Below is my column in the New York Post on the media meltdown over the Musk takeover at Twitter. The column again suggests a way for Musk to make a clean break from the censorship culture and apparatchiks at Twitter: the First Amendment Option. Musk has already made great progress toward restoring free speech on the platform with the firing of the two chief censors at the company, but the deconstruction of one of the world’s largest censorship systems will be a challenge in the weeks and months ahead.
Here is the column:
News reports last week seemed to start out like a bar joke: The richest man in the world walks in carrying a sink . . .
Of course, it was a joke — a colossal joke. The question is whom the joke is on.
For Elon Musk, the punch line was appropriately delivered on Twitter, the company he’s taking over Friday at an inflated price. Calling himself “Chief Twit,” Musk posted the video with the caption “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!”
For the Musk-phobic, it was as funny as a drive-by shooting. CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem denounced Musk’s taunt as “fundamentally cruel.” After all, when Musk was first reported to be buying the company, employees were so traumatized that leadership had to offer emotional support just to “get through the week.”
The reason is less the fear of Musk bringing bathroom fixtures than free speech into San Francisco headquarters. Twitter has created one of the largest censorship systems in world history — a system widely condemned for a pattern of political bias and viewpoint intolerance.
Outgoing CEO Parag Agrawal is unabashedly hostile to traditional views of free speech. Soon after he took over, he pledged to regulate content and said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
For employees who are true believers of this censorship scheme, the joke no doubt feels like it’s on them. The censorship skill set may not be quite as much in demand in a Musk-owned firm. While Facebook, Google and other companies are still committed to corporate censorship, Musk has pledged to restore free speech principles to Twitter.
But the joke may still be on Musk if he yields to Twitter’s corporate culture or the mainstream media’s unrelenting pressure. Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship.
Clinton has called on foreign governments to step in and pass laws that would force Twitter to continue to censor opposing views. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike.
Musk may have to yield to such domestic laws, but he can use his platform to inform citizens of those countries they are being censored and controlled in what they are allowed to read.
The most important thing in America is for Musk to hit the ground running at Twitter.
First, he needs to order the preservation of all records. There are well-supported examples of biased censorship, including the burying of The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the election. There are also allegations of back-channel communications from the government to manage a type of censorship-by-surrogate system to evade the First Amendment.
Second, Musk should focus on the First Amendment as a model for Twitter’s content-management policy. It has become a mantra on the left that free-speech objections to social-media censorship are meritless because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations.
This is a knowingly cynical and senseless argument. The First Amendment has never been the sole and exclusive measure of free speech. It concerns the greatest threat to free speech at the time of the founding. But corporate censorship on communication platforms is an equal, if not greater, threat today to free-speech values.
Musk could call these anti-free-speech advocates’ bluff. Former President Barack Obama flogged this false line at Stanford in April. He started by declaring himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”
Like many others on the left, Obama claims to be a free-speech champion but narrowly confines such fealty to government censorship. He emphasized, “The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter.”
While the First Amendment does not bind private corporations, there is nothing preventing one — like Twitter — voluntarily assuming such protections for free speech. Even with some adjustments for a private forum, what I call the First Amendment Option would create a default in favor of free speech that doesn’t exist on these platforms.
There’d be narrow exceptions for threatening, unlawful and a few other proscribed categories of speech. Twitter can tap into a long line of First Amendment jurisprudence limiting the scope of such speech regulations. Even with a private company’s greater flexibility, a First Amendment-based policy would establish much better protections for free speech.
In other words, Musk could show up at Twitter with precisely the standard long dismissed by censorship advocates — and then let that sink in.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
According to TNYT Twitter put up $13 billion in a leveraged buyout so Musk only forked over $41 billion.
TNYT is state media, propaganda, fake news — take your pick.
Your math skills are below the level of a first grader.
Today, Elon Musk tweeted fake news about Paul Pelosi’s attack, then deleted his tweet with the fake news, but he couldn’t bring himself to act like a mature adult and admit he was wrong to have posted conspiracy garbage. Recently he promoted Kanye West, the anti-Semite. Outside the tech field, Musk has poor judgment to say the least.
No, you misunderstand, entirely, the point. Musk is simply saying: Look at me. I’m the Captain now.
And it is glorious.
So Tesla has survived but Jia went bankrupt. Tesla has survived but electric last mile went bankrupt. https://www.businessinsider.com/jia-yueting-faraday-future-tesla-rival-bankrupt-2020-1. Solyndra took the government money and ran away. Tesla survived and is flourishing. Do you want to know if Elon is successful, ask the bankers who are ready to lend him millions of dollars. Our friends on this blog who are predicting his demise have absolutely no idea of Elon Musk’s financial reputation. They can probably find a book maker who will give high odds if they want to put down everything they own on a bet. You won’t see many of our know it all friends lining up to place there bets. Blowen smoke is blowen smoke.
