Below is my column in USA Today on how the Musk purchase of Twitter has forced politicians and pundits to move from corporate censorship to calls for good old-fashioned state censorship. Indeed, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening Democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former President Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation. For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”
Here is the column:
“A brave new nightmare.” Those words from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich described the threat created by Elon Musk’s bid to restore free speech values by buying Twitter.
Yet, despite warnings that censorship is necessary “for democracy to survive,” neither the Tesla CEO and billionaire nor ordinary citizens appear to be sufficiently terrified of free speech. Twitter confirmed Monday that Musk will acquire the company in a deal worth $44 billion. Once the deal is complete, Twitter will become a privately held company.
Progressives, in the meantime, have adopted a dangerous shift in their strategy of calling for corporations to censor speech.
Last week, former President Barack Obama made this shift clear in his much covered speech at Stanford University. Just days after Musk re-enforced his bid for Twitter with the support of many in the free speech community, Obama warned that social media was “tilting us in the wrong direction.” He called for more censorship of disinformation while calling himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.”
Obama has never been viewed as an ally on free speech by those of us who have been attacked for our “absolutist” views. Moreover, calling for censorship as a free speech absolutist is like claiming to be a vegetarian while calling for mandatory meat consumption.
Obama favors free speech only if it does not include disinformation, including what he considers to be “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”
However, it was notable that Obama called himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist,” not a free speech absolutist. The point became clear later in the speech when Obama noted that the First Amendment does not restrict private businesses from censoring speech. The First Amendment is not the full measure or definition of free speech, which many consider a human right.
For years, the First Amendment distinction has been the focus of liberals who discovered a way to circumvent constitutional bans on censorship by using companies like Twitter and Facebook. Now, that successful strategy could be curtailed as shareholders join figures like Musk in objecting to corporations and media acting like a surrogate state media.
Faced with that prospect, Democrats are falling back to their final line of defense – and finally being honest about their past use of corporate surrogates. They are now calling for outright state censorship. Obama declared: “This is an opportunity, it’s a chance that we should welcome for governments to take on a big important problem and prove that democracy and innovation can coexist.”
He is talking about imposing “standards” on companies to force them to censor “lies” and “disinformation.”
As is often the case, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stripped away any niceties or nuance. Clinton called for the European Union to pass the Digital Services Act (DSA), a measure widely denounced by free speech advocates as a massive censorship measure. Clinton warned that governments need to act now because “for too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it.”
Clinton’s call for censoring disinformation was breathtakingly hypocritical. President Obama was briefed by his CIA Director John Brennan on “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” The intelligence suggested it was “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”
Moreover, her call for censorship came just weeks after special counsel John Durham offered more details about the accusation that her campaign manufactured a false Russian collusion theory. One of Clinton’s former lawyers is under indictment for the effort. Clinton personally tweeted out the disinformation that is the subject of the federal prosecution. And the Federal Election Commission recently fined her campaign for hiding the funding of the Steele dossier.
Given that history, it would be easy to dismiss Clinton’s calls as almost comically self-serving. However, the 27-nation EU just did what she demanded. It gave preliminary approval to the act, which would subject companies to censorship standards at the risk of punitive financial or even criminal measures.
If implemented, it might not matter if Musk seeks to restore free speech values at Twitter. Figures like Clinton are now going to the EU to effectively force companies to continue to censor users.
Faced with liability across Europe, the companies could be forced to base their policies on the lowest common denominator for free speech.
Countries like Germany and France have spent decades criminalizing speech and imposing speech controls on their populations. That is why the premise of the DSA is so menacing.
European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager was ecstatic in declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
Sound familiar? Freedom is tyranny, and democracy demands speech controls.
Under the DSA, “users will be empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly.” This includes speech that is not only viewed as “disinformation” but also “incitement.”
Academics have increasingly echoed the call for such censorship. Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods have called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating in The Atlantic that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”
A glimpse of that future was made clear by Twitter last week, when the company declared that it would ban any ads disagreeing with its view of climate change. Previously, Democratic senators demanded that Twitter expand censorship to include blocking disinformation on climate change as well as an array of other areas.
The push to pass the DSA brings many U.S. politicians full circle but also exposes the true motivation of what is euphemistically called “content moderation.” Democrats turned to corporate allies to impose censorship programs that they could not impose directly under the First Amendment.
Now that Musk’s potential purchase of Twitter could blow apart that unified corporate alliance, they are seeking to use the EU to reimpose censorship obligations. Again, such restrictions would not trigger the First Amendment because they are being imposed by foreign governments.
The result would be a delicious victory for the anti-free speech movement. Musk may buy Twitter only to find himself forced to curtail free speech against the wishes of his customers and his new company.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
A danger not discussed very much is one that I have mentioned in numerous previous posts– that of SELECTIVE-FACT/SELECTIVE INFORMATION propagation. Neither censorship nor First Amendment protections need apply.
Media/academia/public figures have perfected the communicative skill to only speak/report/publicize CERTAIN selective facts/news//stories favorable to their agenda,–while under-reporting and/or culling out facts/information/persons that disagree with that agenda. Much of the public then finds their information true/credible, without realizing that half of the story hasn’t been told. The First Amendment is of no help for those who have little or no voice or forum to match ubiquitous and national control of messaging .
When was it ever different?
A lot of people have what I call the “Abraham Lincoln Syndrome.” Remember how we learned he walked miles in the snow to read or borrow a book? Many believe if it’s in writing, it must be true. I think the Internet has done a lot to show that’s not the case! Lots of crap on the net. In college, I read a book called “How to Lie with Statistics.” It’s kind of meant to be “tongue-in-cheek” but you still get the point. I just would rather keep the responsibility to sort out stuff myself than have the government do it for me, primarily because the previous examples of that all turned out badly. Once the government decides what cannot be said, they have also decided what cannot be learned, and that’s the overreaching control we should all fear.
Lin, isn’t that what Fox News does? OAN? Newsmax?
SELECTIVE-FACT/SELECTIVE INFORMATION propagation would be considered protected speech under the 1st amendment according to Turley’s own views. It’s essentially what propaganda is.
“ Much of the public then finds their information true/credible, without realizing that half of the story hasn’t been told.”
Turley engages in this kind of journalism most of the time. It’s one reason why there’s so much criticism of Turley’s columns when he only tells half the story in order to portray a biased narrative. I will say that this is not exclusive to the right. The left does this too.
Would you care to present any specific news, stories, events or issues, that have not been addressed on Fox News. I would be happy to list the very long list of items of interest that have not been addressed on National Media, CNN, MSNBC. To wit: Hunter, Laptop, Sussman, Russia Hoax, Dementia, Fentanyl, Border Invasion, Etc… Not liking the commentary is not the same as not hiding the embarrassing truth from the public.
There is a legal group which sued people and corps and govts called ScewU.
The people who oppose true freedom of speech are the same people who fear their lies and schemes will be exposed.
“ It gave preliminary approval to the act, which would subject companies to censorship standards at the risk of punitive financial or even criminal measures.”
Funny thing is Florida’s republicans are already did this. When they repealed the special tax district for Disney they did it specifically because Disney had the audacity to criticize the governor of Florida’s “don’t say gay bill”. That was punishing Disney for exercising its 1st amendment right and it was not just a punishment. It was a shot across the bow to any other companies who are critical of the governor and the republicans law. They are threatening censorship thru intimidation.
Turley the hypocrite is indeed cherry-picking his arguments on free speech, castigating others for doing what republicans are doing right in front of him.
Republicans in Tennessee are openly supporting the burning of books because they don’t like the views they espouse. Republicans in Florida and Texas are banning private companies from discussing equality diversity and inclusion policies because it makes some uncomfortable. Censoring those alternative views apparent is ok with Turley. But when the Europeans choose to do what republicans here do it’s a travesty. Turley sure is working hard to earn that badge of hypocrisy. A badge he is striving to earn with distinction.
Svelaz, You keep beating this mule. But it is not moving. Your examples have no relation to free speech. If they did, lawsuits would already be filed. But maybe you are smarter than Disney’s community college lawyers.
Schools choosing books, and the legislature setting curriculum standards is not an abuse of speech. It is govt working inside its enumerated powers.
Patience grasshopper. Disney will file suit on its own timetable, not yours.
Not claiming free speech. There is already ample precedent ruling constitutional legislation cannot be overturned by the judiciary,
That means in this case. The Legislation has the constitutional power to reverse the special treatment.
Compare it to President Trumps Ban on Visas from a list of countries. A judge ruled the President did it for the wrong reasons and stayed to EO. But that stay was overruled because you can’t limit plenary powers. The reason used is meaningless, if the enumerated power exists.
Again this is well established precedent.
Lets say pResident Biden pardons all the Blacks convicted of drug charges. Can the Judiciary cancel those pardons because they violate equal protection?
Iowan2,
“ That means in this case. The Legislation has the constitutional power to reverse the special treatment.”
The legislation violates two constitutional issues. A Florida constitutional issue regarding contracts and the 1st amendment. And Florida state law requiring that debt be cleared before repealing the special tax district.
“ State of Florida pledges…it will not limit or alter the rights of the District…until all such bonds together with interest thereon…are fully met and discharged.”
https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article260783972.html
“ The law passed by the Republican Legislature on a largely party-line vote, and signed into law by the Republican governor, either violates the contract clause of the Florida Constitution, or is incomplete, Schumer told the Herald/Times on Tuesday. If the Legislature wants to dismantle the Reedy Creek Improvement District, it has more work to do.”
Then there’s the reason behind the repeal. They did it because DeSantis didn’t like Disney’s criticism of his “don’t say gay” bill. That’s government punishing a private company for expressing its views.
Experts agree that Disney has a good case against Florida for violating its 1st amendment rights.
Turley is strangely silent on this attack on free speech by government.
I agree it would be interesting to see what Turley thinks of what the Florida legislature did from a free speech perspective.
