Censoring in the Name of Free Speech: Publishers and Editors Call for Banning Barrett Book

Below is my column this week on the campaign to block the publication of a book by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is all a part of movement of censorship and speech intolerance that has swept across our campuses and news rooms. What is most striking is how these editors and publishers are insisting that they are supporting free speech by silencing others.

Here is the column:

In the last ten years, censorship has become the rage from the halls of Congress to college campuses. Free speech is now often portrayed as an existential threat rather than a right defining our constitutional system.

This crisis of faith is no more evident than in the call of writers and journalists for books to be banned or speakers to be silenced.

The latest (and one of the most disturbing) examples is a letter signed by hundreds of “literary figures” last week to get companies to block publication of a book by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett because they disagree with her judicial philosophy. After all, why burn books when you can effectively ban them?

The public letter entitled “We Dissent” makes the usual absurd protestation that, just because we are seeking to ban books of those with opposing views, we still “care deeply about freedom of speech.” They simply justify their anti-free speech position by insisting that any harm “in the form of censorship” is less than “the form of assault on inalienable human rights” in opposing abortion or other constitutional rights.Yet, the letter is not simply dangerous. It is perfectly delusional. While calling for the book to be blocked, the writers bizarrely insist “we are not calling for censorship.”

While the letter has been described as signed by “literary figures,” it actually contains many who are loosely connected to the “broader literary community” like “Philip Tuley, Imam” and “Barbara Hirsch, Avid reader.” It also includes many who are simply identified by initials or first names like “Leslie” without any stated connection.

Nevertheless, there are many editors and publishing figures who list their companies and university presses with their titles in calling for censorship. The list speaks loudly to why dissenting or conservative authors find it more difficult to publish today. These are editors who are publicly calling for banning the publication of those who hold opposing views from their own.

The focus of the letter is the fact that Barrett voted with the majority in the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Barrett has been singled out in the past due to her judicial philosophy (which is shared by many federal judges and millions of citizens). Her home has been targeted and activists have published school information on her young children.

Recently, Rhodes College alumni sought to strip references to Barrett from the college because they disagree with her views.

Her college sorority was even forced to apologize for simply congratulating her for being one of a handful of women to be nominated to the high court.

No attack appears to be beyond the pale for media or the left. Barrett sat through days of such baseless attacks on her character and even had to face attacks referencing her children. Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claimed that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother.

The signatories express a common righteous rage to justify censoring others. We have seen this hypocrisy openly displayed by those who want to censor authors or journalists in the name of free speech or the free press.

The editors of the legal site Above the Law have repeatedly swatted down objections to the loss of free speech and viewpoint diversity in the media and academia. In a recent column, they mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools.

Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law.  (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.

It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and roughly half of the population are not acceptable to be taught.

Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy.

Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford Communications professor, Ted Glasser, rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”

Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods have called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating that “China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

These are professors, writers, and editors who are sawing off the very branch upon which they sit. That would not be a problem but for the fact that they are doing lasting damage not only to free speech but their professions. For a writer to be against free speech is like an athlete being against exercise. It is the defining right for our country and an existential right for writers and academics.

This letter is not simply another manifestation of viewpoint intolerance. It is a statement of virtual self-loathing from people who work in the literary world; writers and editors who cannot abide the publication of opposing views.

As for Justice Barrett, such attacks are unlikely to deter her from ruling according to her long-held and well-established jurisprudential views.

She does not deserve such attacks but these individuals are the face of rage in our society. It is a general psychosis that overwhelms every countervailing value; it allows writers and editors to oppose free speech and expect us applaud them for it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.

Fox.com

 

84 thoughts on “Censoring in the Name of Free Speech: Publishers and Editors Call for Banning Barrett Book”

  1. If you tolerate the devils servants, they will silence the truth and then they will kill you. That’s just the way it works.

  2. “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin
    ____________

    Franklin admonished you to; you couldn’t!

    The Supreme Court recently acted retroactively by 50 years to strike down unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

    The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by up to 150 years to strike down the entire unconstitutional, communist, American welfare state which began with the many multiple unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln, including his denial of constitutional secession which was the catalyst for his “Reign of Terror,” and, by extension, his improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments,” enjoyed so immensely by Karl Marx, through the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, Social Security, Medicare and “Great Society,” to the unconstitutional Frankenstein, Obamacare, etc.

