Five Steps to Save Free Speech on Twitter: A Musk Roadmap

Twitter Logo

According to reports, Elon Musk is now expected to take over as the temporary CEO of Twitter as soon as his financing of the purchase is finalized. It is good news because buying Twitter may prove a mere skirmish in comparison to the coming battle. Political forces in the United States and abroad are already aligning to resist his effort to restore free speech to social media.

If history has shown one thing, it is that it is easier to lose rights than to regain them. Musk has a product in demand but neither governments nor many of his own employees want to be sold. If Musk is to fulfill his pledge, he will need to take five specific steps to secure free speech protections.  Given the interests allied against him, Musk must move quickly if he wants to not only reintroduce but to maintain free speech on Twitter.

1. Adopt the First Amendment standard.

Pundits and politicians, including President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, have justified their calls for censorship (or “content moderation” for polite company) by stressing that the First Amendment only applies to the government, not private companies. That distinction allows Obama to declare himself last week to be “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He did not call himself a “free speech absolutist” because he favors censorship for views that he considers to be “lies,” “disinformation,” or “quackery.”

The distinction has always been a disingenuous evasion. The First Amendment is not the sole or exclusive definition of free speech. Censorship on social media is equally, if not more, damaging for free speech. However, Musk can call this bluff. He could order Twitter to apply the First Amendment standard that applies to the government for speech in a public forum. In doing so, Musk would instantly eliminate most of the censorship currently imposed on the site. He would, however, have to stipulate that the standards for “government speech” (which allows for greater speech regulation) would not apply. Twitter will be treated as “the digital town square” that he has long embraced.

 2.    Restructure Twitter.

Once a new standard is set, Musk must establish how it is enforced. That will require breaking down the extensive censorship bureaucracy at Twitter, starting at the top. That move is already likely as evident in the tearful remarks of Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s head of legal, policy and trust, to her staff this week. Gadde, like Twitter CEO Parag Agrawalis notorious in the free speech community for her record of censorship, including her role in banning Donald Trump as well as the New York Post story on the Hunter Biden laptop. Taking over as CEO and immediately removing such figures will have a clear impact. However, new measures should also include publishing the algorithms and finally achieving transparency in the decision-making at Twitter over content. This should also include a full accounting of any means used in the past to control online discussions, including throttling or shadow banning.

3.  Shift from site moderation to individual filters.

The adoption of the First Amendment standard is not perfect. This is a private site that can be sued for a variety of postings from copyright and trademark violations to privacy violations to criminal threats. Moreover, many sites bar the use of racist or offensive terms in comments. That is necessary since all readers are exposed to the comment section. Twitter is different. It can adopt a general free speech platform model while allowing individuals to apply specific filters to block racist terms or profane language. Free speech includes the right to readers to choose what they read. The key is that the decision can be left to readers rather than imposed by the company. Just as you can walk away from speakers in the town square, you can choose what you read. You can also choose to read more broadly. Twitter can leave such decisions in the hands of the consumer.

4.  Shift away from ad revenue.

The next campaign is predictable. Liberals will likely target advertisers to boycott Twitter. Advocates have already shown that they can prevail on corporations to yield to such campaigns. Many are concerned that Musk could be proven right that consumers want more freedom despite campaigns by companies like Facebook to get them to embrace censorship. If Twitter grows in size and profits it will only add pressure to companies like Facebook that continue to undermine their own product through censorship. Advocates will likely seek to attack Twitter’s profits to discourage other companies from embracing free speech. Notably, Musk has already expressed a desire to have fewer ads and rely more on subscription revenue. That will not only be aesthetically more pleasing but can insulate the site from the inevitable cancel campaign.

5.  Protect against Surrogate State Censors.

As it became more likely that Musk could buy Twitter, there was a notable shift in the comments of pro-censorship figures. Hillary Clinton, who has long been viewed as hostile to free speech values, went to Twitter to call on the European Union to quickly pass the Digital Services Act in Europe to force censorship “before it’s too late.” That time table appears to be the Musk takeover when the public will suddenly have a free speech alternative to the once solid alliance of censorship among social media companies. Since figures like Clinton cannot count on corporate surrogates to censor, they are returning to good old-fashioned state censorship. If the DSA is passed, they hope to force Twitter to resume censoring material – a warning echoed by EU officials this week. Congress needs to act to blunt such an attack on American companies seeking to restore free speech values.

