that could happen to free expression!
The blocking of Public Citizen by Musk is not censorship; it’s the equivalent of him walking away from a conversation.
“He then called for the censorship of anything that he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”
so he’s opposed to much that comes out of the mouths of Democrats, liberals in general, climate change proponents, CRT proponents and a host of others. oh! forgot Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren et al
Should a person be banned from social media for saying any of the following: IBM continued working with German throughout most of WW2; Walt Disney deceived Ub Iwerks into giving Walt ownership of the Mickey Mouse character back in the 1930’s – Mickey was not Walt’s creation; Walt Disney was quite the anti-semite, as was Henry Ford of the Ford motor company (if you drive a Mustang or Ford F-150, you’re complicit); Joe Biden cheated in law school, got caught, but was allowed to graduate, near the bottom of his class — thus showing anyone can become POTUS! So….should I be banned?
In this important post, Turley points out that many social media platforms (including his own) already “delete racist and offensive terms” and have done so for a long time. He appears to suggest that we should return to this approach. I fear we are in a different time. Such terms were well-known and more static in times past. Now the list seems to grow daily. Just the other day Turley shared a story about a liberal school official and long-standing advocate for “marginalized” individuals was fired for mistakenly saying “colored people” instead of “people of color.” Could that not be labeled racist? What stops his suggestion form morphing into what we now see in terms of content modification or blocking? I am afraid to say we will have to make a choice between real ugliness and true freedom of speech. Given what is at stake, I choose ugliness.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Civil Liberties used to be a strong suit for the democrat party. Now there’s not a democrat in office that would dare defend free speech with this quote.
It will be interesting to see what Musk uncovers when he takes over unless they’ve started to sabotage the algorithm’s they’ve used to silence people.
Elon Musk is an Elon Must! (NOT covered by mainstream media: Musk just won a court battle in Delaware over his purchase of SolarCity.)
@anonymous
I am the only party in this exchange who would be cancelled or destroyed if you knew my identity merely for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion on a number of issues (i.e. immigration, homosexual ‘marriage’, mass unlimited immigration, etc.) not you. I use these words because I have no power otherwise, so I mock those I despise and that includes the ‘woke’ crowd who see me as a moral degenerate, not merely wrong.
Remember I may be working in your company and you have no idea. And there is nothing you can do about it.
antonio
JT is still woefully naive about the dynamics of instant-anyone-can-publish. The truth takes time and effort to investigate and verify, while conspiratorial junk permeates the infospace (“virality”). It’s not just the decisive time-to-market advantage, but crafty propaganda contains al the necessary elements of dramatic narrative to be easily absorbed, while reports steeped in truth are burdened by complexity, ambiguity and nuance. The emergence of truth carries heavy disadvantages.
Platforms like Twitter, regardless of Dorsey & Co.’s intent (“What are you doing right now?”), are an infowarior’s Disneyland. The dynamics favor “first-to-inflame”. It’s the Twitter audience’s addiction to info-stimulatants that explains this dynamic, and I don’t see how Elon Musk is going to change human nature in this regard unless he exacts personal accountability on everything posted by 1) eliminating anonymous accounts, and 2) requiring that a poster name their sources of information with links.
JT is just unconvincing in his approach to social media reform. For those of us who value free speech tightly-coupled with civility, tolerance, meritocratic brainstorming, generosity of spirit, constructive thought, and responsibility-taking, JT’s framework cedes the public square megaphone to the “I win, you lose” militant, the neurotic misanthrope, and the professional, self-interested con-artist. Who wants to have to wade through mountains of corrupt bs before finding a tiny gem of truth? What about the realtime decisions that are forced to be made in the interim before the truth ties its running shoes?
I don’t think Turley even understands the level of communication responsibility it takes to maintain our complex way-of-life. He seems blind to all the myriad ways organized freedom depends upon “you can’t just say anything you want”.
Of course, there is a battle over the censorship of opinion that is constructive and given in good faith — a battle we have to win. But,
if weakening standards of honesty and civility is the price, we’ll lose our democracy just the same.
pbinca: Not sure I agree with everything you say (I believe Turley articulated ways to contain some of the dangers you suggest), but yours is a very provocative, intelligent comment that demands thoughtful assessment. thank you.
