Harvard Journal Publishes Turley Free Speech Study

I am happy to report that my law review article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is now out in print. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” explores the anti-free speech movement in the United States and the increasingly common claim that free speech itself is harmful. I wanted to thank the journal editors and staff for their tireless efforts to bring this rather lengthy work to print. It was a great pleasure to work with each and every one of the law students who contributed to the editing and sourcing of this law review.

Here is an excerpt:

Throughout its history, the United States has struggled with movements that aim to silence others through state or private action. These periods have been pendulous, with acute suppression followed by relative tolerance for free speech. This boom–or-bust pattern for free speech may well continue. However, the United States is arguably living through one of its most serious anti-free speech periods, and there are signs that the current period could result in lasting damage for free speech due to a rising orthodoxy and intolerance on our campuses and in our public debate.

Where fighting for freedom of speech was once a near-universal rallying cry, opposing free speech has now become an article of faith for some in our society. This has led to a rising movement that justifies silencing opposing views, often on the grounds that stopping others from speaking is, in fact, an exercise in free speech. This movement has both public and private components, but it is different from any prior period due to new technological, political, and economic pressures on the exercise of free speech.

The struggle for free speech in the United States is interwoven with our history, from the colonial period to the present day. From the outset, there was a clear concept of free speech, but not a clear commitment to protecting it. Indeed, figures like Thomas Paine and John Peter Zenger raised many issues against the English Crown that are still debated today in conflicts over free speech and the free press. Anti-free speech movements tend to rise from deep fractures in our society in periods of unrest. The sense of great injury felt by many can be translated into a license to silence those who are seen as causing or exacerbating that injury. These periods provide an opportunity not only for government abuses but also for extremist groups to feed on social unrest. In recent years, various extremist groups have emerged on both ends of the ideological spectrum, from the Boogaloo movement on the far right to the Antifa movement on the far left. However, the greatest threat to free speech today is the growing support for censorship and speech codes in the mainstream of political and academic thought.

The rise in speech regulation is often defended on the basis that free speech itself is a danger. This article explores the rationalization that speech controls are justified as a defense or response to the harm posed by opposing views. It is a framing that explicitly or implicitly raises the “harm principle” of John Stuart Mill—with a lethal twist. Many have long relied upon the harm principle in a myriad of areas to define the limits on government controls and action, particularly in defense of free speech. A type of Millian harm principle is now being used to justify both government controls and private action to silence those with opposing views. Indeed, the antifree speech movement on our campuses is often defended as a type of militant Millian movement, a construct that is neither faithful to Mill’s writing nor logical in its application. Yet that same rationale has been used by social media companies as the foundation for the robust censorship programs now enforced across the media in what is often called the “post-truth” environment.

This article looks at the anti-free speech movement and its reliance on the harm rationale. However, it is important to note that arguments for greater speech regulation often reject another aspect of Mill’s writings on free speech: the self-corrective or protective capacity of free speech systems. That view is treated as hopelessly and even dangerously outdated. One commentator wrote, “Many more of the most noble old ideas about free speech simply don’t compute in the age of social media. John Stuart Mill’s notion that a ‘marketplace of ideas’ will elevate the truth is flatly belied by the virality of fake news.”

Such claims are often presented as manifestly true. The fact that “disinformation” or hateful speech exists on social media is treated as evidence that traditional Millian notions of free speech are proven failures. Such a view ignores that neither Mill nor his adherents ever claimed that free speech would chase bad speech from the media platforms or our lives. Disinformation and hateful speech existed in Mill’s life and have always existed as part of human interactions. Free speech does not cure stupidity; it merely exposes it.

79 thoughts on “Harvard Journal Publishes Turley Free Speech Study”

    1. “So just how bad does Harvard hate America then?”

      – Jeff B
      ______

      Harvard hates America as badly as Abraham Lincoln did.

      No other person ultimately killed one million Americans, and completely razed and destroyed residences, farms, industries, cities and entire regions, without any degree of authority or legal basis, and thoroughly bereft of even a modicum of compunction, remorse or shame – “crazy!”