Regarding the question whether the Florida legislature was bound by the pledge made in earlier legislation, I think this may come down to the question whether that pledge was a legally binding contractual commitment to bond holders or a political statement. Even if it is found to be a contractual commitment to bond holders, there is still the question of remedy if it is enforced by bond holders: specific performance (prevention of the dissolution of the district); damages for breach of contract; or acceleration of the bonds. That in turn may depend on the terms of the bonds and what was said and by whom in the prospectus. It may also be that the terms of the bonds provide for an event of default or acceleration if certain kinds of changes are made to the special district.
I believe that Florida law also provides for the relevant county to assume the debt of a special district if that special district is dissolved. That cuts against the argument that Florida must maintain a special district in being until all its bonds are repaid.
DeSantis is himself a lawyer and undoubtedly has access to good legal advice. So far, he has appeared very confident about his legal position. Hard to know how this will come out in the end, but I would not bet against DeSantis.
Iowan2, the examples I posed do have a relation with free speech. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn’t mean it is not true.
Lawsuits have been filed against those seeking banning books.
“ Schools choosing books, and the legislature setting curriculum standards is not an abuse of speech. It is govt working inside its enumerated powers.”
This is not about schools choosing books. It’s about banning books that have already been on the shelves for years. Books are being banned because they portray a different point of view that some find offensive. Banning books deprives everyone who do not find them offensive or want to learn about them because a few cannot tolerate the idea that others can access them. You wouldn’t tolerate the idea of a few people banning bibles from the library because they contain stories of incest, violence, and racism would you? Because they don’t agree with it?
Setting curriculum standards is one thing. Prohibiting discussion is another. If students want to discuss CRT or racism in the classroom they wouldn’t be able to. It puts a teacher at risk of losing their job on account that they “allowed” the discussion even if it was just among the students themselves. Teachers would be forced to shut down any attempt at discussion in order to protect their job. That’s government infringing on free speech.
banning books that have already been on the shelves for years
You’re a big fan of the Dredd Scott decision? The practice was in place for decades. I guess you are slave trader at heart. Puplic Schools used the King James Bible to teach from will into the 20th century. That makes you in favor of removing books and changing curriculum?
Iowan2,
“ This is not about schools choosing books. It’s about banning books that have already been on the shelves for years.”
The Dred Scott decision has nothing to do with republicans wanting to ban books from the library because they don’t like what they say.
Books that have been on library shelves for years are suddenly offensive because students or any curious individuals may want to know what they say or espouse. Never mind that it’s all protected speech under the 1st amendment.
because students or any curious individuals may want to know what they say or espouse. Never mind that it’s all protected speech under the 1st amendment.
Local Adults curate books for children.Local Adults set curriculum. All 100% constitutional. And I might add. Something your would demand if Conservatives controlled the dept of Education in every State and City.
Iowan2. It’s not just children that they are targeting. It’s high school kids too.
Banning books because they contain references of racism or LGBTQ perspective is unconstitutional. They are banning books because they don’t like the content. Kids are not going to automatically start reading these books simply because they are there.
Explicit stories about sexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles or racism. In high school libraries are no more controversial than the sexually explicit memes, tik toks, or even streaming tv shows.
Parents are overreacting to what their kids have e already been exposed to long before their concerns morphed into hysterics leading to banning books and discussions of what they are about.
Banning books because a few folks are feeling offended is anti-free speech.
“Parents are overreacting “
Stay away from their children. Don’t be a predator.
Sure parents can be scum.
But the government ALWAYS gets moral character wrong… ALWAYS
Books that are available on Amazon or at a public library have not been banned.
People who can still speak in the public square have not been banned.
The debate is definition of “public square”
“Turley the hypocrite is indeed cherry-picking his arguments on free speech”
You don’t have the intellect to figure out why Turley picks out specific free speech issues. Therefore you blame it on cherry-picking. You understand cherry-picking because you engage in it when you respond on the blog. How do we know? Because you run away from the critical questions that help define the discussion.
You were asked a question undoubtedly germane to the issue under discussion. Why didn’t Florida grant Universal Studios the same deal as Disney? Is discrimination against Universal appropriate while Disney is granted favoritism? Does Disney garner your support because Disney has been pushing perversions much like your own? Your last reply based on the production of a school’s curriculum shows that you are far out on the spectrum, far enough away from normality that I wouldn’t let you near young children.
SM
S. Meyer,
“ You don’t have the intellect to figure out why Turley picks out specific free speech issues. Therefore you blame it on cherry-picking”
S. Meyer when Turley criticizes one group of being anti-free speech using examples specifically related to that group while ignoring the fact that the group that actually is anti-free speech IS cherry-picking.
“ Why didn’t Florida grant Universal Studios the same deal as Disney?”
Because Universal Studios didn’t exist when the Reedy Creek act was passed in 1967. Universal Studios opened in Florida in 1990. Disney is much larger and produce more revenue for the state.
A large majority of Disney employees are members of the LGBTQ community. Plus Disney is Florida’s largest private employer. They have a right to defend their employees from bigotry such as yours.
It’s an apples to oranges comparison that you’re trying to make.
“Why didn’t Florida grant Universal Studios the same deal as Disney?”
Because Universal Studios didn’t exist when the Reedy Creek act was passed in 1967. Universal Studios opened in Florida in 1990. Disney is much larger and produce more revenue for the state.
—-
You are saying that Florida decided not to grant that right to Universal. Florida did what it did because long ago, the area was undeveloped. Disney has had over 50 years of development, so it no longer needs the help of the state. Why shouldn’t Florida return the boundaries to their original form?
“A large majority of Disney employees are members of the LGBTQ ”
That is correct. However, there have been problems that have to do with sexual messaging and actual lawbreaking that involves various sexual activities. A lot of Floridians are not happy with either. Floridians have a voice as well. Disney should think of parents when they become political. Parents vote.
You can’t make this stuff up. Joseph Goebbles would have been consumed with envy.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it.” —Goebbles
I don’t know what to say anymore. For the first time in my life I find myself angered that people voted for a particular party, in this case the modern DNC. You, with your insistence that nothing is amiss with modern liberalism, indeed even in the way you raised your children, DID create this, and unless we course correct yesterday we will all be paying the price indefinitely. I can take a lot in stride with our government – these latest developments are genuinely shocking to me.
Our modern dems truly are the fascists of yore reborn. I don’t see how we turn it around without conflict if we don’t cease ignorantly voting for it. Once again: OUR DEMS ARE NO LONGER THE PARTY OF JFK, FREEDOM, AND EQUALITY.
James, your sentiments echo my own. I was a life long Democrat until Obama showed his hand with the Affordable Care Act and new wars after which I stopped voting altogether. When they lost their minds in 2020, the Dems began a steady decline into authoritarianism and lying. I will never vote for another Democrat ever. Private censorship is one thing, something I have strong objections to, but state censorship is too much to bear. Yes, they are fascists. I hardly know how to address this development. How do we stop them?
James, your anger seems misplaced. No concerns about republicans forbidding discussing things like CRT, LGBTQ issues, or punishing companies for exercising their 1st amendment right?
What about banning books because they make others uncomfortable despite the fact that nobody is being forced to read them? The simple horrible idea, that they are available for anyone who chooses to read them is too much for republicans to handle.
It’s like suddenly republicans have become a bunch of snowflake liberals who need a safe space because they can’t handle the notion that others have different points of view or have different lifestyles that they don’t want everyone else to recognize because they are uncomfortable with it. So they choose to force everyone else to avoid discussing, reading, or even acknowledging those views lifestyles or personal choices thru demonizing, demagoguery, and plain old fashioned spreading of false rumors.
Many conservatives and opportunistic republicans legislators all have dug themselves into such a deep squalid rabbit hole of fear and ignorance that it’s become the only reality they recognize.
Books that are available on Amazon or at a public library have not been banned.
Sevvy doesn’t know the difference. He wants graffiti in the school system.
Anonymous, you want to prevent everyone else from having access to these books because you don’t like them. You’re against freedom of speech. Why are you against freedom of speech?
There is plenty of access, Svelaz. You have heard of public libraries and Amazon. Right? Schools have limited libraries where restrictions should be based on age and curriculum.
Your opinion differs, and you want the curriculum and libraries to have very diverse ideas, including those that are age-inappropriate. How about Johnny the Walrus? We can include an explanation directly linking it to transgenderism so 5-year-olds can better understand what you want them taught.
We can go further, even into the medical literature, so that Johhny understands the difference between make-believe and the real-life problems created when people push young children into irreversible surgery.
We can show Johnny and all the other 5-year-olds the disfigurement that occurs and explain the pain involved, not just in the present but also in the future. We can show Johnny how young people might be a walrus one day and a bird the next, but the transgender movement makes one stay a walrus for the rest of one’s life. We can discuss how Johnny will not have a natural-born family like his own. If you like, we can even show Johnny pictures of the surgery. While we are at it, we can also show Johnny pictures of the development of other Johnnies in a mother’s womb, and then we can show how the baby can be ripped apart, piece by piece. According to you, not showing Johnnie those things are censorship that shouldn’t be permitted.
Don’t you think we should be leaving these things to the parents? I note many people want to stop people from reading Johnnie the Walrus. They want to censor the book, but they are not talking about censoring it from the school’s library. They want it off Amazon. That is censorship.
I think Svelaz, you are tied up with the wrong people.
S. Meyer,
Books are being banned in PUBLIC libraries too.
“ Efforts among Republican leaders to ban certain books have ramped up across the country, with a particular focus on titles with themes about race and LGBTQ issues. The American Library Association said it tracked an unprecedented four-fold increase in efforts to ban books last year.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/26/1094807686/texas-library-book-ban-lawsuit
“ Your opinion differs, and you want the curriculum and libraries to have very diverse ideas, including those that are age-inappropriate.”
S. Meyer, lying by putting words in my mouth is a sign of poor intelligence.
“ Don’t you think we should be leaving these things to the parents?”