    Categorical constitutional American freedom lasted only 71 years before antithetical, anti-American, directly and mortally inimical communism began to destroy it.

    They couldn’t keep it, Ben.

    1. Let’s see, your argument seems to be that American Freedom lasted only as long as Americans could keep slaves. Interesting. That word, Freedom, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      1. The ending of slavery was inevitable. In a society of laws, the laws must be obeyed. There is always a legal solution. The CSA would have been compelled logically and financially to rejoin the U.S. after its economy was made insolvent by advocacy, boycotts, divestitures, etc. Freed slaves must have been compassionately repatriated by contemporary immigration law in 1863 or upon otherwise emancipation. The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers. It is natural for abductees to retain an overwhelming desire to return to their home, where they enjoy a sense of nationhood and a high degree of self esteem. Americans certainly had the right to establish exclusive naturalization laws, such as China, Japan et al enjoy now.

      2. You think freedom means “free stuff” from other people’s money, oh, and their culture and country to boot!

  3. MANIFEST TENOR

    The Clear and Evident, Meaning and Intent

    Let’s all hop into the time machine, go back to the Founding, and obtain the timeless, proper perspective on the U.S. Constitution from one of its prime Framers.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “…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. These judges, whether they are conservative leaning, Liberal leaning, or somewhere in the middle. Had better realize that the demonrats have been, with threats, and intimidation, had much success in, and continue to be working to erode the courts power to be independent, and have the final say on constitutional issues. Whether the judges agree or disagree on things. It is time they put their ideologies very last, and stand up for the constitution, and only the constitution, or we will not have a constitution, and we will have no need for a SCOTUS. Everything will be forced on us by the democrats. SCOTUS. You must Take your God given power back from the left. If another congressman, or woman threatens you, or publicity speaks out about your decisions. Throw them in jail for contempt of the supreme court and our Constitution.

      1. “If another congressman, or woman threatens you, or publicity speaks out about your decisions. Throw them in jail for contempt of the supreme court and our Constitution.”

        Boy, does that need to happen.

        1. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

          – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  4. Jonathan: Your column follows other columns defending Justice Coney Barrett–now it’s about her new book that many literary figures have called for Penguin to recall. You call that “delusional”, “dangerous” and “absurd protestation” and amounts to “censorship”. You defend Coney Barrett by claiming she is being attacked because of “judicial philosophy” that you say is “shared by many federal judges and millions of citizens”. So what is this controversy really about?

    Criticism of Coney Barrett is not based on her “judicial philosophy” but rather the theme in her book that judges should not allow their personal views to influence their opinions in any case. Coney Barrett contradicted that dictum when she joined the conservative majority in overturning Roe v. Wade. Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are all conservative Catholics. Coney Barrett is a member of a small extreme Catholic cult that gives male members all decision making authority. Women play a subservient role in the sect. The Catholic Church has long opposed abortion and lobbied strenuously to overturn Roe. Does anyone really doubt Coney Barrett, Thomas and Alito were influenced by their personal religious Catholic beliefs when they voted to overturn Roe?

    As a Catholic yourself I can understand why you might want to ignore these important facts in discussing Coney Barrett. But this is the important aspect to the Coney Barrett controversy that requires vetting. You simply can’t separate Coney Barrett’s “judicial philosophy” from her personal religious beliefs in joining the Dobbs ruling. Coney Barrett decided her religious opposition to abortion demanded overturning 49 years of protection for a woman’s right of privacy to make her own reproductive decisions. Coney Barrett decided her own personal religious beliefs on abortion trumped the rights of women who don’t share her beliefs.

    Calls to “censor” Coney Barrett’s book pale in comparison to the “censorship” being imposed on the rights of millions of American women who no longer have to the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. I doubt Penguin will recall Coney Barrett’s book. The profit motive usually prevails. And everyone, even SC Justices, are entitled to their own personal religious beliefs. But they are not entitled to impose those beliefs on other Americans– on women of other religious faiths or even those without any religious convictions. That’s the part of the Coney Barrett controversy you apparently don’t consider relevant. I do.