      “Crazy Abe” circuitously admitted as much:
      _________________________________

      “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

      – Abraham “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, Destroyer of the Constitution of the United States of America

  1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS INVIOLABLE – THE CONSTITUTION HOLDS DOMINION – NOT LEGISLATORS, EXECUTIVES, JUDGES, JOURNALISTS, EXPERTS, OR ACADEMICS
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…”

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    ___________________________________________

    The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court.

    The Constitution has not failed America.

    The legislative and executive branches were fully expected to lapse and seize power.

    The sole charge of the Supreme Court is to assure that actions comport with fundamental law.

    Justices swear an oath to support the Constitution, not to legislate, modify legislation, or modify legislation by “interpretation.”

    Justices have not been up to the task.

    The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court.
    _______________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. How has the Supreme Court failed to uphold the free speech protections in the first amendment (Federal level) and 14th amendment (State level)?

  2. It would seem that the first and 14th amendments provide a floor for the decline of free speech that JT is concerned about. It also seems from his article that Congress could in some areas promote or protect free speech through some targeted legislation or as a condition of some education funding. If this it not enough for JT to get at the decline of private free speech, I wonder why he doesn’t propose an amendment to the Constitution to expand the 1st amendment to cover private speech in some manner.

    1. Ah, you’ve hit on the nub.

      Thank you so much.

      The 14th and all of Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation, oppression and tyranny, and are unconstitutional and illegitimate.

      They await correction and remediation by the Supreme Court after 150 years, similar to that recently dispensed regarding abortion after 50 years, which was not dissimilar to the corrective action of the 21st Amendment related to the 18th after 13 years.

      Lincoln chose not to follow (i.e. obey for those of you in Rio Linda) the law with reference to fully constitutional secession and the Naturalization Act of 1802 – causing all conditions and effects of his illegal actions to be, similarly, illegal, unconstitutional and illegitimate.
      ___________________________________________

      See if this helps:
      _____________

      “If you’re half right, you’re half wrong, if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”

      – Anonymous
      ___________

      The Supreme Court found that a constitutional “right” to abortion was “all wrong.”

      The denial of fully constitutional secession was “all wrong.”

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was and remains “all wrong.”

      The effects of Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” are “all wrong.”

      Now we can’t have that, can we?

      1. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments have been adopted and are recognized as valid by the entire legal community. Even in the recent gun and abortion rights decisions that you supported, all members of the court implicitly recognized the validity of the 14th amendment.

        1. Oh, my!

          Thank you so much.

          Roe v Wade was “adopted and…recognized as valid,” understood, conclusively and definitively, to be a right of Americans enumerated by the Constitution.

          Uhhhh! Not so much!!!

          Roe v Wade, that which communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America believed to be legal, constitutional, valid and legitimate, turned out to be illicit, illegal and irrefutably unconstitutional – something akin to the 21st Amendment making the 18th illegal, unconstitutional, invalid and illegitimate.

          Seriously, you just said that?

          Moving on, please cite the Constitution for the power of Congress to tax for or regulate matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

          You can’t because the entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional.

          Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.

          Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

          Let’s talk Articles and Sections, OK?

        2. “The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments have been adopted and are recognized as valid by the entire legal community.”
          ______________________________________________________________________________________________

          Now you get the point.

          The entire American welfare state cannot be taxed for and is unconstitutional and illegitimate.

          That says a lot about “the entire legal community,” doesn’t it?

          The irrevocably unconstitutional Obamacare is still supported by the “entire legal community.”

          Corruption goes deep and wide.

          1. George, To help you gain a better understanding of the Constitution and historical facts, I note the following: (1) the Civil War is over. (2) the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were adopted and ratified, (3) Texas v White (1869) — Court held no right of a State to secede. Also, no provision in Constitution permits or sets forth a process for secession. (4) The welfare state and other laws and programs you cite are constitutional based on the general welfare clause — Hellvering v Davis (1937) — and the commerce clause — Wickard v Filburn (1942).