So one group of parents is to dictate what everyone else can or cannot read?
What about the parents that WANT those books in the library?
How about parent who don’t agree with certain books…tell their children not to read those books. Parents can threaten their kids all they want into not reading those books. Just because they are in the library doesn’t mean their kids will automatically go straight to those books.
The kids that KNOW what they are searching for on those kinds of books are making their own decisions on whether to read them or not. Nobody is forcing kids to read these books.
It’s the idea that they are there that bothers people and they are the ones demanding they be removed and deny those that do want to read them the freedom to choose on their own.
Sure Amazon has books too, but why pay for them when they can be borrowed for free at school libraries or public libraries, oops that may not be possible because the book they want to read is banned.
Still pushing this nonsense.
There is no RIGHT to have any specific book in a public school.
The act of choosing – when one is required to make choices – because libraries do not have infinite capacity is NOT banning.
No is the act of constraining what is made available to children.
If parents object to Hustler going on the shelves of a kindergarten library are they “Banning” books or magazines ?
If my school library chooses not to carry the journal of australian mining – is that censorship or banning ?
I would note those on the left have “banned” books like Tom Sawyer or To Kill a Mockingbird – that despite the fact that these are both books that argued that blacks have the same rights as whites.
Further YOU have driven Der Sturmer pretty much off the planet.
It is incredibly hypocritical for left wing nuts to complain about purported book banning by republicans when the single largest censor today is the left.
You have argued here that free speech is not unlimited, that in fact lots of speech can be regulated – and then complain because you THINK some republicans are “Regulating” or “Censoring” speech in a way you do not like.
If the Library of Congress starts banning books, look out!
Books at the library are not free, they are just free to students.
They are PAID FOR by their parents. Just like the books that those parents buy from Amazon.
And those parents get to decide what books they will buy for their children.
You are not fighting over Free vs. what you must pay for.
The air you breath might be free – all else must be paid for
“By the sweat of your brow you will earn your daily bread”
What you are fighting over is who gets to decide what children get to read.
The left won the culture war long ago.
Now you are idiotically restarting it – but no longer on solid ground.
It was right to decide that all of us have the same rights – regardless of skin color, sex, or gender – whether it is a choice or not.
But now you want control of what children are taught.
You do not seem to grasp that even the most liberal parent becomes a raving conservative when it comes to THEIR children.
Much of what you are doing is OFFENSIVE.
Most issues regarding homosexuality and trans are easily addressed such that only a tiny few will be offended – no matter what people choose to beleive.
The public bathroom issue will solve itself over time – in many instances it already has – in many places there are mens and womens gang bathrooms and one or two “family” bathrooms. Those people who wish to avoid exposing themselves or their kids to the wrong sex in a bathroom can opt to use the “family” bathroom. In smaller places there will just be individual bathrooms that are not assigned a sex, and we will all gueue up together.
The places there is a problem is Sports – if you allow MTF trans to compete in women’s sports – you will effectively eliminate womens sports, and you will only have trans and male sports. That is up to you – but I think you will find women less than happy with that result.
The final place is schools. Parents MIGHT be more tolerant of what their older children are TAUGHT at school – maybe.
But they are NOT going to be tolerant of creatures with penis’s in HS girls lockers or bathrooms. There is not a fix for that.
And while parents may be tolerant of the education of older kids, they will be very intolerant about bring sex in any form into the education of younger kids.
Whether you like it or not – the Left LOST the “don’t say Gay” message – to the “Groomer”
message.
More so than ever in history parents are terrified by peodophiles.
No group on earth has less sympathy in public or in the law.
The right warned that the left would eventually seek to normalize peodophila – and you have jumped in with both feet.
Biden was STUPID to say that inside of the classroom kids are the teachers Kids.
There are few parents in the country who will not find that deeply offensive.
Few parents on the planet are not going to want to call the police on a purple haired peirced to the hilt MTF 30 something teacher playing transformation closet games with 5 year olds.
I remember being very careful as a PARENT when my kids were toddlers – as a family we were open about sex. But it is trivial for normal parenting to be reframed as pedophilia.
Whatever difficulties parents will have their – teachers will have 10 times less latitude.
I can assure you that the videos libsofticktok exposed could result in seccessful child sex abuse prosecutions in much of the country.
Regardless you make the far left look prescient – they said you would eventually sexualize young children – and you have.
This is a losing fight. If your smart – let go.
“ They are PAID FOR by their parents. Just like the books that those parents buy from Amazon.
And those parents get to decide what books they will buy for their children.”
Wrong. ALL taxpayers pay. It’s not just limited to parents. What about the parents that ARE ok with it? Parents that object to the books CAN tell their children not to read them, to stay WY from them. It’s an option readily available to them.
“ The right warned that the left would eventually seek to normalize pedophilia – and you have jumped in with both feet.”
That’s an outright lie. The right will call anything they deem inappropriate pedophilia because nobody agrees pedophilia should be normalized.
Right religious zealots use the term to demonize and deliberately make false characterizations of what is being proposed or allowed to scare parents into believing their self-righteous moral ideals should be forced onto others.
“ Whether you like it or not – the Left LOST the “don’t say Gay” message – to the “Groomer”
message.” No they didn’t. The “groomer” message is the same slant that the right use when claiming pedophilia is being encouraged. It’s the same attempt at making ridiculous claims such as how same-sex marriage will ruin heterosexual marriages. It’s all an attempt to brand an issue in the direst and dark and perverted view possible to avoid a reality they can’t stop. It’s the same attitudes those kinds of people had when they could call anyone a heretic and burn them at the stake for suggesting contrary views or behaviors deemed “impure”.
Right-wing religious zealots are driving this effort because they can’t handle the reality of today’s evolving culture just as they couldn’t in the past. There’s a reason why it was called the dark ages.
Thats right – Tax payers pay – therefore it is NOT free.
In most states – PROPERTY OWNERS PAY – not “tax payers” – because schools are paid for by property taxes.
Regardless, you are actually pushing this idiocy that something is free because government delivers it to you ?
Currently this country OWES just under 100K for every man woman and child in the country.
for a total of $30T. That money will have to be paid back – and at the rate we are going – a whole lot more.
We have been insulated fromt he cost for some time – because we are the strongest economy in the world and the worlds reserve currency.
But we are doing everything possible to change that.
Should that occur – you will VERY QUICKLY learn that YOU must pay for everything. government has provided.
Once we undermine our status as the most trusted debt in the world – we will not be able to borrow more, we will have to start paying things back.
You are also clueless – you may not FORCE others to buy what SOME want – that is immoral.
Can schools purchase the “chronicals of Zion” for those parents that might wish school kids to read antisemetic nonsense ?
Your argument is ludicrously stupid and it quite OBVIOUSLY boils down to – if I or my ilk can gain the power to do what we want – you are not permitted to do anything about it – but should YOU regain power – you are STILL stuck with whatever I did.
That is BS and immoral.
The only MORAL position is that government can only FORCE people to do what nearly all of us agree to do.
But if you really wish to argue otherwise – the voters of FL elected DeSantis and the Republicans in the FL house and Senate, and they voted this law you loath in place – because that is what their constituents wanted – and BTW the law has super majority support from FL voters.
That law was democratically imposed, and if you keep arguing this nonsense – you are stuck with it.
An option readily available to parents of kindergartners who wish their kids to read “anti-racist baby” is to buy it.
That is a far more moral option that forcing everyone to pay for something only a few want.
Further – ideological indoctrination is NOT education.
No Svelaz – that is the actual truth.
There are plenty of people in jail in my state for engaging with kindergarteners about sex in the way you want teachers to.
If you teach a 5yr old how to masturbate – you can expect to go to jail as a sexual preditor in much of this country.
You might end up in jail – even if you are their parent.
You have screwed the pooch here.
This country is the most sexually protective of children in the world.
You can agree or disagree with that – but it is the current state of the law in most of the country.
I would also note that the largest single group to be prosecuted for sexual predation in my county is teachers. Followed by other government officials. I beleive that is also true nationwide.
I beleive our sexual predator laws are medeival, and I would like to see them changed. But I STILL do not want any teachers talking about sex in the classroom prior to High School. Even if I would not arrest them for it – I would certainly fire them.
The FL law did not go far enough.
Further – I beleive Austrailia is working towards an excellent education law – prohibiting schools from teaching all kinds of subject – until their students are at grade level on the basics the 3R’s. I fully agree with that. I do not want schools that have failed to teach reading writing and arrithmatic to be pretending they are able to teach kids about sex.
“The “groomer” message is the same slant that the right use when claiming pedophilia is being encouraged”
That is correct – and it is true. Teaching 5 year olds about sex – IS what pedophiles do.
You are wrong on the law, you are wrong on the facts, and you are wrong according to a supermajority of people.
The left has stepped in it.
This was a bigger mistake than teaching kids to be racists in VA.
This was a huge mistake for the left, and it was a huge mistake for Disney especially.
Let me try a few simple questions for you.
Is homosexuality or trans, or any of the rest of the LGBTQ alphabet a choice or is it genetic/biological ?
I do not care what you answer, because every single answer results in a problem for the left.
Odd, I never heard anyone on the right argue that same sex marraige would harm heterosexual marraiges.
I have heard lots of arguments. But never that one.
You do not get to make up the arguments of your opponents.
And yes – it is perverted for teachers to be engaging preteens in instruction of sex.
If you do not want to be accused of perversion – do not do perverted things.
Modern burning at the stake for heresey is a leftist thing.
Regardless – no one is telling teachers what they can beleive, or what they can say outside of the classroom, or what they can teach – their own children.
Nothing much is evolving. There have been gay people forever, there have been people with sexual dysmorphia forever.
It is not new.
Further for several decades now the small portion of people who are trans or gay have been accorded with the same rights as everyone else. No one is debating that.
Men do not have the right to use the public restroom of their choice – nor do women.