I must have missed the “friends on this blog who are predicting his demise,” who you conveniently can’t bring yourself to name.
Anonymous, David Benson at 1:55 says Musk made a bad business decision and it’s going to cost him 44 billion. I can recall that you said there was not a Democrat who wanted no limits on abortion. I posted links concerning their statements and all we heard from you was crickets. Now you claim that no one said that Musk is a bad businessman. There it is at 1:55. I expect that you will soon let more crickets out of your cricket jar.
You once again prove yourself to be a liar.
I did not “claim that no one said that Musk is a bad businessman.” I truthfully said I must have missed it (I don’t read all the comments), and I truthfully pointed out that in your 7:07 PM comment, you hadn’t **named** anyone who predicted Musk’s demise. Now you’re naming someone. The thing is, in the comment of David’s that you cite as evidence, David only said “Musk made a bad business decision which is going to cost him his $44 really big ones.” That’s not predicting Musk’s demise. It’s only predicting that it will be a costly mistake. Surely you’re intelligent enough to understand that people can make costly mistakes that DON’T lead to their demise, right?
You also lie when you claim that I “said there was not a Democrat who wanted no limits on abortion.” Once again, you cannot link to the comment where I purportedly did this. You assert it, but have no actual evidence. There may well be some Democrats who want no legal limits on abortion. There are also Democrats who do want legal limits on abortion. There are even anti-abortion Democrats, like Rep. Cuellar (D-TX). But dealing truthfully with this mix is too hard for you.
David Benson routinely lies. Earlier this year he was arguing that gas prices weren’t high at all and deliberately used outdated data.
Ivan, I never lie. I admit to making mistakes on occasion.
I doubt that I ever stated anything about gas prices. Provide a link.
Ivan, David doesn’t understand markets. At the time, the price of gas had shot up, which was the discussion. The price was high compared to what the price had been previously due to Biden’s policies. I also found David’s point of view odd, but that is not uncharacteristic of his arguments.
David played fast and loose, which didn’t make him look good. He chose a different metric of measure, one based on inflation. I believe even using that metric, David was wrong because I think the spike in prices exceeded that predicted number.
What he did was foolish. Gas prices were falling because there were more alternatives for energy, greater known reserves, and lower production and delivery costs. Thus David argued the price was falling when there was a drastic rise.
There is no need to get angry at David because David doesn’t understand the marketplace and the relationship between prices, costs, and supply. That is his lack of knowledge, not anyone else.
S. Meyer, quit making stuff up. My understanding of economics far exceeds a mere Econ 101 view of the subject. You just make it up as you go along, I fear.
I can only determine what you know and don’t know based on what you write. What you wrote about gas prices show you don’t know.
I don’t recall writing anything about gas prices but whatever I know about the subject I learned from Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science.
Perhaps you disremember what it was that I actually wrote. Care to provide a link?
David, it was a memorable discussion with about half a dozen people involved trying to get you to think clearly. i might be able to locate it because that is about when gas was peaking. The price at the time was close to $4.50. As usual you fought without basis and I think you provided another article that proved you wrong.
You wrote it, you provide the link. Your appeal to authority doesn’t help your case.
S. Meyer, I have no memory of this and no ability to navigate through the web into past time.
I don’t drive and I pay little attention to gas prices. I think you are just making stuff up, yet once again.
David, you have no memory of the discussion, but I do. Because of its nature, I have a reasonable recollection of it reminding me of today’s responses. Ivan mentioned it, so he probably was in the same discussion, and I think he stated a figure approaching $4.50 earlier this year. Young was there also telling you that your data proved you wrong. I checked gas prices for the spike seen, and one site shows it reaching the $4.50 level in mid-May.
If the cards line up, one might find the actual discussion. I don’t think it is necessary. Maybe some others on that mini-thread will remember. You don’t, so you have to trust me or pay me to locate it for you if possible. What is your pleasure?
Most people do drive, some quite alot. All of us receive goods and services that are brought to us one way or the other by cars and trucks.
S. Meyer, checking the local gas prices gives $4.68/gallon for regular.
We are not concerned about today’s gas prices, only what you said in an earlier discussion and today. I remember you don’t.
“If the cards line up, one might find the actual discussion. I don’t think it is necessary. Maybe some others on that mini-thread will remember. You don’t, so you have to trust me or pay me to locate it for you if possible. What is your pleasure?”
You screwed up. What is your pleasure?
S. Meyer, find another topic, a topical one this time. I have no particular interest in dredging the past for whatever mistakes you made at that time.
“S. Meyer, find another topic, a topical one this time. I have no particular interest in dredging the past for whatever mistakes you made at that time.”
1) It’s simple David, don’t make statements you cannot back up.2) Don’t repeat a statement you screwed up the first time. 3) Make sure you have the data pertaining to the argument. 4) Go back to 1.