  3. (OT)

    Yesterday, the DOJ filed a motion in the Oath Keepers case giving “notice of its intent to introduce certain evidence at trial including: First, evidence that certain co-conspirators traveled to Washington, D.C., in November 2020 and, like for January 6, 2021, organized an armed Quick Reaction Force (“QRF”). Second, evidence that co-conspirator Jeremy Brown transported explosives to the Washington, D.C., area on January 6, 2021. Third, evidence that certain co-conspirators including Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, and Jessica Watkins discussed and prepared for violent conflict with government actors after January 6 and before January 20, demonstrating the co-conspirators’ plan to oppose the lawful transfer of power before Inauguration Day. Fourth, evidence that co-conspirator Jessica Watkins possessed bomb-making instructions during the charged conspiracy as evidence of Watkin’s preparation to use force against the government. And fifth, evidence that co-conspirator Thomas Caldwell possessed a “death list” with the names of Georgia election officials and, later, attempted to have someone build him firearms before January 20, showing Caldwell’s intent to oppose government actors by force to stop the transfer of presidential power.”
    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.239208/gov.uscourts.dcd.239208.187.0.pdf

    Parker Malloy points out that some of this has been public knowledge for quite a while:
    “… The thing about monitoring right-wing media during the Trump years is that when it came to the really fringy outlets (see: InfoWars), they’d just come right out and say exactly what they were planning to do, but it was mostly brushed off because, hey, InfoWars. …”
    https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1545786702471512066

    The trial should prove interesting.

    I wonder if Roger Stone — who was with some of the Oath Keepers on J6 and also earlier called for Trump to carry out illegal acts (discussed in one of the links in the Malloy thread) — will be linked to this conspiracy.

    1. What does this have to do with the topic? Other than to offer punctuation for JT’s closing non mot?

  4. It’s always a fight to keep free speech. I think that’s why it’s so emphasized in the constitution. Europe only pays lip service to the concept. Even the UK places great limits on free speech, in France it’s been criminal to criticize the president and on and on. There are many arrests in Europe regarding speech that would never pass constitutional muster in the US. The main constraint in the US is the private sector and especially the “free press”. Our options there, as a conservative, are limited. But it would be nice if the Supreme Court were to modify their standard for libel and slander, especially in regards to public figures. The only place slander or libel should be protected is on the floor of a legislative chamber (with limits). We need more original thinking in conservative legal circles as how to use the law we have to force further change to open up free speech. When almost all non conservative media suppressed Hunter Biden’s laptop story, was that not, in fact, a conspiracy to suppress salient information for the public to know during an election. It seems to rise to conspiracy when those who tried to mention the story were, in turn, virtually banned from the internet which is one of the major news sources of much of the population. Or the many outright lies told by news organizations. I think any press, right or left, needs to be truthful and should pay the price when they are not.

    1. The UK doesn’t even pay lip service to free speech anymore. You can be jailed for making racist remarks. I’m a black man but that idea horrifies me.

    2. GEB says:

      “I think any press, right or left, needs to be truthful and should pay the price when they are not.”

      Fox News is being sued for billions of dollars for defaming Smartmatic and Dominion voting systems by broadcasting and affirming Trump’s voter fraud conspiracy lies. Fox may pay a very heavy price.

      However, you won’t read about the legal developments in these lawsuits on this blog because Turley works for Fox. He mentioned them but ONCE several months ago.

      Since then, crickets…

      1. Have you seen that lawsuit go anywhere ?

        Don;t expect it to.
        DVS is not going to want to grant Fox discovery.

        There are already LOTS of problems that have been discovered with DVS equipment.
        That will all get rehashed or further exposed in a lawsuit.

        Further DVS qualifies as a public figure so the standard will be malice.

        Additionally there is a public policy and first amendment issue.
        We do not want to preclude the press from reporting news for fear they might be sued.

        And finally – any harm to Fox in the DVS case will benefit Trump in his collusion delusion lawsuit.

        But Trump has an advantage over DVS – he has nothing to fear from dscovery.
        Anything related to the Collusion Delusion is already out there.

          1. Have you seen the case go anywhere ?

            There are any number of legal cases against Trump or others that the left files and celebrated.
            Nearly all are dormant or dead.