Men do not have the right to compete in women’s sports.
Nor do we teach younger kids about heterosexuality.
It is nearly always true that when younger kids start acting sexually – there is a sexual preditor involved.
If you WANT something – ANYTHING, then you buy it.
That is how we get things.
Even what you get from government has a cost. Worse still as government is highly inefficient that costs is 304 times what it would be if you just bought it for yourself.
Regardless, Rd parents, blue parents and purple parents ALL want control of THEIR kids education.
Children are the one place where nearly everyone grasps the core error of the left.
We do not want equality.
What parent wants they child to be mediocre ?
Every single parent I know wants their child to have an ADVANTAGE in their education. To get a leg up on other kids.
We all want our children to be exceptional, and we all want them to do better than their peers.
In truth we want the same for ourselves – but most are too guilty to admit it.
With our children wanting every possible advantage – comes with Zero guilt
“ If you WANT something – ANYTHING, then you buy it.”
That option is not available to everyone and that’s the point of having a PUBLIC library.
It’s more efficient for government to buy a book for a library because that cost is spread over thousands. A $30 book costs a fraction of a dollar when everyone’s taxes are used to buy it AND it’s accessible to anyone for free.
“ We do not want equality.
What parent wants they child to be mediocre ?”
Equality does not mean mediocrity. That’s a false equivalency on your part.
On this issue equality is about equal access to information, speech. If a parent doesn’t want their child to read a verse book or idea they are perfectly capable of telling THEIR child not to, to forbid them to learn certain aspects they don’t approve. They can forbid their children from going to the library OR they can accompany their children and PICK THE BOOK THEY APPROVE FOR THEIR CHILDREN instead of demanding that particular book be banned for everyone.
Parents who object to certain books, points of view, ideas, lifestyles, etc. DO have options. Just because those options are inconvenient to THEM, because they made a choice that put them there doesn’t mean they get to force the burden of their inconvenient choice on everyone else.
“It’s more efficient for government to buy a book for a library because that cost is spread over thousands. A $30 book costs a fraction of a dollar when everyone’s taxes are used to buy it AND it’s accessible to anyone for free.”
This demonstrates that Svelaz has no understanding of basic economics. He knows nothing about trade-offs and cannot think deeper than one level down. The world is a mystery to him.
SM
“ If you WANT something – ANYTHING, then you buy it.”
That option is not available to everyone
That is correct – then you are dependent on Charity.
There is no right to take from others because you WANT something.
BTW most public libraries are actually private – as they should be.
“It’s more efficient for government to buy a book for a library”
Nope, governments are horribly inefficient.
That should be self evident.
If it is not there is lots of work by economist Robert Baro.
When government spends – it must first tax – that means all that work to confiscate money from tax payers. Work by employers, by the tax payers and by government. Worse still completely non productive work.
Accoring to recent IRS data tax payers spent 8Billion hours this last year just doing their taxes.
Then it must litterally pass laws controlling what is to be spent and how. and then it must pay people to buy.
If borrowing is involved there are more complications.
If I want a book – I click on it at Amazon
“Equality does not mean mediocrity. That’s a false equivalency on your part.”
No actual equality is not possible, but the closest approximation is forced mediocrity.
We are not equal. PERIOD.
We have very limited “equality before the law” – that is all.
Further the natural design of humans – and most mammals is opposed to equality.
Man is the epitomy of evolution today specifically because we are not equal.
Nature has found that the survival of the species is enhanced by our differences.
“On this issue equality is about equal access to information”
Correct – there is no right to equal access to information.
Smarter people access information better than those of lessor intelligence.
Do we have to lobotimize everyone to bring about equality ?
Do you actually think about what you say ?
Let me suggest something to you
Before you hit “post”
Break down your comments to a bunch of assumptions you think are true.
Then ask SERIOUSLY whether each one of those might be false.
Like all leftists you have a fixation on equality – something that does not exist, can not be acheived and we would not want if it could.
Humans are not ants.
“If a parent doesn’t want their child to read a verse book or idea they are perfectly capable of telling THEIR child not to”
Doubly false.
First this entire fight is over the control parents have over their kids at school – and YOUR answer is none.
You want the library to have all books in existance – or is it just books seeking to sexualize children.
Regardless, the actually limited books in a school library are available to ALL children – whether their parents approve or not.
But you still miss the point – you are FORCING everyone to buy something that YOU want.
That is immoral.
You keep skipping that.
Both the burden of inconvenience and the burden of cost can only morally rest with those who WANT something,
Not with those who do not.
Should the government deliver food to everyone’s door, and those of us that do not want government food still have to pay ?
And how long do you think society will last if all your wants are met for free by govenrment ?
By the sweat of your brow you earn your daily bread.
The entire foundation of humanity is that we are dependant on our own efforts to survive.
One of the reasons that children do not have rights and choices is because they are can not survive on their own.
This is not about whether some kids will inquire into these subjects on their own – though there are very few kindergateners looking for drag queens.
I am constantly appalled by the claims of gay and trans people that they knew they were different at an early age.
Every child knows they are different at an early age. Partly because we are all different.
One of the problems with this nonsense is that it pretends that normal feellings of ordinary children automatically equate to some kind of sexual or gender issue.
Nearly every child with gender disphoria STILL has all the same problems after pills, surgery, ….
Are you aware that Bulimia and Anorexia have nearly disapeared in girls ? Most have become convinced their body is the wrong gender.
The actual problems are anxiety and/or depression.
More shallow thinking by left wing nuts.
Weren’t any of you ever children ?
I am 60+ and I still remember as a child feeling different from other children. Every book or life story I have ever read by a gay or trans person – their childhood sounds like mine.
We ARE all different from each other – that is the first reason that we all feel like we are different.
“ I am constantly appalled by the claims of gay and trans people that they knew they were different at an early age.
Every child knows they are different at an early age. Partly because we are all different.”
You don’t know what these people experienced. You are in no position to judge what they felt or believed. Just as nobody is in a position to tell you what you felt or believed as a child was nonsense.
“ Nearly every child with gender disphoria STILL has all the same problems after pills, surgery, ….”
That’s not true. Your basing your assumption on innuendo from conservatives rather than facts. Children don’t have surgery on a whim. It’s extremely rare and only after years of therapy sessions and medical diagnosis does it happen. Pills do help and the fact is if they determine they are not sure the can stop. It’s a parent’s decision.
You’re 60 years old John. Let me give you an interesting perspective. I’m sure when you were a child you watched looney tunes, right? It was created in the 1930’s. And because popular from 1943 until the early 90’s. Bugs bunny was constantly depicted kissing Elmer Fudd, dressed as a woman and even the Tasmanian devil. Foghorn leghorn also did the same things. Nobody went into fits of outrage over what their children were watching ALL THOSE YEARS. Nobody. Doesn’t it occur to you that some of the creators of looney tunes were actually gay? Transgender? Back then when it was taboo to be gay or transgender. Cross dressing was tolerated with the idea that it was just a way to be silly. Right?
Today the right wouldn’t tolerate looney tunes. The left didn’t tolerate it either because of the violence. So it slowly disappeared. Kids Today wouldn’t be able to relate to the concepts that loony tunes was popular for.
Kids or young adults who feel they are different ARE being bullied by adults, children, politicians because of what they believe they feel they are a different gender. They are already stressed out, depressed, suicidal, and at the same time are being attacked, mocked, ostracized, leered at by conservative religious zealots and bigots AND aided by politicians who are out to score political points by doing the easiest thing they can do, sow fear onto their constituents about THEIR children by demonizing and attacking the rights of other parents and children and young adults because THEY are doing what they think is best for THEIR children.
“Kids or young adults who feel they are different ARE being bullied by adults, children, politicians because of what they believe they feel they are a different gender. ”
You have no idea of the medical statistics, nor do you understand your numbers.
“You don’t know what these people experienced. You are in no position to judge what they felt or believed. Just as nobody is in a position to tell you what you felt or believed as a child was nonsense.”
Correct – which is precisely why the claim is meaningless.
I know that every gay person who describes how they knew they were different at some young age is describing the same thoughts and feelings that I had at the same age, and the same thoughs and feelings that most people who have talked about heir thoughs and feelings at that age.
Further it is absolutely true that Humans are NOT ants or bees, or the other “social animals”.
It is unsurprising that each of us early “feels” different – We ARE different.
Every gay person who felt different at a young age was correct – because each and every human is different.
So that we are clear – neither you nor I can know anything about the feelings of others – beyond what they say, but we can know REALITY.
And reality is that all of us ARE different. So feeling different is not unusual.
““ Nearly every child with gender disphoria STILL has all the same problems after pills, surgery, ….”
That’s not true. ”
Actually it is and it is supported by all data gleaned when it was still possible to even study such things.
As an example the rate of suicide remains abnormally high after surgery.
I would further note none of this should not be surprising. Nature rewards successful variation and punishes that which is not.
I asked you before if homosexuality or trans were choices. I do not actually care much what you answer – only that you answer.
If they are genetic – then the failure to reproduce would result in both disappearing over time.
If they are choices – I will support their right to choose as adults – but there is no basis for placing any weight in the choices of 5yr olds.
“Children don’t have surgery on a whim.”
Actually they do quite often.
It is almost central to childhood that nearly all kids make choices on whim that is why we do not allow children to make many choices until they are adults.
“It’s extremely rare and only after years of therapy sessions and medical diagnosis does it happen.”
That used to be the case – it is not any longer.
Look at the issue we are talking about here – teachers are encouraging 4yr olds to dressup as the other sex.
That is not after years of therapy.
Further there is no objective diagnostic criteria for Trans or even gay. There is no PCR test – like the Covid test,
The medical diagnosis of trans is entirely based on the subjective feelings of the patient.
No doctor will remove my liver – because I “feel” it is making me sick. They would require real evidence.
Just to be clear – I have no problem with people being trans. I have a problem with this idiocy that except in incredibly rare cases people other than parents should get the final say on very serious choices of children.