I have a good memory when the discussion interests me. You admit to having a bad memory. Some on the blog might have a better memory than I. Remember that the next time you respond.
Paul Krugman earned his Nobel for work done in the 20th century, and has spent the entire 21st century trying very hard to prove he did not deserve it.
Many of his editorials directly contradict the work he did to earn that Nobel.
Krugman is one of the many modern Economic bobble heads that Sold MMT nonsense that any government that controls its own currency can spend whatever it wants and can never default.
Look around at how well that is working.
Paul Krugman the actual nobel winning economist would be embarrassed by the idiot he has become.
Inflation is not mystical. We actually know where it comes from, we have known that for millennia.
It comes from debasing currency.
As Friedman – one of the top 4 economists of the past hundred years and one particularly experton on monetary policy said repeatedly.
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
If you want to learn something about Economics from Paul Krugman – read what he wrote 20+ years ago.
If you want to wreck your understanding of economics – read what he writes today.
Anonymous, BabyTrump has predicted that Twitter will now fail because Musk will let more people have a voice. You can read his prediction in his post at 1:44. You, David Benson and BabyTrump all repeat the same talking point. Therefore I continue to say that you all have predicted his failure and I have presented the times at which these statements were writen.
“You, David Benson and BabyTrump all repeat the same talking point … you all have predicted his failure”
You’re deluded if you think I said anything of the sort.
I use my name. To me the fourth amendment is more important than the first. Under the fourth I am to be secure. And the fourth when its abridged reveals me. …lays me bare. Where the under the first….I have to speak to reveal! With No guarentee it’s even heard. But under the fourth…that’s me. And collected. So now wE All still have big tech invading our privacy and collecting gargantuan mega data. Pick your poison…so
Would you rather your ten followers not hear you on a platform you agreed to be censured on…with same…..it same just collecting everything about you all and associations plus censoring you?? Twitter is over unless outfits put outrages lipstick on a pig for click bait. And trump ain’t going back on. For the same reason Facebook just tanked. Their business model is each of our minds being analyzed. And marketed to. Well beyond outlawed subliminal messages…but in our faces… I never purchase from a vendor who pops me up an ad. They are creepy creeps. Not worthy of my money! Invaded somehow my privacy!
Elon Musk is rich for a reason. He is a business genius who takes action. He sees an opportunity to buy a company who has actively shunned a large segment of potential customers. If he stands to gain a larger viewership than Twitter presently holds, he wins big time.
Advertisers know down to the second how much time their target audience spends engaged in social media.,with assistance of metrics and AI they can predict customer behavior.
Businesses want access to customers. They care about business first. I doubt there is a single corporate board meeting begin with hand holding and singing Blowin’ in the Wind.”
Those who don’t eventually go under.
That is why no current late night show will ever hold a candle to Johnny Carson. He could make jokes about any and all political figures in a clever and tasteful, apolitical manner. (Johnny and Ed were WWII veterans. Ed ended his his military career at the rank of Marine Corps Colonel. They rarely talked about it.)
The more attention the media gives Twitter the better it will do. In a twisted manner, bad advertisement can be useful in growing a business. Time will tell.
Musk MUST “shape” Twitter to grow TWTR Revenue and EPS.
Musk knows “talent.”
The “help” gotta help.
That is all.
Turley’s “free-speech model”? It’s spectacularly permissive to the point of “anything goes”. Even Turley would allow non-specific, intimidation-intending, anonymous threats directed at specific individuals, things like “You better watch your back”, or “We have ways of dealing with you and your family”. To tolerate this kind of Mafia-like threat-ware as “free speech” is a recipe for paranoia, anarchy and the type of militant politics that led to the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. Is that what we want?
It seems the major missing element in Turley’s espoused regime is maintenance of civility norms.
Until the anti-social types who dole out anonymous rape and murder threats are convicted and placed behind bars, there are few options for cleaning up social media.
And if leading legal minds like Turley are not on-board to enforcing civility in the public square (by the same standard he imposes on this blog site), rabid infowarriors will continue to debase, pollute and weaken our political culture. Elon Musk stands zero chance of refashioning Twitter into a Town Square absent civility standards that are rigorously enforced. And, AI algorithms alone are NOT capable of the human judgment needed to achieve that. What it comes down to is the civility-obeying majority being able to sideline and discipline the brazen, anti-social minority.
It’s a private company so Elon can do whatever he wants to do. Number one on his list will be to fire all the lefty, censorship freaks like you. If you don’t like it then you should start your own company. Sorry, not sorry.
Musk cannot do whatever he wants. Like everyone else, he is bound by legal contracts and laws. He is likely facing legal suits for firing Agrawal and Co. in a way that attempts to prevent the golden parachutes in their contract. Time will tell.
Yes he can do whatever he wants…he’s the richest man in the world. And he will fire all those blue haired freaks.