“For those of us who value free speech tightly-coupled with civility, tolerance…,
JT’s framework cedes the public square megaphone to the “I win, you lose”. …
Who wants to have to wade through mountains of corrupt bs before finding a tiny gem of truth?”
Pbinca, most wish for thoughtful commenters on blogs, but as we have seen on this blog, that is not something easily accomplished. We each have our own vision of running a blog, but the final arbiter of that is the blog host.
JT’s blog is open to all, leading to a mixture of high-brow and low-brow comments where the low-brows seem to predominate. That is not a good reason for censorship unless censorship is what the blog owner has in mind.
JT’s discussion revolves around freedom of speech. The largest platform of this nature was Twitter, and it had certain protections provided by the government, which led to certain responsibilities. Twitter violated the American norm. The founders deemed political speech the most important. Twitter decided to ban the political speech of one side. That is what happens when one tries to fiddle around with censorship.
I am having a hard time figuring out your alternative to what JT is promoting. Can you tell us how you couple civility with free speech? We all understand that we can easily exclude certain objectionable words and phrases from the system.
How do you handle the nuances of language?
I suggested taking away anonymous posting as a primary mechanism. It’s too tempting to be rude, obnoxious and deceitful when nobody can trace it back to you. Second, I suggested that posters have to give their sources of information….they can’t just make stuff up. Wasn’t that the essence of Tim Berners Lee’s thinking for the hyperlink?
On the legal front, I would rescind Section 230, and overturn the Sullivan SCOTUS decision, so that all citizens have equal protection to deter malicious defamation through the threat of lawsuits. And, I would fashion new Rapid-Response Defamation Courts where discovery, verdict and consequences are not years down the pike, but take only a few weeks. That will establish credible deterrence.
The best communication musters the self-discipline to express yourself openly and candidly, but diplomatically. Without that, you get evasive, defensive posturing. You get deceptive narrative-building. You get warring tribes.
The idea that algorithms can adroitly uphold norms of goodwill and civility is preposterous. You need human experience and judgment to do this, and even with that, it’s a highly imperfectable task. Yet, upholding norms must be done.
It’s for that reason that rapid torts and abolition of Section 230 have the best chance of taming infowarfare. Give the power to decide to the humans, not the algorithms. And stop undermining personal responsibility via anonymity. These are rather obvious steps to take.
pbinca,
Wouldn’t the abolition of section 230 increase the tendency to censor more under the threat of liability? If liability is a bigger risk. Censoring speech that would result in a lawsuit would be a higher priority.
Exposure to lawsuits would make platforms more prone to restricting speech. The incentive to moderate speech as narrowly as possible would be greater if a company has no liability protections.
Pbinca, you provided an excellent reply that mimics many of my thoughts. Your suggestions are worthy of consideration. Anonymity is worth protecting but needs to be carefully constructed. That is possible by using unique icons and names and other mechanisms to eliminate those who use multiple IP addresses and email addresses. Section 230 needs to end, and I think your other idea of Rapid Defamation Courts will eventually be created organically.
I like that you understand human nature. “The idea that algorithms can adroitly uphold norms of goodwill and civility is preposterous.” I agree. My bet is the most egregious censorship on Twitter was done by individuals, not by an algorithm.
Good response. Thank you.
Pbinca says:
“On the legal front, I would rescind Section 230, and overturn the Sullivan SCOTUS decision, so that all citizens have equal protection to deter malicious defamation through the threat of lawsuits. And, I would fashion new Rapid-Response Defamation Courts where discovery, verdict and consequences are not years down the pike, but take only a few weeks. That will establish credible deterrence.”
Yes, I agree completely. We need accountability. Anonymity prevents it. When people are held liable for what they say, they will be deterred from speaking in bad faith. Liberals can tolerate ANY speech made IN GOOD FAITH. But when people deliberately lie or make claims without credible foundation to support them, that is bad faith. We should hold people to the same standard of truth we expect in a court of law. When someone- with malice- defames another’s reputation that amounts in their financial loss, the law allows the defamed to sue for damages. When someone with malice makes a false statement – (though it does not defame a person) there should still be some consequences in order to deter such future conduct- not punishment by imprisonment or monetary fines (because their malicious statements were not made subject to perjury). Rather, the consequences of lying in public is shaming and, if they keep it up, banning them. Because the government is prohibited from doing so, the citizenry must take matters in its own hands to police itself. We won’t always agree who is speaking with malice, but that fact should not deter us from ostracizing and de-platforming those few people who we can agree upon.