              1. Your own links cites several of these as closed.

                Further there is plenty of reporting that many others are Dead.

                I have not said there are no pending cases – only that so far Trump has not lost an actual case.

                He has lost some motions won others and slowly the cases disappear.

                All those related to J6 will die once they hit Judges that follow the law.

                SCOTUS has been very clear that incitement is extremely narrow – you can look up the cases, they have nothing to do with Trump,
                And not only is there no remark from Trump that meets the requirements for incitement – there is no remarks from ANYONE that meet it.

                Nor do you want to win these if you are sane – Myriads of democrats have made statements that are far closer to incitement than anyting Trump or J6 protestors have said.

                Do you really want half the democrats in congress losing incitements lawsuits ?

                1. “Your own links cites several of these as closed.”

                  Yes, and it shows many more that are open.

                  I gave you evidence that my claim “There are a number of active suits against Trump” is TRUE.

                  “Further there is plenty of reporting that many others are Dead.”

                  And unlike me, you provide zero evidence that your claim is true. Your claims are worthless without evidence. You’re the same guy who cannot tell the difference between geometric growth and exponential growth and who, when provided evidence that many of his math claims were false, could not bring himself to admit it.

                  “I have not said there are no pending cases”

                  And I didn’t say you did.

                  “only that so far Trump has not lost an actual case.”

                  THAT is false. Trump has lost cases; here are a couple off examples: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-court-says-some-trump-financial-records-must-be-handed-house-panel-2022-07-08/
                  https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-farm-near-his-scottish-golf-resort-1450275439
                  Trump has also settled many suits rather than risk a jury trial and has paid tens of millions in settlements.

                  “He has lost some motions”

                  He has lost some CASES.

                  If you’re not truthful enough to admit it, that’s your problem.

                  1. “And unlike me, you provide zero evidence that your claim is true.”

                    The issues you took a side on, that are now settled, demonstrate that if one is gambling, gamble against this anonymous. He has been wrong on everything of major significance.

                    If you want to argue I am wrong, list the side you took on all the important cases against Trump. Start with the impeachments and the Steele Dossier.

                  2. More are open. If it included ALL that are closed they would far outnumber the open ones.

                    Trump has lost many skirmishes, he has NOT consequentially lost ANY consequential battles.

                    That should be meaningful – a person capable of critical thinking would grasp that with the full power of the FBI/DOJ various states even biased courts, and the media, todate no one has found anything truly damning.

                    You do not survive that array of forces against you, if you are not incredibly clean.

                    I understand that Trump offends you – he can be very offensive at times.
                    But that is not a Crime.

                    Trump alleged an actual crime with respect to the Bidens in Ukraine – influence peddling and abuse of power.
                    The is substantial evidence of that.

                    Most of the allegations against Trump are not even thinly veiled efforts to criminalize political differences.

                    Are Schumer and pelosi criminally culpable for he efforts to assassinate Kavanaugh ? Of course no.
                    Nor is Trump responsible for the limitedcriminal conduct that actually occured on J6.

                    If harrassing Supreme court justices to either change their oppinions or to punish them for those oppinions is not insurection,
                    Then doing the same to legislators regarding an election is no different.

                    Those of you who beleive there is a constitutional right to an abortion, and protest over that are no different that those who beleive the election was fraudulent.

                  3. Every business settles law suits.

                    I settled an employment discrimination lawsuit that I had already essentially won – because the settlement was less than the legal cost of several days of hearings to wrap it up. Nor did I have any animous towards the employee. I did not want to lay him off, but I had no productive work for him and I had to make cuts or risk going bankrupt.

                    It is a personal failure everytime I have to lay someone off or fire them.

                    But it is not a crime, nor a violation of the law.

                    Nor are settlements evidence of wrongdoing.

                  4. If you have an actual case he has lost – provide that.

                    I am sure that somewhere sometime Trump must have lost some case.

                    Settlements are not losses, they are just settlements.