He’ll be sued if he does something illegal. He is not above the law.
Thousands of blue haired cry-babies all screamed out at once, “we’ll sue!” Elon don’t care.
We’re not talking about thousands of people. We’re talking about a small number of people, like
Agrawal, who couldn’t care less what you call him. Musk will care if he loses an expensive suit. And I should have added that he’ll also be sued if he does breaches his contracts.
Musk paid tens of billions for Twitter. Do you think he is worried about this type of employment contract? Don’t you know anything about business? Are you that much of a fool?
Pbinca makes up what Turley will allow on his blog and then thinks that we won’t see the paranoia in his ramblings. He does indeed now believe that the gates of hell will soon spring out little tweety birds with horns and pitchforks. He then equates more speech with the censorship imposed by Nazi Germany. Elon will even let wacko birds who are ignorant of history tweet on Twitter so why is Pbinca so upset.
“ While the First Amendment does not bind private corporations, there is nothing preventing one — like Twitter — voluntarily assuming such protections for free speech. ”
But Turley constantly harangues twitter and Facebook because they are not voluntarily doing what he wants. He WANTS them to apply his “1st amendment model” which he does NOT apply to his own blog. Ironically other legal blogs do follow his model such as empty wheel or above the law. Turley’s simply does not.
“But Turley constantly harangues twitter and Facebook because they are not voluntarily doing what he wants.”
All you do is post endlessly because Turley doesn’t do what you want you massive hypocrite.
No, emptywheel absolutely does NOT allow people to post whatever they want. Neither do the authors and moderators there claim that social media should allow people to post whatever they want on a privately run site.
“ There’d be narrow exceptions for threatening, unlawful and a few other proscribed categories of speech.”
Of course there’s always “a few other proscribed categories of free speech” that is so broadly interpreted they can mean exactly what Twitter has been doing all this time.
Turley can’t claim himself to be a “ free speech absolutist” when he starts suggesting a whole bunch of exceptions. An absolute is something without any exceptions. Turley is being a massive hypocrite.
Musk made a bad business decision which is going to cost him his $44 really big ones.
Man with no money telling richest man in the world he’s a bad businessman.
My oh my will wonders never cease https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/10/29/former_gov_cuomo_the_border_is_overwhelmed_the_federal_government_is_primarily_responsible.html. Another card carrying member of the Democratic Party joins the circular firing squad. The truth just jumped from his mouth before he could stop it. Stop me before I sin again he exclaims.
The beauty of Elon Musk is that he thinks outside the box. Yet Professor Turley (whom I respect, appreciate and admire) along with many others, tell Elon what he MUST do to succeed. I’d posit he’s 10 steps ahead and on his way to doing things his way. Opinions are like @$$&0(#$, everyone has one. Go Elon!!
So pretend you own a business and you want to advertise on Twitter. You open up your new and improved free speech twitter and see the N word plastered all over the place, you see people making fun of Paul Pelosi being brutally attacked and those who wish Nancy had been home at the time with him, and you see the Master Twit himself Mr Musk Twit pushing crap.
Nope, not going to advertise on that S**t hole.
So Muck spent 44 Billion for a company worth maybe 30 Billion at the time and in 6 months will turn it into a company worth 10 Billion at the most. Good luck with letting people saying anything they want on private property.
There is a big difference between standing on a soap box in the town square and saying crap. People can throw tomatoes at you, they know who you are and they avoid you. On twitter, the vast majority can be anonymous and say vile things without regard to rotten tomatoes being thrown their way. Good luck with that model to make money.
Hopefully, with Musk, we will get to pick and choose from ALL the misinformation (as defined by the woke crowd) and decide who is telling us the biggest lies – especially those that have NEVER been supported by any facts. That’s the American way – we do not need gatekeepers on our brains and it does seem that the phrase “go woke – go broke” may be more apt than your interpretation of how this will work out.
Do you honestly think advertisers will permit this? They will flee like twitter has the plague. And how long will musk and his investors poor money into a s**t hole of misinformation? Twitter will be worth 10 Billion in 6 months and zero within a year. Good luck with that.
Professor Turley writes, “Like many others on the left, Obama claims to be a free-speech champion but narrowly confines such fealty to government censorship.”
Obama got the “heckler’s veto” last night in Michigan. I wonder how he feels about private censorship now.
There is a poster on this blog who tells us he is not for banning anyone on Twitter or anywhere else. If you went back and read his posts in favor of the banning of people he doesn’t agree with it would take days to read all his past posts on the subject. Now he somehow declares himself a defender of free speech. Even with such evidence to be found in abundance he tries to tell us that he never said such things. It could be nefarious. It could be split personality. It could be split personality and nefariousness. You decide.
Yet you’re unable to link to even a single comment from the person you refer to, where he does what you claim.
I doubt you can.
HMMMMM, this must have hit a cord with you.