    1. Dennis McIntyre, just a few days ago you posted that Republicans are banning books about oral sex in Jr. High libraries and today your agreeing that the Judges book should be banned. You continually paint the Republicans as book banners but today you are not so aghast at the attempt to ban Barrett’s book from being published. You say that she has a right to her ideas but you just don’t want her thoughts to be presented to the public. We appreciate where your coming from. Such thoughts are not just coming from Dennis McIntyre they are the core of the thinking of the New Democratic Socialist Party.

      1. Dennis McIntyre thinks that adolescent children are mature enough to read books depicting gay and degenerate s*x, but adults aren’t mature enough to read an autobiography about a Supreme Court justice. Imagine how a brain this deformed can get the person it’s contained in through the day.

    2. “Coney Barrett is a member of a small extreme Catholic cult that gives male members all decision making authority.”

      – Dennis McIntyre
      ______________

      Why on God’s green earth would the males who built the church allow their wives to run their church?

      By extension, why would the males who built America allow their wives to run their America?

      Karl Marx saw things a little differently; the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a slightly different perspective from that of freedom, right, comrade?

      Incidentally, the American fertility rate is in a “death spiral,” while criminal, illegal alien, foreign invaders, Hamilton’s “discordant intermixture,” are sinking the boat, so wives, one presumes, must be very, very busy with their natural function and duty.
      ________________________________________________________

      “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      1. There was NEVER a constructional right to abortion; its legal status must be legislated by States.

        Abortion will never enter the USC.

  5. Benjamin Franklin when asked about the type of government the Constitutional Convention planned is quoted as saying “A republic if you can keep it.” As a country we have strayed far from that goal.

    1. “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin
      ____________

      Franklin admonished you to; you couldn’t!

      The Supreme Court recently acted retroactively by 50 years to strike down unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

      The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by up to 150 years to strike down the entire unconstitutional, communist, American welfare state which began with the many multiple unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln, including his denial of constitutional secession which was the catalyst for his “Reign of Terror,” and, by extension, his improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments,” enjoyed so immensely by Karl Marx, through the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act, Social Security, Medicare and “Great Society,” to the unconstitutional Frankenstein, Obamacare, etc.

      Categorical constitutional American freedom lasted only 71 years before antithetical, anti-American, directly and mortally inimical communism began to destroy it.

      They couldn’t keep it, Ben.

  6. If Turley is really worried about book banning and censorship he sure didn’t say squat when republicans state lawmakers sought to ban authors of CRT and LGBTQ books or discussions. Being that he is indeed a massive hypocrite on this it is not surprising. No wonder he is mocked by real lawyers and scholars.

    1. Competent people understand degenerate porn in a library for children isn’t desirable. Be less of grooming pedocrat.

    2. Lies. Republican state lawmakers aren’t looking to ban authors of CRT and LBGTQ books. What they ARE demanding is that schools not use taxpayer dollars to purchase sexually-graphic books and put them on shelves. Those books can be in the public libraries and sold in book stores. But they shouldn’t be on school library shelves. That’s a far cry from wanting to stop a Supreme Court Justice from even publishing a book.

    3. Please tell me what republican state lawmaker sought to ban a book and please let me know the name of the book. Have republican lawmakers sought to restrict access of some books to children? Yes they have — I’m not sure how you feel about a 5 year old having access to a book with graphics of how one man pleasures another but I sure as heck have a problem with me. I want my 5 year old grandson worried about whether he has a yellow crayon in his box and nothing more complex than that

    4. Svelaz, I’ve asked you, more than once to provide at least one specific example so a discussion could start. You never have provided such an example.
      You demonstrate, even you don’t believe what you post.

  7. The left is misogynistic. It is bad enough to them that Barrett’s opinions carry weight. That Barrett is a woman makes it worse. If she were a black woman, the left would be apoplectic.

    1. S. Meyer you idiot. They are not doing it because she is a woman. They are asking to block her book because of what her judicial philosophy representing an affront to human rights. You’re the only one making theses stupid comparisons that nobody else is.

      1. Justice Sotomayor has written at least four books, -without ado, and which contained personal/political views in addition to her partisan guest speeches to students. I don’t recall a consortium of any antagonists asking that her books not be published or that she be banned from speaking.