You can attack the capability of parents to make those choices all you wish – letting parents be the final arbiters is a poor choice.
It is just better than all the other choices.
You seem to think that I care what choices people make as adults.
Dress as you wish as an adult, have surgery if you wish.
I have no opposition to adult heterosexuals getting plastic surgery – even though that does not appeal to me.
Why would I care if a man wants to dress or modify his body to resemble a woman or visa versa.
In fact I will throw you a bone – if you are a post operative transsexual – you may use the restroom that matches your genitalia rather than your genes.
But there is no test that can tell an actual transexual from a sexual preditor and the more you normalize pr-operative transexuals – the more oportunities for predation you give actual predators.
I do not beleive that transexuals are more inclined to be sexual preditors than the rest of us. But sexual preditors are inclinded to do most anything that will work to find prey.
There are many people who are straight who beleive they were born in the correct body who like to dress as the opposite sex.
This is one of myriads of fetishes – or are they another letter to add to LGBT…. ?
What about people who like bondage ? or inflicting or reciving pain as a part of sex ?
Are these additional letter that get added to LGBTQ ?
Do we need to teach 4yr olds about sadism and masochism ? about foot fetishes and cross dressing ? About furries, and bears ?
Most of us grasp that AS AN ADULT you can make the consensual sexual choices you wish.
That does not mean we are required to teach them to kids.
You raised cross dressing. How is that different from Trans ? I do not mean they are the same thing. I mean why should the law treat them differently ? If you are a straight man and you wish to cross dress in public – be my guest. But if you have a penis and are dressed as a woman – stay out of restrooms where children might be present.
As to the difference between looney toons and Disney today.
Two issues – first none of your cartoon examples were representative of children. Bugs bunny and Elmer Fudd were adults.
Children are aware that adults have different choices than kids. Further there was no sexual implication involved.
Bugs was not ever sexual – much less attracted towards Fudd.
But finally – the real measure of what is acceptable belongs to parents. If disney want to bet the brand on this – fine by me.
But I will bet you money on the likely outcome.
Whether you like it or not adults make different choices about myriads of things when those choices are about their kids.
“Kids or young adults who feel they are different ARE being bullied”
Yup – again you can get bullied for many many reasons.
Actually being physically small or weak as a boy – even if you are straight will get you bullied.
Being smart will get you bullied.
Being different in most any way will get you bullied.
We stop bullying – by stopping bullying – not buy indoctrinating 4 year olds about sex.
“They are already stressed out, depressed, suicidal, and at the same time are being attacked, mocked, ostracized, leered at by conservative religious zealots and bigots”
Yea, your in the real world.
Today you are more likely to be mocked at school if you are religious.
Sorry, I take that back – not just today – but 50 years ago.
No one is attacking the rights of other parents – we have been through this before.
This is about what Government – or its agents – teachers may do.
If you want to send your child to school in the opposite attire – that is your business and very few even on the right are objecting to that.
If you wish to approve your childs puberty blockers or re-assignment surgery – I am not looking to interfere – nor did the FL law.
This is about what kids are free to choose on their own, and about the extent teachers may meddle in parents affairs.
Biden recently said that when a child is in the classroom of a teacher – that child is their child.
That is FALSE, and only left wing adults who failed to grow up would believe such rot.
I hope that teachers care about my child. But they are NOT their child. They are a job.
They are MY children.
Children are not shrunken adults. They do not have and can not handle the same choices as adults.
Have you ever had children ? I doubt it, you would have killed them in a minute.
We do not let younger kids get bleach – because they will drink it. Aparently even young adults will eat tide pods.
Give children the freedoms of adults – and they will all be dead within a week.
Unadulterated nonsense from Svelaz. He wants his books to be sold whether they be perverted and whether or not they lead to injury to the young. [I won’t touch on Trade-Offs and educational value, which he doesn’t understand.]
Svelaz wants to push transgenderism in the school system, starting in Kindergarten. He enjoys books encouraging children who engage in make-believe they are walruses to be walruses.
I have one question. Suppose we place books about transgenderism into our school systems starting at the Kindergarten level. Will Svelaz accept books that talk about the harms of transgenderism, the pain involved, the suicides after conversion, show pictures of the surgery, and provide psychiatric accounts of why this push is dangerous to our youth?
It’s a simple question requiring only a yes or no to tell us whether or not you believe what you are saying. Don’t change the response into a discussion of transgenderism. Just answer the question, would you advocate for providing books of your choice and at the same time advocate for books that provide the information I gave in the paragraph above?
Wow, Turley the massive hypocrite is at it again. He complains about democrats “going back to government censorship” (paraphrasing). while completely ignoring actual government censorship by Republican legislatures and governors. Bans on books, banning CRT because it’s an alternative point of view and it makes republicans uncomfortable, punishing companies because they have objections to certain laws and views, and banning discussion of LGBTQ issues because they make people uncomfortable. Turley is a hypocrite and disingenuous individual.
“Obama favors free speech only if it does not include disinformation, including what he considers to be “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”
Turley also favors free speech only if it does not include racist rhetoric which he doesn’t allow on his blog, he will censor it, he doesn’t allow offensive rhetoric either according by his own words. Oh my, what a spoonful of hypocrisy Turley.
“ However, it was notable that Obama called himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist,” not a free speech absolutist. The point became clear later in the speech when Obama noted that the First Amendment does not restrict private businesses from censoring speech. The First Amendment is not the full measure or definition of free speech, which many consider a human right.”
What Turley conveniently leaves out is that Obama is correct. The first amendment does not restrict private business from censoring speech. Here Turley is expanding the amendment to be more than what it’s literal meaning is. He’s ironically interpreting it in the same fashion as one who sees the constitution as a living document instead of the originalist view which Turley often does.
If Turley wants to be seen as a free speech absolutist he wouldn’t be deleting (censoring) racist and offensive speech on his blog both of which ARE protected speech.
Turley is a disingenuous hypocrite on this issue.
Svelaz gets upset because FL doesn’t want 5 year old kids to read about gender fluidity and yet has no issue with CA banning To Kill a Mockingbird for high school students.
Svelaz, what are your thoughts on a Board of Misinformation? A FEDERAL board within the DHS! Well Svelaz, any issue with the woman in charge of “Misinformation”? A woman that claimed the laptop was Russian! A woman that claimed Trump was colluding with Russia!
I will say it again: Unserious thinkers like Svelaz, Anonymous, Jeff et al will say anything to defend the left. They will defend the indefensible because they are either partisan hacks, like Svelaz, contrarian nut jobs like Anonymous and Natacha or just plain obsessed weirdos like Jeff.
Please stop entertaining the “trolls and juvenile posters” on the blog. You know who they are. They show up here everyday to do the same thing over and over….attack Turley and agitate other commenters. Ignore them. It’s easy.
People here may have different opinions than you do about who is or isn’t a troll.
Anonymous,
“ Svelaz gets upset because FL doesn’t want 5 year old kids to read about gender fluidity and yet has no issue with CA banning To Kill a Mockingbird for high school students.”
Putting words in my mouth is a sign you already have a poor argument.
I do have an issue when books are banned wherever that may be. Conservatives and republicans are banning books simply because they talk about race, gender identity, homosexual lifestyles, even the horrors of the Holocaust. Just because a book is in the library doesn’t mean every kid will be reading it. But they treat it as if every 5th grader is going to be clamoring for those books.
You support banning books just because they make you uncomfortable or ashamed. Why are you so afraid of what others want to read or may read?
He didn’t put words in your mouth. What you have said on the subject is scary and places you in a terrible light. There is very little inappropriate censorship on the right. The left censors all disagreement and pushes for five-year-olds to be taught things about sex that many of the teachers knew nothing about until they were adults.
You cannot recognize what is or isn’t age-appropriate shows you do not belong around children.
Anonymous,
Yes he did put words in my mouth. It’s how anonymous (S. Meyer) likes to put forth an argument.
“ There is very little inappropriate censorship on the right. The left censors all disagreement and pushes for five-year-olds to be taught things about sex that many of the teachers knew nothing about until they were adults.”
The right is currently censoring all disagreement with what CRT claims. It’s banning the discussion of it and anything related to the racist past and present in this country. Even math is being censored because it has elements of CRT. The right uses CRT as a pretext to censor anything they don’t like. I doubt that is considered “very little”
Teaching five year olds the basic context of what it means to be different. They see things outside of school that is an unavoidable aspect of the reality in which we live in. There ARE same sex couples, same sex marriage, gays, lesbians, and of course transgendered individuals. They are not “pushing” anything. They are making kids aware that those things they see and hear outside of school are real. They are not trying to “indoctrinate” them into homosexuality or that they may be transgendered. That’s the hysterical fear being pushed on naive and ignorant parents by those who WANT to exploit their fears for political gain. That’s all it is.
Just 35 years ago those same kind of people exploited the fears of people by associating AIDS with homosexuals and used it as a reason to demonize them. Today it’s all about scaring parents by claiming they are “indoctrinating” children to put the same demonizing attitude towards the homosexuals and their lifestyles. They resent the fact they have a right to marry and a right not to be discriminated.
Those on the right are making every effort to keep demonizing them because they don’t want everyone else to accept them.
How would YOU have reacted if Trump formed a #Ministryoftruth??? He had EVERY reason to since the left started talkiing about impeachment before he was even in office…and they never stopped, with 5 years of Russian DISINFORMATION from the DEEP STATE which includes the FBI, CIA, and many other liars from the left who all belong in prison…I think you and all the other Progressives would have been screaming how he was a DICTATOR…Look in the mirror.
“I hate cold French fries” is hate speech. It has the word “French” in it.
Svelaz, you are either misinformed or deliberately misrepresenting the position of conservatives on CRT. CRT has not been banned; it is still a thriving research discipline at law schools where it originated. Law schools is where it belongs because the researchers and students have the ability to put the research results in context. What conservatives want to ban is the application of CRT in elementary schools where teachers who demonstrate not really to understand both the content and purpose of CRT research, segregate students to impose an indoctrinating world view on them.