Anonymous, anyone who has read your postings in the past knows that the following has been your contribution to the conversation.
Russia Collusion Hoax
Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
Jussie Smollett Hoax
Covington KKKids Hoax
Very Fine People Hoax
Seven-Hour Gap Hoax
Global Warming Hoax
Russian Bounties Hoax
Trump Trashes Troops Hoax
Policemen Killed at Mostly-Peaceful January 6 Protest Hoax
Rittenhouse Hoax
Eating While Black Hoax
Border Agents Whipping Illegals Hoax
NASCAR Noose Hoax.
Banning books Hoax.
No CRT in schools Hoax.
No Democrat wants unlimited abortion Hoax.
No teaching gender fluidity to kids in grades 3-5 Hoax.
Thank you for your studied expressions.
Notice that you’re still unable to post a link to even a single comment from the person you refer to, where he does what you claim.
Instead, you attempt to deflect with lies.
TiT,
I dont give that would be poster that much thought.
Just scroll past the poster’s comments.
Thinkitthrough.
“ If you went back and read his posts in favor of the banning of people he doesn’t agree with it would take days to read all his past posts on the subject.”
I never said that. Lying doesn’t suit you. What I DO post is the fact that private organizations such as Twitter and Facebook ARE allowed to ban people because the 1st amendment’s prohibition on censoring speech does NOT apply to them. If Twitter or Facebook wishes to ban an individual for violation of THEIR policies they can do so with impunity and so can Turley.
You cannot cite any post where I said I favor banning people I don’t agree with. Go ahead post an example. There’s lots to choose from according to your allegations.
Svelaz, lets start with your agreeing that the Hunter laptop was just Russian disinformation. Enough said.
TiT,
At the time even the nation’s intelligence agencies believed it was Russian disinformation given the sketchy nature of how that laptop allegedly got there.
That still doesn’t show an example of what you claim I said. Try again
Svalaz, you say even the nation’s intelligence agencies said that The Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. Do you mean the agencies who told us that RussiaGate was for real? Do you mean the leaders of these agencies who lied under oath to congress? Do you mean the member of one of these agencies who changed the wording to get a FISA warrant? You are correct. These are the same agencies that said the laptop was just Russian disinformation. With this track record by these intelligence it would seem that you might question their veracity but you didn’t. You didn’t because you were just looking for a way to confirm your preconceived notions. Now you try to say to us “But how was I to know? You just did not want to know and we know that you did not want to know.
TiT, you still haven’t been able to post an example of me saying I’m for banning people from twitter. Where’s the proof? You made the claim?
AT THE TIME the intelligence agencies believed the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. That’s still true no matter how you slice it. That doesn’t mean they were wrong then does it? Nobody knew the full scope of the details surrounding the claims. Just like trump claiming the election was stolen and the ample proof that it was a lie. Was the election still “stolen” TiT? Using your own reasoning you would have to admit it was not.
Svelaz, you are trying to say that the jury is still out on the laptop. There’s only one big problem with your analysis. Bunter has never denied that the laptop is his. This is not the only occasion in which you have been in denial.
At the time, the Progressive gestapos SAID it was Russian Disinformation to save Bidens ass. Period. And we all know it.
And once again, you attempt to deflect, because you cannot deal truthfully with being called out on your lie “ If you went back and read his posts in favor of the banning of people he doesn’t agree with it would take days to read all his past posts on the subject.”
Not being able to speak freely in a forum for which you either pay directly to subscribe and/or indirectly by subsidizing advertiser costs is no different than being unable to speak freely in a government which you pay to fund.
Of course it’s different: one is a private company (and you likely agreed to their Terms of Use in order to use their platform) and the other is the government.
Let’s hope Musk leads Twitter to bring First Amendment standards to its platform and that others also follow suit in time..
If you think that advertisers will stick around for that, you don’t understand much about advertising.
That’s where private companies applying First Amendment standards comes into play.
Ron A. Hoffman,
It’s entirely dependent on whether one AGREES to THEIR terms and conditions.
The moment you click on “I agree”. You effectively gave away control of the content you post to the creators or the platform. Remember agreeing to their terms means you agreed with them when their terms explicitly say they reserve the right to remove content or ban an individual or organization that violates THEIR policies. It’s astoundingly simple.
And should Musk apply First Amendment standards to a new platform, you may recover some control of the content you post. How’s that for “astoundingly simple?”
The point is no company is required to apply first amendment standards. Applying first amendment standards would mean they should not censor foul language because it’s offensive to others or offensive racist rhetoric because it’s racist. Because the first amendment prohibits government from censoring such speech because it’s offensive. So why shouldn’t Twitter or Turley censor such speech if the first amendment prohibits government from censoring it? That would be adhering to a first amendment standard.