      2. Before calling anyone an idiot, read what is said, and then you won’t sound like such an ignoramus.

        “That Barrett is a woman makes it worse.”

        If she were black, it would even be worse. The left can’t stand anyone that leaves their plantation. The left harvests slaves of a new type, black, and women, but many are learning that they do not have to slave for the left. They can be their own people with their own opinions.

        You, on the other hand, can continue to be an ignorant misogynistic racist.

      3. because of what her judicial philosophy representing an affront to human rights.

        Except for that little problem of Judge Barrett never ruling against human rights….Yea, I guess your whole post is a lie.

  8. “ The editors of the legal site Above the Law have repeatedly swatted down objections to the loss of free speech and viewpoint diversity in the media and academia. In a recent column, they mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools.”

    Turley is being disingenuous with the characterization of what the editors of Above The Law are saying. Turley can’t argue against their views because they DO have a point regarding Turley’s often disingenuous or dishonest portrayals on his columns.

    Turley’s definition of censorship is highly dependent on deliberately leaving out pertinent details about why there is a call for certain censorship. Some instance are not even censorship at all.

    There is a “virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members in laws schools” because the majority of the time their ideas and views are either stupid, crazy, or have long been debunked and are being mocked for it. They are not being censored because their ideas are stupid, crazy, or have been debunked. Conservatives, libertarians are being mocked because of their ideas and views and they are crying victimhood because they are being mocked or ridiculed because those ideas elicit those responses. So they claim they are being “censored” and being singled out because they are conservative or libertarian. Joe Patrice an editor at Above The Law made the point that their complaints are the equivalent of having flat earth scientist in the university complaining about being “censored” or that there is a virtual absence of them while ignoring the fact that it is their ideas are no longer relevant to the times. Arguing that the earth is till flat and having that long debunked idea ridiculed and mocked is NOT censorship, but that is what Turley is claiming about conservative or libertarian ideas,

    1. “There is a “virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members in laws schools” because the majority of the time their ideas and views are either stupid, crazy, or have long been debunked and are being mocked for it. ”

      You mean like mentally ill gays dressed in drag are actually women?

  9. We all know there is a psychosis as stated by the Professor. The question is, what is the remedy? These people ignore 200+ years of jurisprudence and the very foundation upon what built this country has made it flourish: the 1st Amendment. It is first for a reason.

    1. Manuel Lopez: Your last sentence is perfect. Amen.
      Unfortunately, those who composed the First Amendment could not foresee powerful and omnipotent social media and worldwide mass communication that (by suppression/censorship) create a perception of One opinion, One correct answer, One view, One Way, One truth, One reality. Non-conformants beware.

      1. (by suppression/censorship) create a perception of One opinion, One correct answer, One view, One Way, One truth, One reality. Non-conformants beware.

        Lin,
        Your comment echoes an article I read in The Federalist today. The Left sees themselves as the saviors of humanity and their way is the only way that will work. Of course any opposition to their way is portrayed as evil.

        That’s because leftism is a religion with an eschatology just as real as John Hagee’s. It’s a religion of political salvation. As political philosopher Eric Voegelin argued, it’s a strain of gnostic, millenarian Christianity that seeks to make the kingdom of God immanent through political movement. First, its enlightened prophets, such as Georg Hegel and Karl Marx, gain gnosis about the inner meaning of history and its progress. Then their anointed acolytes among the educated classes, the woke elect, lead a political movement that manifests this inner meaning in an era of peace, health, and abundance. The kingdom of God is inaugurated.

        This explains then-Sen. Barack Obama’s pitch to evangelicals: “I am confident that we can create a kingdom right here on Earth.”

        Who’s “we”? “We” in Obama’s formulation is his messianic political movement. It’s a perfect demonstration of Voegelin’s argument.

        Yet, this theology fails over and over again, with devastating effects on leftists’ mental health. When your God is “we,” there’s a tremendous burden placed on the human psyche, a burden to save the world. This is a cross no human can bear.

        The left needs a Jesus.
        https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/03/the-left-needs-a-jesus/

        1. Olly: Yikes, thanks for including the Federalist article. Particularly like your comment, “The Left sees themselves as the saviors of humanity and their way is the only way that will work,” and the article’s line,”Leftism…is a religion of political salvation.” Ain’t that the truth.