                    Even actual legal losses are not proof of wrongdoing,

                    Trump settled the Trump U case for as you say “tens of millions” of dollars.
                    Most Trump U students got very little.
                    Trump U students were NOT defrauded.

                    They paid Trump to provide them with the secret to success.
                    And Trump provided motivational speakers as an important part of that.

                    Go to any book store, there are whole rafts of “get rich quick” books.
                    Nearly all work – or atleast will get you rich – but not quickly and not easily.

                    Because the “secret” is not some trick, or gimmick. It is being highly motivated,
                    Getting up off your ass and working hard as he11 when it is hard to see success.

                    Trump U students got what they paid for – the actual secret to success.

                    Elon Musk is risking walking away for a Billion dollars by backing out of the twitter deal.

                    Is that proof you has committed some crime ? Some transgression ?

                  5. The various battles over records are not CASES atleast not in the broadest sense – though some are standalone.

                    They are skirmishes in larger battles and are often strategic regardless of the outcome.

                    Trump has had to turn over a large amount of records. But by fighting each of those demands Trump has made it far harder for those getting the records to leak them.

                    You will notice that there have been very few leaks of the records Trump has provided – despite these places leaking like sieves.

                    Because leaking information that Trump challenged up to the supreme court, would likely result in criminal contempt charges,

                    Further leaking that information would factor heavily against future requests for information – by anyone.

              2. Did Daniels win her lawsuit against Trump ? But she won her lawsuit against Avanati.

                Did the Emoluments claim go anywhere ?

                Did Crossfire Hurricane get anywhere ?
                Did Mueller get anywhere ?

                Trump has been sued or otherwise in court with left wing nuts and left wing nut prosecutors since 2016.
                Everything that has resolved has resolved in his favor.

                Idiotic legal theories from faux lawyers on the left do no constitute actual wrong doing.

                Mostly they make those on the left look like the liars they are.

        1. The Dominion lawsuit is continuing. Dominion just successfully fought off a Fox attempt to get the suit dismissed.

            1. In other words, you have no factual response to the facts that the Dominion lawsuit is continuing, and Dominion just successfully fought off a Fox attempt to get the suit dismissed.

              1. You have been wrong on almost every important issue, so on that basis alone, I will put my money on Say. I don’t think you will break your near perfect record of being wrong.

              2. Like I said – keep that hopium flowing.

                The Lawsuit by Micheal Mann against Mark Stein is still ongoing – yet Stein long ago effectively won it.

                The lawsuits by the Covington Kids lawsuits proceed rapidly and were settled quickly. Because they were losers.

                I will predict that the DVS lawsuit will die probably by sealed settlement either at or shortly before the court orders discovery.

                Neither party can afford to lose.

      2. “and affirming Trump’s voter fraud conspiracy lies. “

        If your claim lies entirely behind Trump claiming election fraud and the like, then you have failed miserably. There is substantial proof that Trump’s claim was not frivolous (it is true). Therefore such a tactic gets thrown out by the judge if the plaintiffs don’t run away first.

        As I told you when this question first arose, these companies likely have more to lose than gain by going to court. Therefore I foresee the case being dropped or if not dropped, settled out of court with the settlement remaining undisclosed.

        If your argument remains Trump’s claim, then it is obvious you have nothing to say.

      3. Smartmatic and Dominion aren’t voters, so how do you imagine their actions could (truly or falsely) be denoted as “voter fraud”?

  5. Thank you, Professor Turley, for your increasingly courageous efforts to defend free speech. Now even Elon Musk has decided the Matrix is beyond fixing. The battle for the hearts and minds of America is far from over.

    Beijing is behind some of this anti-speech hate. Some years ago, they got sizzled by worldwide condemnation over Tibet, and I’m sure a conscious decision was made by the CCP to undermine their critics by coopting the business classes in other countries. That tactic has been shamelessly transparent and effective.

    Beijing’s other tactic is to attack free speech along the fault lines of race in the Western democracies. Some people will do anything for money, and the CCP is finding them.

    Our only hope against Beijing and their globalist confederates is… Beijing and their globalist confederates. The world is a place of unlimited corruption, cruelty, and malfeasance–just as the Founding Fathers warned.