Jeff,
“Liberals can tolerate ANY speech made IN GOOD FAITH. But when people deliberately lie or make claims without credible foundation to support them, that is bad faith.”
I wish this were so. Perhaps you mean ‘classical liberals’. I have not had this experience from some who call themselves liberals. And, how does one account for manipulation of liberals to view good faith speech as lies or claims without credible foundation? Manipulation is rife in the media.
Rose,
Needless to say, I don’t speak for every Liberal. I can speak for most, I hope. I suppose I am a “classical Liberal” though I am vilified by most here as a freak!
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that Liberals/MSM mischaracterize conservative good faith speech as lies (or claims without foundation)?
You might ask Conservatives the same question. Trumpists, for example, characterized the Mueller investigation as a bad faith “witch-hunt,” did they not? Had it been conducted in bad faith, Turley would have called it a “witch-hunt” too, but he never did, did he?
Whenever Trumpists call something “fake news,” they are insinuating that it was presented with malice. Who throws around the accusation of “fake news” more? Tell me- Liberals or Trumpists?
Thus, I am acutely sensitive to the problem you raise. The solution can only lie in the tedious examination of the details of the claims on both sides. Anonymous claims are suspect, of course. I am hoping that Pbinca’s idea of some sort of expeditious hearing to suss out the truth could be implemented so that we could determine which side is acting more in bad faith.
Jeff,
Non-liberal does not equal conservative or “Trumpist”, nor does conservative equal “Trumpist”.
“you are claiming that Liberals/MSM mischaracterize conservative good faith speech as lies (or claims without foundation)?”
Yes–and oddly enough, they do this to non-conformist liberals and independents, too. It is a convenient way to divide people so as to impede the discerning of Truth. I place most of the blame on the MSM and our political class.
I’d say that “which side is acting more in bad faith” depends upon the issue. It’s a hobby horse both Ds and Rs like to ride as the need suits them.
Liberal is not the same as left wing nut.
Turley is liberal,
Derschowitz is liberal.
The left today is ill-liberal. It is nihlist.
My only disagreement with you is your statement, “I place most of the blame on the MSM and our political class.”
I place most of the blame on talk radio and the migration of talk radio hosts to cable, e.g., Fox News, and its fringier clones Newsmax and OAN.
Don’t you find it odd that Turley will justifiably criticize the advocacy journalism at CNN and MSNBC, but NEVER Newsmax or OAN?
Unlike most here, I believe you will give me an honest answer. We understand that Turley cannot criticize his own network Fox, but what do you honestly think explains his ignoring the advocacy journalism at Newsmax and OAN?
Jeff,
“Don’t you find it odd that Turley will justifiably criticize the advocacy journalism at CNN and MSNBC, but NEVER Newsmax or OAN?”
Not really, because Newsmax doesn’t make the top 20 and OAN doesn’t even register.
https:// pressgazette.co.uk/ most-popular-websites-news-us-monthly/
For cable prime time, in April, Fox garnered 2.4 million views on average, MSNBC 1.1 million, and CNN averaged almost 700,000 viewers.
https:// thehill.com/ news/3464056-fox-tops-april-cable-news-ratings-rankings/
So, again, MSM gets the lion’s share of attention. On top of it, then there’s the “ex”-spooks (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc) on cable news outlets.
“Many of the top security state officials over the last two decades have been hired to deliver “news” for these two major corporate networks: former CIA Director John Brennan (NBC), former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (CNN), former Assistant FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi (NBC), former Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend (CNN), disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (CNN), former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden (CNN), and countless others.”
https:// greenwald.substack.com /p/nbc-news-uses-ex-fbi-official-frank?s=r
https:// dailycaller.com /2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccabe/
I asked:
“Don’t you find it odd that Turley will justifiably criticize the advocacy journalism at CNN and MSNBC, but NEVER Newsmax or OAN?”
To which you replied:
“Not really, because Newsmax doesn’t make the top 20 and OAN doesn’t even register.”