        2. I have suggested to several left wing nuts that they should read Johnathan Haidt on Moral foundations.

          Haidt identified I beleive 6 basic attributes that are found in all humans throughout history.
          Though each of us reflects those to different degrees.
          Haidt can test your moral foundations and from the results predict if you are democrat, republican or libertarain.

          Regardless, one uniquely human attribute is religion.

          All human groups form religions – always and everywhere.

          The modern left is no exception. The left is DEEPLY religious.
          They just do not have a anthropomorphic god.
          Their ideology is a question of faith.
          That is why it is impossible to overcome logically the fact that it does not work.

          That does not matter – because they beleive.

          Based on their own system of beliefs – they are inherently good people.
          The fact that based on any reasonable moral framework of the past 2 millennia they are evil – does not matter to them.
          They have faith.

          This is also what made it possible for eb to contemplate outloud using nerve gas on people he did not like.
          Religion.
          All humans have it.
          If you can not find god,
          Look for satan in some form of evil.

          1. I have suggested to several left wing nuts that they should read Johnathan Haidt on Moral foundations.

            And you thought that would bear fruit?

            eb? The eb that was on this blog? I missed that.

              1. Sure. However it would help if the horse believed it was a horse, that water was wet and could improve their lot in life.

  10. The left have no crisis of faith. They know that what they do is impossible when the sunlight is cast upon them. They can only succeed at this stage of their grab for power if they work in darkness and unseen by their opponents. Free speech actually dispels the mists and darkness that the left seeks to use and brings illumination of their machinations. They know their side has no answers except raw power and suppression of true freedom. The problem is that unless we crush this grab for power now then they will no longer hide in the darkness because they will be too powerful and sunlight will not dispel them, sadly.
    Would this not be considered an illegal boycott and restraint of trade in the business world. In crass terms they seek to drive her from the marketplace of free ideas by using their power to boycott and intimidate. Seems like there should be a legal recourse. I’m thinking some smart state Attorney General could come up with something. The federal path is not open to us at this point.

  11. I feel as if I have fallen down Alice’s rabbit hole and am now living in a world run by the Mad Hatter. Nothing makes sense coming from the left. Has the entire prog/left gone off on one big LSD trip? I just cannot fathom how they can be so delusional and “IF” the adults ever regain control, what do you do with millions of such disfunctional parcels of human flotsam – because I would be very wary of ever giving anyone so conditioned and mis-educated, control over anything; not even dog catcher or garbage collector.

    1. I just cannot fathom how they can be so delusional

      Alma, that had been a question of mine until recently when I watched an interview with Mattias Desmet. He’s the author of the book The Psychology of Totalitarianism. He describes the phenomenon of mass formation.

      What is mass formation actually? It’s a specific kind of group formation that makes people radically blind to everything that goes against what the group believes in. In this way, they take the most absurd beliefs for granted.

      He shares this anecdote: individuals in mass formation become radically intolerant for dissonant voices. In the ultimate stage of the mass formation, they will typically commit atrocities toward those who do not go along with the masses. And even more characteristic: they will do so as if it is their ethical duty. To refer to the revolution in Iran again: I’ve spoken with an Iranian woman who had seen with her own eyes how a mother reported her son to the state and hung the noose with her own hands around his neck when he was on the scaffold. And after he was killed, she claimed to be a heroine for doing what she did.

      He continues…Whether it initially emerged spontaneously or was provoked intentionally from the beginning, no mass formation, however, can continue to exist for any length of time unless it is constantly fed by indoctrination and propaganda disseminated through mass media. If this happens, mass formation becomes the basis of an entirely new kind of state that emerged for the first time in the beginning of the twentieth century: the totalitarian state.
      https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/the-psychology-of-totalitarianism

      Those in the grips of mass formation are not unlike those under hypnosis. Tell them censorship is free speech and they will believe it. Tell them men can have babies and they will believe it. Tell them genital reconstruction of minors is life-affirming care and they will believe. And on and on.

      1. Again, I ask, should we defeat these zombies, what do we do to contain their hatred and desctructive nature, what purpose would they serve any nation other than to consume resources? I doubt if it would be possible to transform them into useful citizens again, I know I would never trust someone so indoctrinated.