A private company is not required to apply First Amendment standards, but they certainly can and should volunteer to do so. And who can disagree with censoring “foul language” along with applying First Amendment standards, except for the very worst among us who troll the internet?
“who can disagree with censoring “foul language” along with applying First Amendment standards” is self-contradictory. The First Amendment protects people’s ability to use “foul language.”
It would be the standards of the First Amendment, not the Amendment itself that a private company would apply. It’s not a contradiction, but instead an accommodation. A private company choosing to honor the principle of free speech does not require that company to protect foul language. We all can appreciate the difference.
You’re the one who said that they “should volunteer” “to apply First Amendment standards,” but are now arguing in favor of breaching those standards.
Just as they are free to voluntarily apply First Amendment standards not required of them they are also free to censor foul language. There is subtlety and nuance to the point I make. Discover it and you will agree.
Of course they’re free to do either one. But the two are inconsistent, so they cannot do both, whether you can admit it or not.
It is not inconsistent for a private company to both honor the First Amendment and censor foul language. It can indeed do both, whether some wish to admit it or not.
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
One thing about the 1stA is a person has the right say what they want (within reason, that whole racist, calling for real violence against a person or group kind thing).
And, everyone also has the right to ignore/scroll past that person too.
Many might not know this, but except for a few freedom loving cable companies like HBO, many other paid cable companies are censoring decades old classic movies like “Animal House” without informing viewers of the censorship.
In other words, consumers are paying for “uncensored” movies and viewers aren’t even aware they aren’t seeing the original version. We expect network shows to be censored but this is happening to paid cable movies without parental viewing filters.
Fun Fact: “Animal House” is arguably the greatest parody movie on how American government actually works in real life with our “Double Secret Probation” (covert blacklisting programs to punish non-law breakers) and Unlawful Authoritarianism.
A Zersetzung,
I cut the cord back in 08′ before it was common lexicon.
But thank you for making the observation and making me aware of what is going on.
Might have to add Animal House to my Christmas list.
OT
“October Surprise???”
Right on time!
David Pape, a hemp jewelry maker and apparent homeless vagrant, was programed through hypnosis to attack Pelosi as one of those pesky “crazy conservatives,” right?
DePape is a QAnon follower. Try again.
And who are you, PAnon, RAnon or simply another dastardly anonymouse and relative of the Soros/Deep State/FBI dark ruse, the amorphous and anonymous Q?
DePape et al. are facilitated by and a direct creation of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) just like the illegal alien invader freak who murdered Kate Steinle on Pier 14 in the Embarcadero district of San Francisco in 2015, the place where invaders, parasites, dependents and freaks are invited, empowered, funded and given sanctuary.
________
“He grew up in Powell River, British Columbia, but left about two decades ago to maintain a romantic relationship that led him to California, his stepfather Gene DePape said. He became a nudist activist in the Bay Area. He had since become estranged from his family, Gene DePape and an uncle named Mark DePape said. But David DePape’s name and photo surfaced in San Francisco Chronicle news coverage for his living in a three-bedroom Victorian flat in Berkeley with a known nudist activist named Oxane ‘Gypsy’ Taub, her three children and her fiance, Jaymz Smith. Smith and Taub had asked DePape, described as a hemp jewellery maker, to be the best man at a wedding they planned to hold on the steps of San Francisco’s city hall. Taub was convicted last year of various criminal charges, including stalking and attempted child abduction. Listed years ago in voting records as a Green party supporter, DePape said he also took to the streets with activists who opposed a successful push to ban public nudity in San Francisco, the Chronicle also reported. More recently, Gene DePape and Mark DePape said, David maintained a Facebook account. Additionally, he purportedly managed a blog under the domain godisloving.wordpress.com – also deactivated on Friday – on which he regularly posted rants concerning the ‘ruling class’. The blog also had a banner reading “Weclome [sic] to Big Brothers Censorship Hell” above numerous posts rambling about government, media, tech and alien conspiracies, among other topics. A DePape acquaintance named Linda Schneider said that she met him about eight years ago. He was living in a storage unit in Berkeley and described him as struggling with hard drugs at the time. Schneider said she later began receiving ‘really disturbing’ emails from him, adding that he was ‘using biblical justification to do harm’. Another acquaintance, Laura Hayes, said that she worked with DePape about 10 years ago and helped him make the hemp bracelets that he sold as part of a business he ran. ‘He was very odd – he didn’t make eye contact very well,’ Hayes said, adding that he told her that ‘he talks to angels and there will be a hard time coming’.”
– Ramon Antonio Vargas, Maya Yang
Excellent comment. I’m not surprised you haven’t heard further from Anonymous.
You are making things up again.
What exactly has he “made up?”
Q follower? Says who? Prove it with actual facts. Investigative reporters are NOT bothering to dig into this bizarre story. Isn’t that strange? Rather, they simply regurgitate the deets they are handed — without question or investigation. There are plenty of giant, gaping holes, yet the media are simply uninterested in digging. The fake “narrative” has been set: Look! Trump and his right wing MAGA extremists!