    Globalism was critical in the first 20 years in defeating the Soviet Union, but the last 20 years has been 911, the international financial crisis, covid, and Ukraine; every one of these events hammering American politics.

    And there is so much garbage in the pipe it’s bound to get worse. The border is wide open to terrorists and drug cartels; there’s so much overleveraging, “moral hazard” has become a euphemism; and Democrats actually can’t wait for the next pandemic so they can make every vote count (FOR LESS.)

    America needs an enema, and Joe Biden–the greatest joker that ever occupied the Whitehouse, is just the man to give it to them. Good luck with that, globalists.

    1. A couple of lawyers’ comments with some evidence from Musk’s contracts and related legal rulings:

      “To recap Musk’s behavior— – illegally accumulated stock without disclosing his interest, filed a misleading 13g – agreed to join board and signed a standstill, reneged on it within days – offered a then-low price, got board approval, signed a merger agmt, reneged on it within 3w”
      https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1526294843085008899
      “Musk waived business due diligence in making his offer, and the Twitter board quite clearly relied on that waiver in accepting it.”
      https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1526548290770198528 — includes an excerpt from the waiver

      “There’s a lot of confusion on my timeline about whether Elon has a right to walk from the Twitter deal for $1bn. No. He would write that check right this second if he could walk away. The agreement allows Twitter to try to make him buy the company at the price he agreed. 1/ … [thread]
      “Objection 1: …
      “Objection 2: …
      “Objection 3: Elon’s right, they’re breaching by not giving this info. Maybe! That’s what the trial will be for. But the provision is not favorable to Musk on its face. And I think any lawyer would say they’d rather be Twitter than Musk. Btw, here is how the Proxy statement, which is slightly more plain English than the M&A agreement, describes my point above …”
      twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/1545601168449175552

      The trial should prove interesting.

      1. “The trial should prove interesting.”

        You have some interesting points, but whether or not Musk prevails, Twitter loses.

        Based on the pricing of Twitter stock, I think settlement might be an option for both parties, so this might never make it to trial. Both can lose, so the cards are in the air. The big question is whether or not Musk wants Twitter at this time. He keeps his cards close to his chest and does a lot of feinting maneuvers betting that he will win big and that his losses will not be too bad.

        That is the typical gamble all investors take. They might take many risks hoping that one will pay off big enough to cover the losers and make a tremendous profit as well. That type of gambling is only for those with the resources to cover a lot of losing bets.

        If I recall Musk’s purchase price was ~$54 and recently ~34. Twitter may fall further based on what we are hearing. Assume there is a settlement because both parties feel there is a 50:50 chance of losing. Everyone is at risk, including personal risk to the Twitter board making the decision. (There are also undefined risks of lies and deception leading to personal or (unlikely) criminal liability. Therefore all persons are incentivized to settle. Therefore, one might see a settlement with the reduction of the stock price to between $54 and $34. Twitter loses. Musk wins.

    2. The Twitter v Musk trial should prove interesting.

      My bet is on Twitter winning, but time will tell.

      1. Several weeks back, Musk was looking for a bunch of “Top Gun Lawyers” for an unstated purpose. My guess, is, he was several moves ahead of Twitter. Musk is not stupid. He likely gamed out all possible scenarios. So, my money is on Musk. Especially since Alex Berenson recently had victory? Settlement, with Twitter in his case against them.

    3. Good post. Keep in mind, it’s all for the Liberal World Order. Or so we were told by the Biden administration.

      I understand evil people will always exist, but they are vastly outnumbered by the rest of us. What makes good people comply and actively participate with evil?

      1. “What makes good people comply and actively participate with evil?” Money and cowardice? There’s plenty of both.

        Yep, Joe talks like the “Liberal Word Order” is in charge, but his donors are just Beijing’s toadies. What the globalists don’t understand or refuse to admit is that international organizations are always just front groups for the ascendant power, whoever that is. It’s either Beijing or Washington, but with Joe running things in D.C., the billionaire class is betting on Beijing.