My response is that advocacy journalism is worthy of criticism by Turley no matter the popularity of the cable network. For an academic, it’s a matter of principle. If Turley complained about the MSM, say, 5 to 1, over Newsmax and OAN, we could dismiss it as mere bias. However, where Turley has never criticized Newsmax or OAN and ONCE Fox, he’s being an advocate himself- not an impartial legal analyst.
It’s apparent that Turley has an agenda.
Jeff,
You are ill-liberal – you do not speak for any REAL liberal.
With respect to free speech – lies, misinformation, bad faith are all ALLOWED speech for anyone who is ACTUALLY a liberal.
They may not be pleasant speech – but “offense” – a subjective criteria is not allowed “offensive terms” – i.e a broadly accepted but narrow list of specific actual phases and terms is.
“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”
Is actual liberalism. It is not conservatism, it is not the modern left, it is NOT you.
Anything else is illiberal.
Trumpists defending to their death my right to speak?
You mean like the Trumpist who is defending my right to speak by encouraging me to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge?
Aparently you have not followed Durham.
The ENTIRETY of the evidence that resulted in the Mueller investigation has been thoroughly and easily discredited.
Further The DOJ/FBI Knew that it was a hoax by January 2017,
So Yes the Mueller investigation was a bad faith witch hunt.
Rosenstein knew or should have know when he appointed Mueller that the foundation was a hoax.
Even if he did not – he MUST have learned that fairly quickly – and if he did not he was not doing his job.
Further Mueller’s investigation REQUIRED him to determine the credibility of that evidence,
And it REQUIRED doing so FIRST.
Mueller’s investigation SHOULD have been what Durham did – he SHOUKD have traced the Steele Dossier, etc back to their sources where he would have found they were a HOAX.
In case you have blinders on – The Alpha Bank data was human created – i.e. a Fraud. The entirety of the Steele Dossier was written by Danchenko at the Brookings institute and his sources were Glenn Simpson of Fussion GPS and made up stories by democrats at DNC.
There was not even a “Russian Disinformation” source.
The Mueller investigation was unconstitutional – as is sometimes said here – without predication.
The Govenrment is NOT allowed to investigate whatever it wants.
If as an example the Hunter Biden laptop had turned out to actually be Russian disinformation (and there was not of the hundreds of other documents from places like the US state department as evidence) then the investigation of Hunter would have had to die quickly.
If there was no legitimate basis to investigate the Biden’s – then Trump should have been impeached and removed.
As there is ample basis – BEFORE the laptop – it is the impeachment itself that is politically corrupt
If you are goint to try “whataboutism” – then the things you try to say are the same can not be radically different.
I don’t know where you get your Trumpist conspiracy theories, but I can tell you this- Turley does not breath a word of them. He is rational. You are not.
“Whenever Trumpists call something “fake news,” they are insinuating that it was presented with malice.”
Yup.
“Who throws around the accusation of “fake news” more? Tell me- Liberals or Trumpists?”
Your not a liberal. Your illiberal.
Who uses it more – leftists ? Trump ? Who cares ?
Who is hands down correct more often ? Trump/
“The solution can only lie in the tedious examination of the details of the claims on both sides. ”
False.
Everything is not some balancing act.
Each of us is free to conduct whatever examination of facts we choose to, or to beleive whatever authorities we choose.
In the long run our credibility and the credibility of the authorities we choose is established most of the time by actual facts.
The Steele Dossier was a Hoax – those who sold it were liars and frauds.
Those who thought it was true, those who thinking it was true pushed it to others – those people deservedly have lost their credibility.
Trust in our institutions is at an all time low – BECAUSE THEY HAVE EARNED THEIR LOSS IN CREDIBILITY.
If You still place trust in those institutions that have repeatedly lied – then your judgement is poor and your own credibility weak.
If you accused people who were ultimately found to be telling the truth of lying – not only have you burned your credibility, you have shown yourself immoral.
I would note that while my example – the Steele Dossier – undermines the credibility and integrity of the left, the means of establishing credibility and morality is ideologically neutral.
“Anonymous claims are suspect, of course.”
As are claims from those with a track record of error or worse dishonesty.
“I am hoping that Pbinca’s idea of some sort of expeditious hearing to suss out the truth could be implemented so that we could determine which side is acting more in bad faith.”