At the same time, the United Kingdom is pushing its own Online Safety Act and recently Musk was summoned to Parliament to answer for his alarming suggestion of restoring free speech on social media. The British are assuring citizens to “stay calm and censor on” despite Musk’s pledge. It is threatening to take ten percent of the company’s profits if Musk does not censor users.  Musk will have to create firewall or siloed systems for countries forcing censorship. These systems should post tweets with a warning that these users are being subjected to national censorship standards while protecting U.S. users from having their free speech reduced to the lower common denominator.

These challenges are difficult but pale in comparison to reinventing space travel. The greatest asset that Musk brings to Twitter beyond a deep pocket and deep faith in free speech is his legendary creativity. He tends to focus on a horizon rather than the obstacles or opponents before him. Free speech remains a horizonal ideal but one that is attainable for someone with unflagging commitment and creativity. This could be the ultimate “moon shot” for Musk to bring free speech back to the Internet.

95 thoughts on “Five Steps to Save Free Speech on Twitter: A Musk Roadmap”

  1. “ Moreover, many sites bar the use of racist or offensive terms in comments. That is necessary since all readers are exposed to the comment section.”

    That includes this blog. Turley “bars” (censors) the use of protected speech in the comments. He’s a “free speech absolutists”, but he censors racist or offensive terms. Twitter moderates it’s speech as it sees fit just like Turley. Turley just doesn’t like how Twitter manages its platform while he hypocritically does what he wants with his.

    This “1st amendment standard” is not being followed by Turley, but he expects Twitter to?

    Wouldn’t a “1st amendment standard” allow for racist and offensive terms. The 1st amendment protects offensive terms from being censored precisely because it’s protected speech. But Turley censors it because…it’s offensive. You can’t claim to be a free speech absolutist and choose to censor offensive terms and racist speech. Turley’s blog should be allowing racist and offensive terms to permeate with freedom from being censored.

    1. Turley is using the FOXNEWS model of free speech, only say and write what their readers and listeners want to read and hear. The right wants to yell fire in a crowded theater and call it free speech. Lies and disinformation are their models for free speech, because it’s all they got.

      1. You seem triggered, bitter, and flailing. Maybe some tea and yoga would help, or do you need to break some windows too? Maybe just a good cry would be enough, poor thing?

      2. Democrats watch Fox News more than CNN or MSNBC just like you read Turley everyday. The theater is on fire so stop lying and saying that it isn’t.

  2. Professor Turley did a great job. Advertising might be a necessity, but if it is permitted, I suggest that the companies not be allowed to push opinion in their advertisements. Let them advertise based solely on the merit of their products. Let the advertisements randomly pop up so they cannot be tailored for specific arguments. Let them be put into the system with a lag period to prevent businesses from timing their advertisements based on the public sentiment for that month. They should pay for viewership, not knowing when, how, or where the ad will pop up. That randomness might be able to prevent the problems we see today.

    1. Interesting suggestions. I think I like your ideas. I would still want to be able to block any and all advertisers as I do now on Twitter; “Promoted” says “Block Me”.

    2. “ I suggest that the companies not be allowed to push opinion in their advertisements.” That would be anti-free speech. Advertising companies pay precisely to target ads to specific demographics. That’s how Twitter and Facebook make money.

      What you’re suggesting is literally censoring speech of advertisers. You would lose money so fast and advertisers would flock to other sites.

      1. “What you’re suggesting is literally censoring speech of advertisers.”

        Do you think paid speech should be protected speech?

        “You would lose money so fast and advertisers would flock to other sites.”

        Do you have any business experience? Because it seems you have less knowledge of business than the kid selling lemonade at the corner.

        SM

        1. “ Do you think paid speech should be protected speech?”

          Paid speech IS protected speech. Just like campaign donations by corporate interests.

          You have no idea how Twitter and Facebook make money. They rely on advertising, specifically targeted advertising that is extremely effective. Because it yields valuable personal data from users which advertisers can use to make more money. You didn’t know that? Have you ever wondered why certain ads pop up about things you have been looking at and only those things? Yeah, because it’s exactly how they make money.

          What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of what musk would be considering. It would decimate the site’s revenue stream.

          1. “Paid speech IS protected speech. Just like campaign donations by corporate interests.”