      2. Sometimes “good people comply and actively participate with evil” because they’re ignorant or deluded or mentally ill. For example, Oky1 strikes me as a good person, but I’d say that he’s a conspiracy theorist, and he helps evil people by promoting their lies.

        Sometimes “good people comply and actively participate with” what you consider evil because they don’t agree with you that it’s evil, and those some people may view you as complying and actively participating with evil. I bet that’s what Oky1 would say in response to my comment above.

        Building on those 2 answers, perhaps you can think of other answers to your question.

  6. “. . . silence others through state or private action.” (JT)

    A government issues a list of banned books. It enforces that ban via its police powers.

    A publisher chooses to reject my manuscript.

    You classify both of those actions as “censorship?!”

    Please learn the fundamental difference between compulsion (state action) and choice (private action). The former is censorship. The latter is not.

    1. He does classify both as censorship, as he’s made clear in multiple columns about private action by companies like Twitter and Facebook.

      In his columns, I’ve never seen him address in any significant way the companies own First Amendment rights not to publish speech that is contrary to their Terms. Perhaps he does so in the article (I haven’t read it yet), but I won’t hold my breath. He also generally ignores his own “censorship” of comments here.

    2. “. . . silence others through state or private action.” (JT

      Sam, before criticizing Turley the way you have, I think you should recognize that compulsion and choice are not the only two variables that can silence others through private action.

  7. Everyone that reads and/or participates in Professor Turley’s site should read this great law review article so as to understand the underpinnings of the professor’s basic viewpoint regarding free speech. Sometimes I even fall into thinking “maybe Turley has gone too far with his support of this being allowed”, but this explains the reasoning behind the philosophy and everyone should read it.

    1. and yet, the Democrats kept Hunter’s laptop suppressed from American voters prior to the presidential election. Had Americans had knowledge of Hunter’s free speech content on the laptops, Joe Biden would still be in his basement in Rhode Island where he belongs. Big Tech, the MSM, FBI, DOJ, CIA and DNC had knowledge of Hunter Biden’s laptop content but Americans did not. Yes, it was a stolen election after all

      Instead of regulating guns, Joe Biden and his dysfunctional, dangerous family should be regulated

      ‘GO F*** YOURSELF’ Hunter Biden called Jill Biden a ‘vindictive moron’ and blasted her teaching skills in foul-mouthed argument over rehab

      https://www.the-sun.com/news/5733242/hunter-biden-jill-biden-vindictive-moron-argument-rehab/

      Raging against her reaction in a further text message to his uncle, Hunter – a graduate of Yale Law School – said he told English teacher Jill he was smarter than her. He said: “I said Yang ow [you know] what mom you’re a f****** moron. A vindictive moron. “I suooorted [supported] my GM family including some of the costs you should have used your salary to lay (pay) for – for the last 24 years. “And you do know the drunkest I’ve ever been is still smarter than you could ever even comprehend and you’re a shut (sic) grammar teacher that wouldn’t survive one class in a ivy graduate program. “So go f*** yourself Jill let’s all agree I don’t like you anymore than you like me.”

  8. A conservative publication by Harvard law students? Does Harvard U. know about this?

    😉

    ABOUT HARVARD JLPP
    The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the top five most widely circulated law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.

    https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/

  9. I recently finished reading a collection of articles titled “Free Speech Century”. Overall a worthwhile read, altho there were a couple of articles that tended to belie the books title.

    Any idea how I can obtain a copy of this article?

  10. I think this one sentence sums it all “Free speech does not cure stupidity; it merely exposes it.”

    Most of the students and professors who advocate anti free speech are to stupid to participate in a higher education. The professor’s teach bogus courses as for the students they’re acceptance into universities is not based on merit. They leave as stupid as they entered that is if they’re able to get through their first semester.

    1. Margot, you hit the nail on the head. The line you quoted jumped out at me too and it was a great way for the Professor to end his paper.

      Anonymous, a missing o at the end of “too” by someone writing in a comments section does not mean that the writer does not know the difference between “to” and “too”, it means that they are not a professional typists or editor. But hey, you do you!