That is a bad an unnecessary idea.
The following is both the correct process AND the law and constitution.
“Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.”
Justice Brandeis Whitney V California.
Had Justice Brandeis lived in the world of today with the Internet and social media, who can say whether he would have had the same opinion.
Jeff,
I would suggest that you ponder the discussions over how to understand scripture that were the heart of the reformation.
You are quite litterally making the argument of the catholic church – that our institutions, or authorities or tribunals or the pope decides for all of us what constitutes Truth.
Martin Luther’s central argument was that ultimately each individual is responsible for their own choices – including what, or who or how they chose to believe.
The march of history from the 1500’s if not earlier up through bout 2013 was that we restirct speech as little as possible and leave each of us free to choose what we beleive. That there is no tribunal, expert, committee, that actually has the power to do that for us.
We are free as individuals to defer to the judgement of experts or insitutions – or NOT as we please.
I have offered credibility, and reputation is the criteria that nearly everyone uses to establish what they chose to believe – when they do not wish to take the time to examine the facts ourselves.
Not only is that the best choice – it is the only choice that does not involve imposing your will on others by force.
Say says:
“I have offered credibility, and reputation is the criteria that nearly everyone uses to establish what they chose to believe – when they do not wish to take the time to examine the facts ourselves.”
Exactly. I regard Turley as far more credible and reputable than you. I don’t have time to examine all the facts of the cases he presents. I hope you will forgive if I trust his opinions over yours. And his are not remotely like yours.
Prairie Rose,
can I please ask you and others here to cease calling the left liberal.
Most on the left do not call themselves liberal – they are calling themselves progressives mostly.
They are ill-liberal.
Liberals are activing fighting the left.
Alan Derschowitz is a liberal. JT is.
The closest thing to a liberal posting here besides JT are the few libertarians like me.
Further given that the left has abandoned the term liberal.
I WANT IT BACK.
Libertarian is an abortion of a name – that we are stuck with because progressives in the 20’s and 30’s so besmirched the term progressive that for decades no one wanted called progressive – so they sole liberal from libertarians.
If you read about liberalism – the 17th, 18th, 19th century liberals are people like Voltaire, Adam Smith, Locke, Franklin, Thoraeu,
These people would be called libertarian today. Some former democrats are now calling themselves “Classical Liberals” – to connect them back to past liberalism. Part of this is because too many people conjure up the guy who streaked at the libertarian convention or who wheres a boot on his head, when they think Libertarian. Not Rand Paul or Mike Lee, or apparently now Ted Cruz ?
Regardless, those on the left, and few in the democratic party call themselves liberals anymore.
They do not want it, they are not liberal and we should not call them liberal.
They are ill-liberal
John B Say, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
to see a distinction between ‘liberal’ and ‘libertarian’.
pbinca, I wholeheartedly agree.
Civility? That’s been one sided for far too long. The Leftist, Marxist. Wokest, Humorless, whatever you want to call them must be stripped of their sanctimonious shield and crushed. They are an aberration of social networks localized in the formerly beautiful coastal cities where the middle class is gone, and now they look down at the drug addled homeless and feel superior to all of humankind.
They must be crushed and made irrelevant.
@anonymous
Just trying to be of help. Lefties love to call everyone with whom they disagree a ‘nazi’ or ‘white supremacist’.
Hey, why don’t we get a divorce?? Wouldn’t that be easier? If not for people like me, you would have already created a heaven on earth and I am standing in the way of that.
antonio
@anonymous
“Is s@@tcon a slur that you accept for yourself?”
Actually I am not a conservative, neocon or otherwise. Mainstream “conservatives”, conserve every little. Not a Republican either, they are only marginally better.
And unlike the mainstream left or right, I am against involvement in most of America’s wars, including the one in Eastern Europe. I am truly sorry it happened but Ukraine is not my problem. And that doesn’t make a moral reprobate or stooge of a certain East European authoritarian leader.
Perhaps you would be ok with China establishing a military alliance with Canada?? There is not a Russian leader alive who would accept a military alliance with a large, hostile country on their borders. But hey, the rules don’t apply to America, right? Because we are only there to help and give them multicutli and drag queen story hour. I am afraid that s@@tlibs and s@@tcons are going to get us involved in WW3.