            The discussion involved advertising on Twitter. You are unable to focus on one thing at a time.

            Do you think limiting all advertisers to advertise only their respective products violates protected speech?

            “You have no idea how Twitter and Facebook make money.”

            Are you a mind reader? Do you think there is only one way to make money? Do you know how the corner lemonade stand entrepreneur of ten years of age supports himself? Do you understand that business model?

            Look at your life and see what you have accomplished, business-wise. My guess would be nothing or almost nothing unless others were involved in steering you in the right direction.

            Musk has discussed not relying on the usual advertising revenue. He has a lot of choices.

            1. “ The discussion involved advertising on Twitter. You are unable to focus on one thing at a time.”

              No dumba$$. YOU asked the question,

              “ Do you think paid speech should be protected speech?”

              The discussion DID involve advertising in Twitter. Advertising IS paid speech. Are your critical thinking skills malfunctioning today?

              “ Are you a mind reader? Do you think there is only one way to make money?”

              Idiot, Twitter and Facebook make money thru targeted advertising. That’s THEIR business model. You don’t need to be a mind reader to understand when Twitter and Facebook TELL everyone that’s how they make money.

              “ Look at your life and see what you have accomplished, business-wise. My guess would be nothing or almost nothing unless others were involved in steering you in the right direction.”

              You mind reading now S. Meyer? You have absolutely no idea about anything regarding my life or decisions. You guess nothing because you don’t know nothing.

              “ Musk has discussed not relying on the usual advertising revenue. He has a lot of choices.”

              Yes he has discussed other options. Like charging people to retweet. Or charge people to be members of Twitter. Even charging per tweet.

              Twitter is successful because it’s FREE and easy. When you start charging money it will be losing customers and with less customers there’s LESS advertisers.

              1. Svelaz, your brain is not wholesome. You can say two opposite things and conclude you are right on both. Then you call others a dumba$$. I don’t have to defend myself because what I say is consistent with the facts and logic. What you say indicates one who is very much intellectually challenged.

                On the one hand, you say Twitter can discriminate. They can. They are a private company that can do as they like until other factors enter the equation. Then there are big questions. I don’t need to mention those factors because you will only forget them and waste more time.

                Yes, “Advertising IS paid speech.”, but minds that work properly recognize different types of speech. Some minds even know their history, something that escapes your own. Political speech was one type of speech the founders desperately wanted to protect. A lot of other types of speech did not raise such concern.

                Your mind wanders and doesn’t focus. It would help if you recognized that because I was discussing a specific way for a private company to control an advertiser’s speech. What did you do? You brought up “Just like campaign donations by corporate interests.”, which is totally off-topic and bizarre. You cannot recognize that, but maybe you can concentrate a little more and realize that you don’t have the knowledge you think you have (Dunning-Kruger effect). That is not an insult. It is a reality and doesn’t say that you have no value elsewhere. It only tells you where you are going wrong at present.

                When I did my “mind reading” about your abilities, it wasn’t mind reading. It was based on your responses, your uses of words, and your inability to distinguish between different ideas. Again, that is not an insult. I am merely pointing out a reality that, in part, might be fixable if you first recognize the point your intellect ends and try to expand your intellect instead of expanding your ignorance.

                I don’t know what Musk will do. All I did was make a suggestion intended to help remove political activism by corporations on Twitter. Twitter was initially a non-political social-media company meant to permit people to talk to one another. It became a dangerous political machine that is not only dangerous to conservatives like myself but also dangerous to people like you when you fall on the wrong side of Twitter’s desires.

                (In answer to the success story you attribute to Twitter, Twitter’s P/E is -175, approximately. That is not a good indicator for a company that wishes to survive.)

                1. “ Then you call others a dumba$$. I don’t have to defend myself because what I say is consistent with the facts and logic. What you say indicates one who is very much intellectually challenged.”

                  No S. Meyer, not others. Just you. What you say is always inconsistent with facts and logic. That’s why you’re a dumba$$.

                  “ On the one hand, you say Twitter can discriminate. They can. They are a private company that can do as they like until other factors enter the equation. Then there are big questions. I don’t need to mention those factors because you will only forget them and waste more time.”

                  S. Meyer, you idiot. I never said they can discriminate. That’s an entirely different subject. They can CENSOR SPEECH. censorship and discrimination are two entirely different things. Your critical thinking skills are seriously deficient. You “don’t need to mention those factors” because you don’t have any. You’re just making stuff up to make up for your lack of a cogent argument.