Depape has a long history of mental illness and is in need of serious mental help.
He also has a long history of drug use.
I hope he gets the help he needs.
A mental illness that has been augmented by right-wing conspiracy theories and nutty ideas from the right.
The coward aninny’s false, communist indoctrinating propaganda must be corrected:
“He grew up in Powell River, British Columbia, but left about two decades ago to maintain a romantic relationship that led him to California, his stepfather Gene DePape said. He became a nudist activist in the Bay Area. He had since become estranged from his family, Gene DePape and an uncle named Mark DePape said. But David DePape’s name and photo surfaced in San Francisco Chronicle news coverage for his living in a three-bedroom Victorian flat in Berkeley with a known nudist activist named Oxane ‘Gypsy’ Taub, her three children and her fiance, Jaymz Smith. Smith and Taub had asked DePape, described as a hemp jewellery maker, to be the best man at a wedding they planned to hold on the steps of San Francisco’s city hall. Taub was convicted last year of various criminal charges, including stalking and attempted child abduction. Listed years ago in voting records as a Green party supporter, DePape said he also took to the streets with activists who opposed a successful push to ban public nudity in San Francisco, the Chronicle also reported. More recently, Gene DePape and Mark DePape said, David maintained a Facebook account. Additionally, he purportedly managed a blog under the domain godisloving.wordpress.com – also deactivated on Friday – on which he regularly posted rants concerning the ‘ruling class’. The blog also had a banner reading “Weclome [sic] to Big Brothers Censorship Hell” above numerous posts rambling about government, media, tech and alien conspiracies, among other topics. A DePape acquaintance named Linda Schneider said that she met him about eight years ago. He was living in a storage unit in Berkeley and described him as struggling with hard drugs at the time. Schneider said she later began receiving ‘really disturbing’ emails from him, adding that he was ‘using biblical justification to do harm’. Another acquaintance, Laura Hayes, said that she worked with DePape about 10 years ago and helped him make the hemp bracelets that he sold as part of a business he ran. ‘He was very odd – he didn’t make eye contact very well,’ Hayes said, adding that he told her that ‘he talks to angels and there will be a hard time coming’.”
– Ramon Antonio Vargas, Maya Yang
My oh my. The paid so-called progressive trolls are out in force on this one.
Nobody is being paid. That’s just free speech as it should be. Hullbooby is annoyed at the fact that others can post as much as they like what a shocker that must be. Nothing about free direct says it cannot be annoying. Free select means accepting the idea that it’s going to be part of it. Suck it up buttercup welcome to free speech and all its glory.
Svelaz wants people to be banned from Twitter and other sites and yet he comments here 1000 times a day? The irony and hypocrisy are startling. Hey Svelaz, why not go outside for a few minutes and let your keyboard cool down.
Think about the mindset of a fool that hates a site, hates 75% of people on the site, disagrees with the entire premise of the site and yet lives on it daily as a way to stifle legitimate discussion on said site. What a weirdo.
Poor hullbobby wants to live in a safe-space where he doesn’t encounter people who disagree with Turley.
Hullbooby,
“ Svelaz wants people to be banned from Twitter and other sites and yet he comments here 1000 times a day?”
Wrong. I don’t want people banned from twitter and other sites. Lying doesn’t suit you. Pointing out an unquestionable fact is not wanting to ban people from social media platforms.
Pointing out the fact that people who VIOLATE the terms and conditions they AGREED to is not illegal or unconstitutional. It’s THEIR right as private entities to run their platforms as THEY see fit just as Elon Musk can do now with HIS company.
I can post a million times on this blog if I want to provided there is no limitation on the terms and conditions of THIS blog.
I’m exactly what Turley promotes as an essential component of free speech. Yet you seem to be oblivious to it. You can whine and moan all you want. I’ll still be here, until Turley decides to ban me and violate his own cherished free speech principles and prove him to be the massive hypocrite he is. THAT would be ironic.
HullBobby,
You read what he posts?
Like Dennis, Gigi, I just scroll past him.
If you read one of their inane, delusional posts, you have read them all.
Don’t forget George he’s the resident loony rightie here, or is that S. Meyer?
Svelaz you should not be calling anyone names.
John B say, isn’t that free speech? “Hullbooby” came out as an autocorrect apparently. It wasn’t intentional. That being said. There’s plenty of righties calling others names here. It’s still part of free speech, right?
You have the right to say whatever you want – including stupid things.
And the rest of us have the right to call you out on it.
Just because you are free to say stupid things, does not mean you should.
There is a significant difference in the tenor and quality of remarks of the left and others here.
While there is no bad attribute that is unique to one side – except possibly the paucity of facts from the left.
It is still true that most poor conduct comes from the left.