Double Dutch,
I’m not saying CRT is being banned. What I’m saying is that the DISCUSSION on CRT is being banned. Conservatives are banning discussion of CRT in schools where they are NOT teaching it. Conservatives are using CRT as pretext to ban discussions on race or anything related to race. Even things barely related to race.
CRT is not being applied in elementary school, but conservatives are stoking fear in parents by falsely claiming that it is being taught in their kids schools. Conservatives or more accurately Republicans are defining anything related to race or equality as CRT. The majority of parents and those criticizing it have no idea what it is. All they know is what those who are deliberately associating CRT with anything that involves inclusivity, notions of equality and demagogue it as an all around ideology that is not part of their school and has never been.
Those who often claim that CRT is teaching kids that they should be ashamed of being white or “being told they are oppressors” or “naturally racist”
Never demonstrate any proof of their claims. Parents are engaging in hearsay and rumors spread by the ignorant and gullible individuals who are too lazy to do proper research on the issue.
The irony is that because conservatives have made it into such a big issue. That students in elementary and high school would undoubtedly want to lear why this CRT issue is causing so many problems, but they won’t be able to because republicans in their states are banning discussion of the issue for fear of “indoctrination”.
Teachers can’t discuss the issue now that it is quite prevalent in the National discussion for fear of being fired.
Discussion of CRT in schools is banned because it’s an uncomfortable subject that does need to be acknowledged. Some people don’t like the idea that some of it may turn out to be true.
Banning the Discussion of CRT by government officials is an infringement on free speech.
Bunk.
Do you live in the real world ?
Youngkin was not elected by the KKK or white supremecists.
He was elected by a majority of voters – many of them democrats.
The top issue motivating those voters was education.
You are correct this is NOT about CRT – it is about teaching children to be racist.
Whole some people came to school board ranting about CRT – nearly all parents came angry as H311 about the actual lessions and books being used to educate THEIR kids.
Those of us not living owe no debt to able – or his heirs – because the decendents of Caine murdered him.
I keep pointing out how steeped in religion the left is. The garbage that we can rank children by race as oppressors or oppressed based on the bad conduct of people dead two centuries ago is idiocy. Further nearly every black person in theis country is biologically related to a slave owner. Ad many whites are biologically related to slaves.
Regardless, you sound like a catholic – “we are all born with original sin.”
Except that in leftendom we are each born with different degress of that original sin, and there is no baptism to cleanse it from our soul.
Regardless, someone shilling such a stupid religion – should not be criticizing the religion of others.
Is there a person here that is unaware that owning other humans is bad and that many of our founders owned slaves ?
What is the uncomfortable history that we are all ignorant of ?
I was educated in all of this 50 years ago – before CRT was a pipedream.
My father who is dead received an approximation of the same education several decades before that.
NO one hides from this countries past.
The difference between what you seek to teach and what has been taught in the past,
is that we are not individually or collectively responsible for the sins of people – who for the most part we are not even related to – 200 years ago.
Also that we grasp something that Byran Stevenson gets right “We are not the worst thing we have done”
The same is true of the country.
“ I was educated in all of this 50 years ago – before CRT was a pipedream.”
You were educated with a sanitized version of history 50 years ago. That’s why CRT is so controversial with those who believe their version is still correct.
History in elementary school or even in High school was never the full story. That’s why CRT today is deemed wrong by some because it’s not what was learned a long time ago.
History like science changes when new evidence is found. The racist nature of this country is uncomfortable for many who grew up with an idyllic version of history. When presented with a more truthful correction it’s suddenly a game of denial because it’s not what you were taught. Details in history can change the common narrative drastically from the sanitized summary of history you learned 50 years ago. It was taught that way because the real history was an unsavory truth.
“You were educated with a sanitized version of history 50 years ago.”
False and irrelevant.
False because I will bet I know much more about the evils this country has done than you.
And irrelevant because we have a limited capacity to educate.
We have about 18 years to get a child to the point it can take care of itself.
What CRT sells has nothing to do with that. It will not make you more capable of feeding yourself,
It may make you worse.
“That’s why CRT is so controversial with those who believe their version is still correct.”
There is no “versions” – what actually occured is a fact. Whether people remember it is still a fact.
We have one reality.
With respect specifically to CRT – it is rife with fundimental and obvious error.
As an example – purportedly all western society is built on african slavery.
Yet, there were only 5000 blacks in England in 1800. Yet, english law was fully developed, the industrial era was well underway.
Further the north won the civil war – if the exploitation of black slaves was such an high economic value – the south would have won.
All or nearly all blacks sold into western slavery were enslaved by blacks.
Further the african slave trade continued into the 20th century – with slaves traversing north africa to the mideast.
But most affrican slaves sent to the mideast were eunuchs and did not reproduce.
I can go on and on.
“History in elementary school or even in High school was never the full story.”
Correct.
“That’s why CRT today is deemed wrong”
No it is wrong because it is rife with errors large and small
But most fundimentally because it has a theme that is litterally self contradictory and impossible.
“by some because it’s not what was learned a long time ago.”
Again I would bet I know more than you.
Maybe you are familiar with Dredd V. Scott
Are you familiar with United States v. Wong Kim Ark – I am.
“History like science changes when new evidence is found.”
Mostly false. Science actually discovers new evidence.
History tends to lose evidence over time, and worse – when we go backwards to try to re-evaluate the past – we have LESS data than those who did so at the time or shortly thereafter.
“The racist nature of this country is uncomfortable for many who grew up with an idyllic version of history.”
So many errors in so short a sentence.
First Racism has been the norm throughout the world for all of human existance.
Absolutely this country was born of people who were racist by todays standards.
But by the standards of the time, and of the world they were “anti-racist”.
Even today there are very few countries with significant racial diversity.
The US was less than kind to people who were racially or ethnically different.
But it was one of few places in the world they were allowed to come.
If you miss that – as CRT does – you fundimentally get US history wrong.
The version of history most americans were given prior to CRT was far from idylic – it covered well – more than necescary all of this.
Even today – blacks make up 11% of the country – that is about twice as many people as homosexuals.
Shoudl we rewrite all of US history to address homosexuality ?
Should we postulate that all of US history is inherently about homosexuality ?
Racial issues are apart of our history – they are NOT all of our history.
The US would be slightly different had slavery not existed – but most of our history would remain intact.
Further as with sex – very little of history is necescary for an adult to survive.
None of us will get all the lessons of histroy – that is litterally impossible.
History will ALWAYS be the cliff notes version – and someone will want to change the Highlights.
My ethnicity is primarily Irish – they Irish were abused by the english for 500 years – before the first western african slave.
The Irish were transported here in squalid conditions – before the first slave, and after and through to the 20th century.
They were allowed to come, but they were not welcome. There are things african slaves experienced that the Irish did not.
Though no one tried to starve millions of african slaves to death. Through neglect or malice the English did that to ireland multiple times.
I would further note – that economics tells us – no one washes a rental car. Slaves were property – and were often treated to care like their masters. The English did not care than they starved the irish – because they were LESS THAN property.
It is easier to destory what you did not have to pay for.
“When presented with a more truthful correction ”
Where they are correct few have any problems with the FACTs in CRT. The problem is that CRT is NOT corrected history – it is a THEORY that is unsupported by history.
“Details in history can change the common narrative drastically”
Not centuries later, and not drastically. Something is a detail specifically because it is SMALL it is NOT a theme.
“It was taught that way because the real history was an unsavory truth.”
Life 500 years ago was “”solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” for all – blacks, whites, ….
It was very unsavory. It was bad everywhere in the world
And it was still better than 1000 years ago, or 1000 years before that.
Life 100 years ago was horrendous compared to today.
Families had 6-12 kids because most did not survive to adulthood. Any less and mankind would have vanished.
The leading cause of death for women was child brith.
So you think that true history was “unsavory” ?
The fact is blacks in america today would be the 19th most prosperous nation in the world.
Black slaves in the US were treated abysmally and owning another human is immoral.
But it is also true that they lived longer and had better care than blacks in Africa.
Today africa is the poorest part of the world.
As it was BEFORE colonialism.
CRT does not correct history – it wrecks it.
It paints history as entirely about race and slavery when it is not.
Or to paraphrase Brian stevenson – no nation is the worst thing they have done.
Germany brought us the hollocaust. It also brought us Mozart and the printing press and religious liberty.
And the birth of individual rights.
John, that was an excellent explanation for Svelaz. I note he has no comment. Does that mean he has learned something, or does it mean that he closed his eyes and disappeared until his next uneducated entry on the blog?
Thanks for your discussion of history.
Svelaz is clueless.
Thomas Sowell has a very long discourse on the myths of slavery.
I was not aware that approx. 1/3 of free blacks in the south owned slaves and many fought for the confederacy in the Civil war.
SOME owned their relatives – as a means of protecting them from whites, but most owned unrelated slaves for labor just as white men.
Virtually every slave from Africa was enslaved by a black. White men did not last more than a year past the coast of africa – the jungles were too inhospitable, too much disease.
Next the death rate for slaves crossing the atlantic was high. So was the death rate for crews. The slave trade was a very dangerous business.
Slavery existed from the begining and still does today.
But Racial slavery did not come about until it was economically feaseable to transport slaves long distances.
Further European Colonialism essentially ENDED slavery in africa.
There is a big stink on the left because many Irish claim they were slaves much as Africans were – and there is a great deal of truth to that.
The Irish were essentially enslaved by the british almost 1000 years ago.
I do not beleive there was ever black slavery on the british isles. But the british treatment of the Irish was often WORSE than slaves.
Thank you, John. The problem is that Svelaz will repeat the same nonsense down the road. He doesn’t learn.