                  “ When I did my “mind reading” about your abilities, it wasn’t mind reading. It was based on your responses, your uses of words, and your inability to distinguish between different ideas. ”

                  No, you stated that I didn’t do anything important business wise (paraphrasing). When you have absolutely no idea whether I’ve had a business or not. You were mind reading.

                  1. Svelaz, if you want to argue, come back with proof. Your fantasies aren’t appealing to anyone.

                    “No, you stated that I didn’t do anything important business wise (paraphrasing). When you have absolutely no idea whether I’ve had a business or not. You were mind reading.”

                    All one has to do is read what you write. From that, anyone can see the obvious. Your abilities are critically limited.

              2. S. Meyer is not mind reading – he is speculating based on the evidence.

                And he is likely right – you show no evidence of understanding much about business.

          2. You have a few points – most of which you have not thought through.

            Advertisers DO target adds.

            That is NOT the same as excercising veto power over who Twitters users are.

            It is highly likely that a gun shop wants to target adds to gun owners, who are much more likely to be republicans.

            But fast food customers are NOT likely a partisan demographic.

            A public forum like Twitter harms itself and its advertisors when it politically constrains its audience for partisan reasons.

            We are now learning that Musk has promised to quadruple revenues in 4 years.

            That is not going to happen if Twitter remains a left wing nut partisan silo and echo chamber.

            Chick-a-filet’s founders were very conservative – they have found the way to isolate their personal politics from their business – because they make more money when more people buy their food.

            McDonalds will kowtow to PETA over the standards its chickens are raised in. It will NOT kowtow to anyone to limit its customers politically – that is bad business.

            There are Niche products in Niche markets that allow owners to be politically selective without being self destructive – but these are few.

            I do not know if I trust Musks claims that he is a free speech advocate.

            I do trust that regardless of what he has said, Musk is going to make money, and that requires an end to censorship.

      2. It is weird we listened to years of you lefties ranting Cizens United – corporations do not have free speech.

        Now aparently ONLY corporations have free speech.

        1. John B. Say,

          “ It is weird we listened to years of you lefties ranting Cizens United – corporations do not have free speech.”

          No, lefties have been ranting that MONEY is not free speech. Citizens United was about corporate donations being protected free speech. That’s a different issue.

          The Supreme Court ruled corporations are people and they have free speech rights like everyone else. It’s not ONLY corporations that have free speech. They ALSO have free speech rights.

          1. Sorry Svelaz, no rewriting history.

            The left repeatedly said Corporations do not have free speech.

            Myriads of leading leftists Argued that should be the Basis of the CU decision.

            The left has ALSO constantly argued about being able to control money.
            Now that you are drowning in it – even those arguments have died.

            As to your claim – Money is not speech. Money is a facilitator of speech.
            It is long established that you can not get around the 1st amendment by indirectly regulating speech.

            The government may not restrict speech by restricting money.

            Alas, Alas for you, Hypocrits that you be.

          2. No the Supreme court did not rule that corporations are people in CU.

            More than a century ago courts simplified corporate legal analysis by grasping that ALL corporations are owned by people – sometimes one, sometimes many. Those PEOPLE do not surrender their rights when the act together for a common purpose.

            The courts created the FICTION of corporate personhood (more than a century ago) to simplifily legal analysis – so as to not have to consider the rights of in some cases millions of shareholders.

            And CU was actually about a film that was Critical of Hillary Clinton. The entire Corporations have no free speech rights – as well as your false claims regarding money were just attempts to silence people making films the left did not like.

            Your constantly accusing others of lies and misinformation – look in the mirror.

            Some people forget the lies and stupidity you sprayed – as recently as yesterday.
            But all of us do not forget.

          3. Actually READ CU

            From the holding:

            “Some members of the public might consider Hillary to
            be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be
            neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the
            Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues
            and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however,
            are not for the Government to make. “The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create
            in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free
            to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of
            ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the
            Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct
            it.” McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).”

          4. CU – Stevens in Dissent

            “The conceit that corporations must be
            treated identically to natural persons in the political
            sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify
            the Court’s disposition of this case.”

            What does it take for you to stop spraying nonsense at everyone when the FACTS are easily checked.