      1. Hull, until 1828 when Webster came out with his first dictionary, spelling was not a thing if what was written was understandable.

        This Anonymous troll likely goes into vapor lock trying to read anything written by our founding fathers. That would explain quite a lot.

        1. On the contrary, intelligence enables one to interpret things in context. What is a typo in a 21st century comment need not be a typo in an 18th century document.

      2. Anonymous is in an all-out war with those he disagrees with. He made two comments about the extra o in the word too. The first comment he made was on an address to be deleted and it was. In that fashion, he could be doubly anonymous. First, he has no name, and second, he has no entry after the insult on the blog.

        He has done this several times this morning:

        To another anonymous, he wrote:
        “Incoherent response. Get some sleep or check meds.”

        To Bill Cohn
        “Another incoherent response. See above.”

        To another anonymous, he wanted to make sure his comment could not be replied to so he felt more secure about stating a mistruth or inaccuracy.

        “Periodically trump has complete lapses of speech. And we all know he has to be walked down ramps.”

        Trump was wearing shoes on a ramp not made for those shoes. We have all seen him and know that is why he was “walked down”. ATS intentionally deceives and lies. while having no record of either.

        NOTHING ANONYMOUS THE STUPID SAYS CAN BE TRUSTED.

        To Margo Balthere which you already mentioned.
        But his first comment initially was, “I wonder how many of those students actually know the expression is ‘too stupid’ rather than ‘to stupid’?”

        To Iowan:
        “None of what you just said is true. Batting a thousand, buddy.”

        All of these were deleted so no trace on the blog exists. The same happens when he uses an address that others respond to and then as anticipated by anonymous they get deleted as well.

        This demonstrates an antisocial personality exhibited on the blog by Anonymous the Stupid. Such behavior cannot be stopped without affecting the blog’s speech policy.

        However, the blog could make everyone sign on with a distinct alias icon combination with or without a confirmed address.

    2. “students they’re acceptance into universities is not based on merit. They leave as stupid as they entered that is if they’re able to get through their first semester.”

      That’s by design! Who better to brainwash and corrupt?

    3. Although I think that it has gotten worse of late, I think it has always been true that most students at our institutions of higher education have always left “as stupid as they entered.” About 300 years ago, Ben Franklin wrote, alluding to Harvard students, that “they left as ignorant as they came.” So, I think it is true that “free speech does not cure stupidity,” but it is also true that education does not cure stupidity. Education, if it works at all, also exposes stupidity. If a student has really learned anything from his or her education, it is that he or she is still ignorant of most things. At best, we can hope that this revelation spurs an interest in learning more and being open to different ideas. Most graduates, however, believe they know just about everything and are not only uninterested in hearing other ideas but are, in fact, hostile to any ideas that might reveal their ignorance.

    4. “Most of the students and professors who advocate anti free speech are [too] stupid to participate in a higher education. The [professors] teach bogus courses. [A]s for the students, [their] acceptance into universities is not based on merit.”

      You know, if you’re going to complain about others’ stupidity, you might want to proofread what you write and avoid easily falsifiable claims.

      1. Norman, thanks for the proof read but you got the point. Yes I’ll periodically make errors in spelling and grammar but that’s because I’m a real regular person. So I encourage you to keep reading my posts for errors maybe not likely the light of a good person will bring some good of you to light?

        I sense I hit a nerve with you but that’s a good thing. How’s that wig working for you?

  11. Fascists don’t care…they are greedy. hate filled, hypocrites.

    Hunter Biden like people didn’t get RICH from their work….they get RICH from USING YOUR GOVERNMENT!

    Time to remove 90% of DC Federal Government to the HEARTLAND!

    Remember Democrats are fine with Civil Wars….this won’t be their first!

    1. “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”

      ― Carl Sagan

      I have seen similar quotes attributed to others

  12. To update Groucho…’ I would never want to join a Tribe with Laurence in it’

  13. Leftists are not against free speech, as long as no one censors the idiotic things they say. But let one conservative chime in anything against their narrative and they have conniptions.

Leave a Reply