I brought up the fact that free blacks in the south owned black slaves in the past. I didn’t know the number was as high as 1/3rd. That seems high. I wonder how they made the calculation.
“Banning the Discussion of CRT by government officials is an infringement on free speech.”
Absolutely wrong.
Government does not have free speech rights – and govenrment officials acting in that capacity do not have free speech rights.
Government BTW does not have ANY rights – it has powers that are constrained by the rights of individuals.
Svelaz demands Free Speech, while supporting the Ex-President’s opinion that it should be curtailed and curtailed if it does not align with his personal opinion. Rather than attempt to argue for their opinion in the public debate, laying out the benefits of the success of their position to the populace, they instead attack, name call, impugn and create strawman arguments to deflect from the lack of factual basis upon which they argue. Typical Response Offered By the Lonnie Left!
* No Books have been burned * Disney can use our courts if they believe they have been mistreated * CRT is an opinion, not factually correct and just as every other opinion is open to debate * LGBTQ ++ is the equivalent of a religion for its adherents, and they are free to practice it, however while we have a guarantee of freedom of religion practice we are also ban the state for demanding promotion of such creeds in our schools and public places.
Public debate is good,
“ Svelaz demands Free Speech, while supporting the Ex-President’s opinion that it should be curtailed and curtailed if it does not align with his personal opinion.”
No that’s not what president Obama was saying. The right to free speech is NOT absolute. Not all speech is protected by the 1st amendment. Speech inciting violence or threats of violence is not protected. Neither is joking about bombs at an airport or aircraft. Libel and slander are also not protected speech.
What Obama’s was saying is that certain speech may be protected but it is also harmful enough to undermine entire demographics by the intent behind the speech.
Regulating speech IS constitutionally permissible and that include speech that is harmful.
LGBTQ is not the equivalent of a religion. That’s just a bad attempt at equivalency.
What Obama was saying was WRONG.
The right to free speech is NOT absolute – it is VERY NEARLY absolute.
Actually read Brandonburg V. Ohio or pretty much any constitutional decisons on free speech.
Until you left wing nuts butted in we had spent over a century moving towards ever greater freedom of speech.
Most of the way we were fighting the Right –
now idiots on the left feel the need to step in.
With respect to YOUR claims.
Even speech that incites violence or threatens violence is PROTECTED speech,
UNLESS:
The threat is imminent, clear and credible.
There are several permutations of the statement – the 2nd amendment exists to prevent infringement on the first.
That is a threat, it is also incitement to violence. It is reasonably clear, as well as credible.
Regardless it is protected speech.
I would note MOST threats are protected speech.
If you do X I will do Y is a threat.
As a rule of thumb unless X is a legal act AND Y is a criminal Act, the threat is perfectly legal.
As an example – “if you say something stupid, I will call you ignorant.”
Leftism is a stupid religion for people unable to think past first order effects.
So let me repeat – MOST threats are protected speech. That you could claim otherwise is OBVIOUS evidence of either lack of intelligence, or lack of more than the most shallow thinking.
Joking about bombs at the airport is protected speech.
But that will not protect you from a cavity search of missing your flight or possibly being added tot he no fly list.
And it might result in a night in jail.
Nor will it protect you from the possibility that a jury of your peers incorrectly decides you were not joking.
Defamation is protected – to the extent government can not criminalize it, and to the extent that you can freely defame public figures and to a limited extent private figures that temporarily make themselves public figures.
Regardless, you are clueless about rights.
Just because you have the right to do something – does not mean there could not be civil consequences for actual harm that you cause.
Civil defamation is NOT a restriction on free speech.
What Obama is saying is irrelevant, and frankly hyper subjective which is why it has NEVER been part of our law and never within the power of government to regulate.
Watching a former US president discuss constraining speech is proof of how wacky he and the left are.
Extremely little regulation of speech is constitutionally permissible – and harm could not possibly be the standard.
Regulation is prior restraint by definition.
In the event you do not understand – you can punish people for ACTUALLY harming others.
Including for speech that ACTUALLY harms.
People who file defamation claims have to PROVE damages.
To have actual harm you have to have allowed the excercise of the right in the first place.
Regulation says – you can not do X because We BELEIVE it will cause harm.
That is prior restraint and it is virtually impermissible.
Not only is LGBTQ equivalent of religion – the entire left today is a religious cult.
Religion is what we must take on faith rather than what we can prove.
Is there a lesbian gene ? a homosexual gene ? A trans Gene ?
The left will not even allow research into whether sexual preferences are innate or a choice.
Regardless, there is no scientific test for homosexuality or gender dysphoria.
Therefore it is a matter of faith – not science.
It is religion.
This is the problem with you lefties – you are completely clueless about centuries of thought.
I do not care whether you are homosexual or trans. You can have a negative right – i.e. a right that imposes no duty on others
pretty much for free.
Whether homosexuality is a choice or innate – does not change your other rights.
You also seem to presume that all religion is bad, and therefore nothing on the left can be religion.
Religion – faith is not inherently bad, it just has no place in government.
The rights of LGTBQ people are protected – because the rights of ALL people are protected.
There are no special protections for someone who is LGBTQ, they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else – no more no less.
John B. Say,
Your wrong as well. No right is absolute. The fact that you mentioned exceptions proves the point.
Protected speech means that you’re protected from punishment or legal charges against you.
Joking about bombs at an airport is not protected speech.
You have a very confused rationale about such notions. Of course you’re entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
Musk should tell Europe to get stuffed.
The ONE question not asked of the DHS Secretary. Will the Disinformation Governence Board (Ministry of Truth) and it’s employees have Search & Seizure and Arrest Powers?????????????????? I bet the answer is YES.
There is no one more greedy, hate filled, lying, cheating, hypocrite than a Democrat
All Democrats are BAD PEOPLE at this point!
Really? So the Republicans, who base their entire platform on being mean to groups they don’t like is the good party?
Republicans need to do 3 things when they sweep the next election
1) Remove RINOS McConnell, McCarthy, etc
2) cut 50% of federal Gov
3) move 40% of DC Fed gov to the heartland
DC is Lost!
Sadly, until this new Board actually does something to somebody it is unlikely that anyone will have standing to challenge it in Federal court. Congress, however, could kill it, by stopping funding. The Republicans should be campaigning on this, and should be introducing bills now.
Perhaps a patriot will find a way to “impeach” Mayorkas without any legal proceedings. He must not be allowed to “serve” any longer. The cost is too high for our nation to bear it even another week. Where do I send my contribution?
Daniel, I don’t have as much optimism as many for the future. The Republicans stand in the background doing very little, frequently obstructing rather than promoting good policy. If they were true classical liberals, libertarians or thinking conservatives, they would have all supported Trump from the beginning, and the country would be a lot better off.
Today, the southern border would be tightly sealed, and we probably would have passed a sensible immigration bill. The economy would have picked up sooner and to a greater extent. We would not be seeing the wars and threats we see today.
Though I initially had a lot of doubts about Trump, I learned he knew what he was doing and was effective. When rating his performance, I think it was far greater than seen by the numbers. Initially, he had to deal with declining numbers and reverse them before getting to a level playing field. He had to fight Republicans as well as Democrats.
Today it seems like Kevin McCarthy will be the likely speaker of the House after the next elections. He is not worthy of the position, nor is he worthy as a Congressman. Ryan wasn’t either. McConnell is likewise poor, but he does have certain expertise.
In answer to your statement, will the Republicans act proactively? No.
if you don’t vote Republican…You Hate America
Yes, clearly anyone who has a different opinion than you do hates America.
Your claim is as ludicrous as it would be to claim that if you don’t vote Democratic …You Hate America
Your idea of America isn’t ‘America the free’. Instead, it is a Stalinist type of America where you control freedom of speech and enslave the people for your benefit. You wrap yourself in hate.
Many in this column are discussing George Orwell and his views on censorship. I prefer the Phantom of the Opera scenario when discussing the “new” democrato-progressive party. Yesterday was the day when the benign mask was ripped off and the monster underneath was revealed. Well that is quite a monster growing in DC and the mask is now ripped up and on the floor.
As a religious man I always felt some solace and chance at forgiveness when Christ whispered from the cross. “Father forgive them for they know not what the do”. Well these monsters know exactly what they are doing but being somewhat biblical today I don’t think they have quite understood the whirlwind they are sowing. I see eddies of winds in Texas and Florida and elsewhere and suspect that they will soon congregate into a far more severe storm.
PS:I foresee a lot of work for constitutional scholars in the days ahead.
Professor you may wish to look at Elon Musk’s little meme where he laid out his political position in stick figures. I suspect you and many classic liberals may be feeling the same way, only more so now.
We are between a rock and a hard place. Trump on one side who most people cannot stand and the Democrats on the other who will do any and everything to remain in power. We really need a government that accepts the constitution and I believe that the only way we can get it is draconian term limits for all elected officials from dog catcher to president.
I believe that the only way we can get it is draconian term limits for all elected officials from dog catcher to president.
We already have that. ALL of the house is elected every two years. ALL the Senate every Six years.
When you vote our your elected representative every election, get back to me.
The Parties control this . Iowa is set to relelect a Senator that will be over 90 in 6 years.
I dont have a solution. Just pointing out the voters are getting exactly what the want…good and hard.
The bigger problem is the administrative state. Dems are very comfortable, in knowing most all the worker bees are loony leftists. Election will change nothing
The Administrative State has revealed their corruption. The origin of Covid, Hunters laptop, Masks. Vaccines that dont prevent contracting a virus, or prevent spreading the virus. And when the words don’t aline with the definition of the words, the govt just changes the definition. I mean, war is bad, but a kenetic military action, is just an afternoon in the park.
It’s quite true that JT has been alerting his readers that attacks on our freedom’s are taking place, it’s to bad they weren’t listening. All Americans are now in dangerous waters make no mistake even the useful idiot’s. Unless the GOP, Independent’s and what’s left of the Democrat party step up to halt the Ministry of Fear the Constitution is dead. I wonder will the American people enslave themselves by doing nothing or will they finally step up?