    3. “ I suggest that the companies not be allowed to push opinion in their advertisements. Let them advertise based solely on the merit of their products.”

      That’s censorship duma$$. Not allowing companies to express their opinions is an infringement on THEIR first amendment right to free speech.

      You’re literally advocating for the same anti-free speech position that Turley is complaining about. Private companies have free speech rights just as you do.

      You just suggested that Twitter censor companies from advertising their opinions they put on advertising. You do realize that that will include advertising from political campaigns right? Because political campaigns do ADVERTISING on social media platforms too.

  3. Since when did attacking Professor Turley become sport.
    Turley does not have ‘handlers’ as some of you declare with unprovable certainty, unlike the very obvious and provable ‘Biden has handlers’ is a statement only Joe Biden would disagree with.

  4. This is clearly one of the best from the good professor!
    All five suggestions are great. #3 (filtering) and #4 (ad revenues) are especially great, but #5 is a little more nebulous to effectuate: “Musk will have to create firewall or siloed systems for countries forcing censorship. These systems should post tweets with a warning that these users are being subjected to national censorship standards while protecting U.S. users from having their free speech reduced to the lower common denominator.” But since a silo resembles a fire-walled rocket, creative Musk can handle it.

  5. If private parties are permitted to deny a person’s rights, such as that to free speech, why does the government prosecute and imprison people for the “denial of civil rights” to individuals? Why does such a thing as “civil rights violation” exist under the law? Is free speech not a “civil right” perhaps?

    1. There is no general right to free speech under federal law. There is a right not to have your speech restricted by federal or state governments. In a limited number of cases a private actor can be found to be equivalent to a government for this purpose — for example a “company town.” And a government cannot induce a private actor to censor speech — there is a new complaint brought by Missouri and Louisiana about this, citing the federal government’s efforts to induce big tech to censor speech about various topics. And some argue that “common carrier” principles should apply to the larger tech platforms. But generally we do not have the right to stop private companies from limiting speech on their property or facilities.

    2. Bill Heffner:
      Daniel says, “There is a right not to have your speech restricted by federal or state governments.”
      Of course, his statement refers only to speech content or viewpoint,- and even that permits a few exceptions (e.g., incitement to violence, obscenity, etc.). And we know that gov’ts can also restrict “time, place, manner” regarding mode/DELIVERY of speech.
      More to your point, Bill, (rather than me using my own words), you might search-engine “civil rights vs. civil liberties” and it might answer your very-good question.
      Here’s one example: https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html

  6. “The First Amendment is not the sole or exclusive definition of free speech.” (JT)

    So what is that more inclusive definition?

    Without an objective definition, the use of the concept “free speech” is merely a type of jingoism.

    1. Free speech is jingoism now? I recall a time when even the left regarded free speech as being a foundation of western civilization.

      The first amendment is an instantiation of the principle of free speech (among other things) applied to government. The concept of free speech is much more broad and is a cornerstone of our civilization, not specifically a government notion. When you are running a company that is specifically catered toward allowing discussion it is not an odd concept to apply this standard to user communication. Without the ability to dissent and debate ideas the only thing left is actual violence. Do you not see that free speech is the mechanism to prevent violence? Did you not notice that in almost every dictatorship and before every genocide that this is one of the first things restricted? Do you not understand that preventing people from exposing ideas to scrutiny is what prevents such things from happening?

      1. “Free speech is jingoism now?”

        I guess you felt like leaving out the part about an “objective definition” in Turley’s context of an expanded meaning of “free speech.”

        “. . . it is not an odd concept to apply this standard . . .”

        It’s worse than “odd.” It’s utterly bizarre. 1A tells a government, in effect: Keep your *police powers* away from a citizen’s speech. A private company (such as Twitter) does not have a police department.

        You, and countless others, keep equivocating between government action (which essence is physical force) and private action (which essence is choice and trade).

        By such equivocation, you (and others) make a hash of free speech.

        1. You are conflating 1A and Free Speech. Free Speech is a broader concept. Yes, it would be potentially troublesome (although I do not know about bizarre as we apply these kinds of standards in many different contexts) to apply !A to private companies, but that is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is a private company using a 1A standard to apply to their internal policies on free speech. Also, I think you wildly misunderstand who 1A applies to. No one uses police powers to enforce the 1A, as the 1A only applies to government, so how could you “police” your citizens vis a vis First Amendment? Governments can only police themselves, and they do not use police powers or coercion to do this, they apply internal policy.