That is self evident.
What you call “poor conduct” is in the eye of the beholder. Don’t confuse your personal opinions with facts.
There are basic unwritten rules of conduct that the majority of people will agree with. John knows them even if you don’t.
Thank you.
NO poor conduct is not in the eye of the beholder.
It is close to universally accepted that rape is poor conduct.
Your claim was “most poor conduct comes from the left,” and now you give rape as an example. Do prove that most rape comes from the left. Don’t say “That is self evident.” Prove it with evidence.
Please read carefully.
YOU claimed that standards of bad conduct were highly subjective.
I demonstrated that there are standards of bad conduct that are near unversally agreed on.
I separately pointed out that the subjectivity argument is logically invalid – so long as the standard is applied blindly.
Your asking for proof ? Open your eyes – survey the posts on this blog.
Do I need to prove to you that the sun rose tomorow ?
This argument is obvious logical error on your part.
It does not matter how you define poor conduct. It does not matter if it is in the eye of the beholder.
So long as the same standard is being used for all posters.
It is true that left leaning posters on this blog by ANY defintion of poor conduct that is consistently applied,
behave worse than the rest. and in larger numbers.
You have zero proof that “left leaning posters on this blog by ANY defintion of poor conduct that is consistently applied, behave worse than the rest. and in larger numbers.”
Your personal belief that it’s true does not make it true. All you have is a conjecture. You’d have to come up with several definitions and then sample the comments on both the right and the left and assess them against the definitions to test your conjecture.
“”You have zero proof that “left leaning posters on this blog by ANY defintion of poor conduct that is consistently applied, behave worse than the rest. and in larger numbers.””
Of course I do – I can read.
“Your personal belief that it’s true does not make it true.”
Correct, my beleif is irrelevant.
Reading is relevant.
“All you have is a conjecture.”
And reading
“You’d have to come up with several definitions and then sample the comments on both the right and the left and assess them against the definitions to test your conjecture.”
Ah. so the claim is that I can not tell the sky is blue without dividing it into sections and measuring the color of each section ?
Science and math are wonderful.
but there are infinite numbr of facts that can be established without them.
If the pitcher throws, the batter swings and the ball goes directly to the catchers mitt – it was a strike.
No need to consult the radar to know the speed of the ball or to graph out what quadrant of the strike zone the ball passed through.
““left leaning posters on this blog by ANY defintion of poor conduct that is consistently applied, behave worse than the rest.”
You are a leftist and behave very badly. You are spiteful to other posters and appear quite content when you know your response along with theirs is likely to be removed. That is atrocious conduct. I’ll skip the rest of the things you do.
It’s part of free speech, but you are the worst person to call anyone names. You are a fool who is stupid. That is proven every time you respond. Your statements are outrageous and generally factually in error. Your conclusions don’t match from one day to the next.
Keep littering the blog so you can demonstrate what happens when the left takes over someone’s mind. They become fools.
Svelaz has been know to contradict himself in adjacent sentences.
Svelaz, the weirdo, says he doesn’t want anyone banned and yet he defends banning the president of the United States???
Again, I am not saying to ban the weirdo, just curious about a guy that comments 1000 times a day.
HullBobby,
Just scroll past him/them.
It is the same old whining.
Back when I tried to read their posts, all I head was, “EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!”
Yes, best to just scroll past, dont waste your time.
*heard.
Fingers are cold.
UpstateFarmer, I skim the work of the great Svelaz and often answer his posts filled with falsehoods. I do so because he is the quintessential example of the thinking coming from the left. Those of us who frequent this blog regularly understand this but for those who arrive here only on occasion or are first time readers they should understand his viewpoint for what it is sooner rather than later.
TiT,
Okay, that is a valid point.
And, initially, it was interesting insight into the Leftist mindset.
However, the gratuitous lies, the support of sexualizing children, gross mutilation of teens, promoting puberty blockers or chemical sterilization was so grotesque, I find watching one of my cows producing bovine excrement more palatable than reading his.
Upstatefarmer,
Leftists are not engaging in gratuitous lies or sexualizing children, or mutilating teens, or promoting sterilization. Those ARE lies being spread by the right. I feel sorry you’re oblivious to the fact that you’re being taken for a ride.
It’s the spewing of such falsehoods that lead “the left” to refute such lies. That’s still what Turley talks about all the time.
TiT, you read every post. Don’t lie. The reason you whine about my alleged bazillion postings is because you read them.
Hullbobby, I didn’t ban the president. Twitter did. Why? Because HE violated THEIR rules.
Do you believe private companies should be able to conduct THEIR business as THEY see fit? Violating THEIR policy which Trump AGREED to caused him to be banned from THEIR platform. Why is that so hard to grasp.
If you violated Turley’s TOS why shouldn’t you be subject to the rules you AGREED to? Isn’t that the common sense that you’re supposed to recognize?