Again stay on guard for the midterms as we just witnessed they WILL do anything.
Amazing how the Government , at a moments notice create a “new entity” when they realize they can not control that which they previously did. A board of partisans with what actual powers…and whom will they silence in the name of what pray tell. George Orwell is rolling over in his grave. This new Biden Diktat is the ministry of truth with a non sequitur name to confuse the rabble.
The term misinformation is the euphemism for censorship. They want the same power as the leaders of China and Russia. We The People can’t let this stand.
Exactly !!. Anyone that supports this is truly a fool and at worst an apparatchik. I would really like to see how this can proceed legally , and even how it’s legal to create such a dystopian “governance board”.
And yet the Republicans are the ones actually passing censorship laws.
Samski ; Please , really already. Your paet party creates the ministry of truth and you have the gall to say otherwise. Wow is all I can add.
Sammy: Door Knob Dumb
The lefties just keep chipping away at democracy.
Ugly people.
And yet the Republicans are the ones passing voter suppression laws and attempted a coup.
Sammy , please elaborate how demanding ID and to be verified to vote is voter suppression….bet you can not without hyperbole and disinformation !.
sammy is the jv team troll. truely cluless.
Iowan, I am going to play Anonymous’ game: Sammy, Anonymous, JeffSilber and Natacha are all the same person. This is what Anonymous loves to claim about the sane people that dispute his insane rants.
Ive been a participant on this forum for 3.5 years. As a medical specialist and researcher, it is my inclination to approach my tasks, assess, look for common themes, evaluate data provided, and connect disparate parts. My family calls the job of a physician as being a “detective” like Sherlock Holmes.
All of the trolls who disparage Professor Turley daily or hourly, share several common traits. Aside from lying, they change Turley’s subject to their talking point of the day, denigrate anyone who disagrees with them, feign virtue while advocating evil (e.g. abortion), and use sources that are biased (e.g. NYT, WaPo, et al)
Peter Hill was a frequent commenter on here who adopted scores of other identities, too many to list and most of which I have forgotten. Today Peter Hill is Sammy, Svelaz, Anonymous of “the above is the Blog Stooge”, Natacha, and others. Same exact person, IMO. It should be noted that these trolls adopt the identities of people who may exist in vivo, (e.g. Jeff Silberman) but if one compares their writing voice, it is identical.
I have posted numerous academic articles that described in detail the Dark Triad personality disorder of the troll. I also recently quoted Professor Turley’s civility page where he recommends ignoring the trolls. Trolls lie which is to say they will never admit your point, their goal is to disrupt and not come to a meeting of the minds. If you wish to see the trolls have less power, stop engaging them. Those who engage them have their own modus operandi: perhaps an empty life, perhaps no goals, perhaps addiction to internet, impulsivity, etc.
Yes, Svelaz is Sammy is Natacha is Jeff and more offspring to come: same commenting format, same vitriol, same pattern of deceit, one and the same goal to call attention to themselves and hence sabotage the blog. It takes two to tango.
OTOH, you could just develop hobbies, goals and engage the world outside of your mancave.
Cheers
Lookit smarty pants, yeah, you Estovir, if that is your real name. I’m one of the few here who decries anonymous contributors. I am all for authentic and verified names only.
I am serious most of the time though sometimes I have been less than serious responding to some lying Trumpists here because the only way to get through to them is with ridicule.
I don’t know who’s who on this blog, but I yam what I yam. If ever the day comes, I’ll be delighted to prove who I say I am because I am not ashamed of anything I have written here.
When Sammy first came to the blog, he said and did some things that demonstrated a strong likelihood that he is also Anonymous the Stupid. This was at a time ATS was trying out other personas. They disappeared quickly though one of them had better content with Karen.
ATS as a troll intentionally disrupts, so when Sammy acts very Stupid, it is not surprising as ATS wants to inject a higher level of stupidity than he already does. I believe he likes watching people get upset while they explain Sammy’s stupidity.
In the past Anonymous the Stupid disrupted in another way. I believe he knew which of his anonymous postings (probably based on IP address) would be deleted. He roped people in who answered his short quips with lengthy explanations. The censor deleted all the posts. I wrote an email at the time with my predictions as to which responses would be deleted, and my comment proved reasonably accurate. Afterward, what I believe was an ATS game (insulting every person on the blog) seemed to end. He is a Stalinist-lite all the way.
Sammy IMO is ATS though one can never be 100% sure. However, based on the responses we get from Sammy, calling him Anonymous the Stupid or ATS wouldn’t be wrong. They both deserve the title.
You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, so named because your favorite means of trolling is by lying about other commenters.
Anonymous the Stupid, tell us what above is being lied about? I posted responses proving my point. One of them made the predictions that shortly became true.
Tell us what the lies are.
You can’t because you are a troll, a liar and Anonymous the Stupid.
For example, you lied in your 1:04 PM comment when said “Your idea of America isn’t ‘America the free’. Instead, it is a Stalinist type of America where you control freedom of speech and enslave the people for your benefit. You wrap yourself in hate.”
One of your favorite ways of trolling is by lying about the people you disagree with. That’s why your nickname is Meyer the Troll Liar.
ATS, don’t blame me. It’s your words that provide the argument. You look at yourself differently than you are.
If you beleive someone else has mischaracterized you – they explain your actual positions – but you should be prepared for the rest of us to show how your prior remarks are inconsistent with what you are saying.
Wait we can not do that – your anonymous.
You have no identity – and therefore can not be defamed and lied about.
You do understand you can not lie about an anonymous poster ?
There is no identity. That is the point.
The notion that voter ID is the only form of voter suppression that Republicans are doing is a nasty lie. The efforts are much bigger then that.
Pherg don’t feed the trolls. As far as I can tell they are A) Democrat Operatives, B) Not very smart, or C) Both. Maybe Useful Idiots is a better term.
All elections should be in person with ID….to make sure Democrats stop CHEATING and suppressing REAL VOTERS.
Also no more billionaires buying votes in democrat locations
Turley says:
“The First Amendment is not the full measure or definition of free speech, which many consider a human right.”
Since I’m not irrational, I don’t believe in god-given so-called “natural rights.” It’s telling that Turley claims that free speech is a “human right,” not divine. Presumably this could be an indication that he is an atheist/agnostic. He married out of his religion, and he candidly states his home celebrates both religious holidays. In any case, my guess is that he is a humanist which would account for his substituting his notion of *human rights* in place of the Conservative’s religious belief in *natural rights.*
I make this distinction only to make the point that natural rights can’t be stripped away by man whereas human rights can. Personally, I don’t believe that the freedom of speech IS a right. We speak because we are able. We need no more a right to speak than we do to defecate. WE THE PEOPLE, however, have agreed to prohibit *government* punishing us for anything we say with a few exceptions. The First Amendment did not grant us any right; it deprived the government of ITS right to censor us. Had the Bill of Rights not passed, our capability to speak would not have been any LESS free.
Because we have no right to speak to anyone, we certainly have no right to be heard. It’s a privilege to be listened to because we are all free to discriminate against speech and speakers whom we find boring, distasteful or lying. There are a few things against which we may not Constitutionally discriminate, but words are NOT among them. No government should impose a fine or imprison anyone for any speech unless it incites imminent violence or constitutes child pornography.
The regulation of bad speech should be left to citizens and private companies. Turley insists that good speech is the best antidote to bad speech. Hardly. When someone makes racist statements or spews lies, a listener’s initial reaction is a look of disbelief, an angry glare, an eye roll, or a one-finger salute. These expressions convey far more disgust and disapproval than any words alone. When the listener or listeners furthermore turn their back and walk away, the speaker will get the message. Shaming and shunning are more effective in eliminating bad speech.
Bad speech proliferates on the internet because none of the customary non-verbal cues of disapproval are available. Shaming and shunning are likewise meaningless in this faceless and anonymous virtual world. The only way to deal with a person immune to good speech on Res Ipsa Loquitur is to remove his or her PRIVILEGE to be a member of our “blog family.” Not unlike a parent instructing his children, “my house, my rules.”
We have no less freedom to ignore speech than we do to make it. Since we can’t physically turn our back and walk away from a racist, anti-Semite or a liar, the only way a blog moderator can virtually shun a recalcitrant bad speaker is to tell him to find a forum willing to listen.
I think Professor Turley meant that the First Amendment (et al.) and free speech are for all people, not just Americans–in that sense, a human right.
The point is that he does not believe that rights derive from the Almighty.
I disagree. His perspective on that point is not known. You are putting words in his mouth by asserting anything. As someone who holds the founding documents in such high regard, I figure Professor Turley probably holds to Jefferson’s “endowed by their Creator” regarding our inalienable rights.
Rose says:
“You are putting words in his mouth by asserting anything.”
I’m not putting words in Turley’s mouth. It’s true that I am speculating what he believes. But if he were a believer, he would not hesitate to ascribe inalienable rights to god. I did a Google search and found this statement by Turley about property rights:
“Well, I think it’s interesting that Richard I think makes a good foundational point upon which we can agree, that in his earlier remarks, he essentially acknowledged that property is socially contingent, it’s not coming from some divine source, and that because it’s socially contingent, it is up to society.”
https://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript121.html
Whatever else Turley may believe, natural rights ain’t among them.
Please stop entertaining “trolls and juvenile posters” on this blog. There are a few on here who come here everyday to do the same thing…..attack Turley and agitate others. Ignore them. Believe me…..they understand….”When the listener or listeners furthermore turn their back and walk away, the speaker will get the message.”
Sergeant Major,
I want to credit you for adopting my attitude about free speech. Ignoring a troll, a racist or a liar and shunning them is the most effective way to get them to stop. When everyone has walked away, and there is no one willing to listen, they will change their tune. When it comes to a troll, I’m glad that we agree we speak our best when we speak nothing at all.
Thanks for your service.