          1. Face it: You are against freedom of speech, until it’s denied to you. Then you’ll squeal like the communist you are.

          2. Rusty Rebar,

            “ What is being discussed is a private company using a 1A standard to apply to their internal policies on free speech.”

            As Alito’s own argument goes. Where in the constitution does it say private companies should follow the 1st amendment standard?

            Absolutely nothing compels, requires, promotes, encourages, or implies that private companies follow a 1st amendment standard. Nothing. Turley is critical of companies like Twitter and Facebook because they are doing what THEY are free to do. Just like Turley can with his blog. He is miffed at the unimaginable horror that they have the audacity to run THEIR PRIVATE BUSINESS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN RULES.

            Turley doesn’t run his own blog by the 1st amendment standard. He censors protected speech such as racist comments and offensive terms.

  7. Excellent proposals from Professor Turley. I hope He sends this directly to Musk.

  8. I’m humored by people who think it’s a valid criticism of a person or article to say they write or appear on what’s considered “conservative” sites or channels like FOX. It’s actually an accusation of what’s advertised as mainstream sources that block the conservative point of view on their platforms, forcing people to go to these sources to get a complete picture of a topic.

  9. twitter has an outsized influence. As measured against the number of users. From memory 20% of US people have a twitter account. Of that 20%, less than 10% make up 70% of the posts. What twitter evolved into is a way for persons in the media to publicize their own work. To amplify those messages the media think are important. And of the course, As demonstrated by the outgoing management at twitter, to silence those messages they disagreed with.

    Musk scares the crap out of leftists, because Musk will allow competing ideas. Leftist always fail in an open debate.

    Trump is a great example. For the leftist narrative about how Trump is evil, and stupid, and uninformed, they sure worked hard to reduce the spread of his thoughts. When I hear stupid stuff from leftist, I want it amplified to all can see the idiocy. That how the LoTT got banned. Amplifying the ideas of leftists. Doesn’t make sense, does it?

  10. I just love it when members of the “carry your gun to the state house to intimidate the legislature” crowd talk about free speech, don’t you. Or the doctors can’t tell their patio s about the need or availability of abortion services crowd wax poetic about the First Amendment.

    Republicans and other right wingers Turley included insist that corporations should not be regulated but them insist they should be when they kick the hate mongers off their platforms!

    Burn or ban books but at the same time sing the praises of free speech! Draft and pass legislation that silences teachers and call themselves free speech advocates.

    Yep, Republicans love free speech when it agrees with them otherwise not so much.

    1. You seem troubled. Are you one of the majority of liberals who told Pew Research that they’ve had significant mental illness?

    2. I just love it when members of the “carry your gun to the state house to intimidate the legislature” crowd talk about free speech,

      Only a leftist can think that exercising an enumerated right is some how a bad thing.

    1. Blue checks can be sold to anyone willing to be verified, and corporate or professional accounts charged a higher fee since it’s tax deductible.

  11. Question related to the column – If EU and assorted countries force Twitter to censor in their areas, could users in those areas use Tor browser, Proxy Sites or VPNs to get around those censors?

    1. Presumably possible. But I think the worrisome obstacle there would be whether State Actors try to prevent/penalize/criminalize/etc attempts to circumvent the censorship regardless the “how”….Authoritarian (& worse) governments like those of China, North Korea, Russia, etc reportedly do this. Were a country like the UK or even Ireland to follow suit, they may run into far worse than the summer of 2020 & Canadian Truckers Protests/Riots we had in North America.

  12. Great column.

    Red flags to the lefties.

    They will fight to the death to prevent us from speaking.

  13. Apologies to those who received a premature posting email without a title that included a few topic notes for an editor. This column was originally written for print but then rewritten and posted on the blog to avoid further delay. Sorry for the misfire.

    1. OMG,

      The master actually posted a comment on his own blog! Wonders never cease! Sounds a little fishy though.

        1. No kidding? His archive goes back many years. Maybe I should take a gander at the comments section. How many years ago?

        1. Considering that I’m dealing with lying Trumpists on this blog, you people should be grateful that I am treating you any way I see fit. I’ve got a good mind to stop wasting my time in this cesspool of hate. But I’m paid very handsomely, and I can use the money.