What should scare s@@tlibs on blogs such as this is I am not a marginal person on the fringes but a working professional; influential and productive in what I do, but if we met, I would seem as “woke” and “normie” as anyone you work around. And you would have no idea. There are many like me.
antonio
So do you prefer to be called a s@@tmudslinger?
Because you’re exceptionally fond of slinging a particular slur.
As a conservative commentator is asking this very hour on a radio broadcast; Can we now say that all of biden’s “gaff’s” and just outright lies about things are “misinformation” and should now be banned from dispersal on the internet? What’s good for the goose… If you want to “purify” speech, let’s begin with psaki , harris and biden.
This reveals the real threat of Musk’s Twitter takeover: If it is no longer possible to suppress factual information in the name of rescuing democracy from its alleged enemies, then those enemies (read: Republicans) might start winning more elections. And that is simply unacceptable.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/28/this-insane-2020-time-magazine-article-explains-exactly-why-the-left-fears-losing-twitter/
@svelaz
“Turley is a hypocrite.”
I am going to help you out. Don’t you mean “white supremacist” and/or “nazi”? Come on, say what you really think.
Here is a historical tidbit which I am sure every erudite and morally superior s@@tlib on this blog is aware. The 34th President of the United States and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in WW2 had a picture of Robert E. Lee in the Oval Office. I had no idea Ike was a secret “nazi” or perhaps “klansman”. He needs to be cancelled!!! Amazing!!
antonio
Aw, the s@@tcon wants to put words in Svelaz’s mouth because he can’t deal with Svelaz’s actual claim.
@anonymous
Any comments on Ike’s secret nazi or klan affiliation? I’m sure you knew all about it.
‘ Harmful ‘ depends upon whose Ox is being gored !
“ Twitter needs to protect itself from civil liability in the form of trademark, copyright and other violations in the use of its platforms.”
Why? Wasn’t it Turley who advocated for the removal of liability protections of social media? If Turley wants these companies to have the kind of free speech he believes they should. He should also accept the responsibility AND consequences of exercising it.
Free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility and consequences.
The Disney company suffered the consequences of exercising its free speech rights by being punished be republicans because they felt offended that a company had a different view of their policies. If Disney can be punished without Turley uttering a word of outrage why shouldn’t private companies not be subject to the same treatment? Obviously Turley seems to support the idea thru his silence. Turley is a hypocrite.
Why should Disney have rights Universal Studios is denied?
Exactly!
“ Why should Disney have rights Universal Studios is denied?”
Disney has a special taxing district because it asked for it. And it was granted. The repeal of the special status because they offended the governor is illegal. It’s a violation of Disney’s 1st amendment rights.
Plus the repeal puts $1 billion of debt on the county which it will be responsible for since Disney doesn’t have taxing authority anymore.
The law itself is actually illegal according to Florida’s own constitution.
https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article260783972.html
Why wasn’t Universal given the same deal when they asked for it?
Keep running away from questions you have no answers for.
How about we focus on the significant issues, instead of your obvious personal animus against Turley. Quite frankly, most of us are interested in the former, but not in the least interested in the latter.
Disney isn’t losing anything available to an ordinary citizen – just its special privilege to act like a privately owned governmental entity. Which it never should have had in the first place.
Turley is a WELL PAID hypocrite.
“The control over speech on social media required a unified front.”
There has not ever been a unified front. For example, Twitter’s rules about what it allows are different than 8chan’s rules about what it allows.
Does Turley want to turn Twitter into 8chan?
“ 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.”
Turley sure loves double standards. Every private company regardless of what it provides has the right to conduct its business however they see fit within the bounds of the law.
The constitution does not prohibit private companies, even those who are in the business of free speech to censor speech they deem undesirable if they choose to. Turley wants to make an exception for social media because he simply doesn’t like the idea that they can. There are solutions to this and that involves creating your own platform just like Trump did which ironically also planned to censor speech in their initial policies considerations.
Just like Turley’s own blog. They have the right to moderate (censor) speech HE deems offensive. However he’s the one who continually advocates for the right to post offensive speech regardless of how uncomfortable or controversial it is. Even racist rhetoric. But Turley invokes the right to censor it because it’s…offensive. Turley is a hypocrite.