          1. Still a victim of TDS.

            “you people should be grateful that I am treating you any way I see fit.”

            Really ? did you think before you wrote that ?

            If you murder us we should be thankful ?

            No one is being paid to expose you – and yet we do.
            Think about that.

  14. You write that Congress needs to act to blunt the effects of such foreign legislation as the DSA. What do you have in mind to do that?

  15. FREE OR ENSLAVED?

    The whole point of the freedom of speech is to be free to egregiously insult the King, his court and every other person inside and out of the country.

    If peasants cannot insult the dictatorial monarch, the population has no freedom of speech.

    If Americans cannot deploy a compendious, colorful vocabulary, Americans do not have the freedom of speech – the semantic suppression is arbitrary and despotic.

    And Americans are once again oppressed by a tyrannical dictatorship, not dissimilar to the monarchy that was removed by the American Revolution.

  16. This text from Turley’s blog arrived in my mailbox:

    “Below is the rewrite on the Twitter story.

    Other topics:

    Twitter below.

    Targeting Justices, Packing Court, Leaking Opinions. The Left and the Biden White House finally hit the bedrock or rage.

    Post-Roe Reality. Can Congress codify Roe?”
    ————————

    Could this be some inadvertently exposed internal communication between Turley and his Fox handlers? Whom is rewriting whom?

        1. He is that but he is also what Turley refers to as “trolls and juvenile posters”. They bring nothing constructive to the blog. They come here everyday to harass Turley and agitate others but what they really need is for other commenters to reply so they can continue to troll and act like a juveniles. Please ignore them. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

    1. Don’t forget that Prof. Turley also writes for the The Hill and USA Today. Those are both well known as extremist right wing news outlets,,,

    2. Jeff, as stated before I am on Twitter. The topics that you see have been on Turley’s twitter feed. He often posts on subjects not directly referred to here.
      Sorry, no Turley/ Fox conspiracy. I know you are deeply disappointed

      1. If you say so, but I’m going to pull a page out of the Trumpist playbook and nonetheless allege a conspiracy because I BELIEVE it.

        1. …nonetheless allege a conspiracy because I BELIEVE it…

          Yep typical leftist make accusations without evidence.

          1. I SAID I was pulling a page out of YOUR Trumpist playbook just to see how you liars like it….

            The Trumpist Big Lie being a case in point.

          2. Please stop replying to the “trolls and juvenile posters”. Ignore them.

        2. Does it matter whether lots of uncoordinated people sharing the same delusions advanced the same idiotic claims or burried the same truth,
          or they organized into a conspiracy.

          The collusion delusion was a HOAX – one that almost the entire left believed and foist on us all.

          Conspiracy or mass psychosis – does it matter ?

          The nonsense that the Biden’s had no disreptuable dealings in foreigh countries and that VP Biden was not involved is much the same.

          Left conspiracy ? or Mass psychosis ? Does it matter ?

          1. Say,

            I take Turley’s opinion seriously on such matters, not lying Trumpists. He presumes that people are acting in good faith, right or wrong. I respect that about him. Turley has NEVER used the word “hoax” which Trumpists casually throw around. That’s an UNDENIABLE fact, like it or not.

            1. I have not cross referenced everything Turley has ever said.

              The collusion delusion was a CLASIC HOAX.

              That is not thrown arround.

              There is plenty of evidence – Danchenko at brookings wrote the Steele Dossier – it did not come from Russian sources.
              Most of what is in it came from gossip from Glenn Simpson or from people at the DNC.

              There is testimony, depositions, etc now to confirm that.

              When you take a work of fiction and sell it to the FBI as truth – that is called a HOAX.

              If Turley is not prepared to say that yet – he is slow, or not familiar with the facts.

              The Alpha Bank claim was similarly examined by the CIA and found to be human manufactured data – i.e. not actual logs of internet traffic, but made up – i.e. a HOAX.

              I do not use hoax lightly – but I do use it where it is appropriate.

              1. Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. You may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse you. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack you. The attack is psychological and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that – do not listen.

    1. Wish he could, but he was born in South Africa, so he is constitutionally barred…

      1. How about if he self-identifies as an African-American transgender woman? That should get the radical left in his corner too.

    2. President would be a step down even if Musk could run. He’s making much more of a contribution right where he is, free to do whatever he wants to do.

Leave a Reply