        1. Alma, again you’re asking a very important question. At about the 57 minute mark in this interview, Desmet addresses the two things we have to do when mass formation leads to a form of totalitarian regime. Earlier on in the interview he says that:

          In a totalitarian system, the point of gravity is not so much in the elite. It’s situated in the masses themselves, which makes that if a part of the totalitarian elite is destroyed, the system just continues as if nothing happened.

          So while we might be successful in defeating an existing totalitarian regime, the elite, those “zombies” as you refer to them, haven’t gone away. So the two things we have to do is:
          1. continue to conduct non-violent resistance.
          2. Use what he calls “truth speech.” Which means we cannot ever permit the state to silence our ability to speak the truth.

          The interview runs about 1 hour, but the entire interview is enlightening.

        2. What shall we do with all the useless idiots? I’m glad you asked. Let’s take a page from any good Communist Dictatorship. Re-education camps first. Execution by firing squad if they don’t come around to the “right” way of thinking. Why worry? Time and time again the Communist has proved his method gets results regards human condition

    2. Alma, you’re confused because you know that their Daddy is going to spank them.

      You can’t believe they haven’t by spanked by their Daddy yet.

  12. It’s usually said in jest, but now there’s more than a hint of truth to it: The lunatics are running the asylum.

  13. If this isn’t the most “1984-ish” statement ever then I don’t know what is. We have people saying that they are for free speech and therefore want to ban a SITTING JUSTICE from having a book published.

    One big question: Where is the ACLU?

  14. How far the left has gone since the 60’s. They still use man=y of the rallying cries, like the GOP will gut Social Security, but now they seek to ban basic freedoms granted by the Constitution. To which they will reply, but Trump and January 6th. How terribly sad for our country

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  15. **OT Alert** Last night the President gave a speech about threats to democracy and “election denial”. The past few weeks I’ve been hearing that term used quite a bit as if it’s some kind of crime, the best I know it’s not. Last nights speech made me feel like I’m being set up and with questionable mail-in ballots I might be correct.

    Why days before an important election is the President harping on “election denial” and not his accomplishments?

    I hope I’m wrong.

    1. “Why days before an important election is the President harping on “election denial” and not his accomplishments?” Doesn’t this question answer itself? Bisen’s accomplishments — roaring inflation, completely open border, vaccine mandates, etc.

    2. Biden has few accomplishments. His claims are meant to deflect from the disaster policies of the Democrats.

    3. As a republican i have total faith that the democrats will steal this midterm. Bidens’ election was the test run, this will now be un-stoppable.

  16. “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”

    They keep using that word. I does not mean what they think it means. (and all lawyers consider themselves master class word smiths.

  17. “The public letter entitled “We Dissent” makes the usual absurd protestation that, just because we are seeking to ban books of those with opposing views, we still “care deeply about freedom of speech.”
    *****************************
    Behold the totalitarian moron class (lots of fourth estaters). It’d be scary if they were rendered harmless by their boundless stupidity and utter lack of self-awareness. Let’s name some of the confederacy of dunces ’cause it helps to have a running list of perps for the impending counter-revolution. Ask Madame Defarge (feeling very French Revolution today as you can see):

    “The list of dissenters who signed the letter include “Rick and Morty” writer Erica Rosbe, employees of Random House, employees of HarperCollins, Barnes and Nobles employees and various other publishers, authors and members of the press.”

    Vive la révolution!

  18. Democrats use Gov, law enforcement, Big Tech, Censorship, Media, Big Banks, Business, Education, Healthcare, Violence, etc to ENFORCE their FASCISM!

  19. Well said, Turley, well said. Helen Keller said that the single greatest benefit of education is tolerance. These people, although officially credentialied as “educated” are really not because they are intolerant of views other than their own.

      1. Pudnhead, your comment reminded me of something my father taught me. Just because you have a degree or multiple degrees, doesn’t mean your smart. Without common sense degrees are worthless.

      2. THE FORGETTING CURVE

        “Imagine you’re put in charge of your company’s biggest leadership training program. You do everything right: you conduct extensive discovery with your subject-matter experts, you spend weeks authoring the storyboard, your executive team signs off, and you deliver a stellar training experience. Everything goes beautifully and everyone agrees the training was a huge success. Your work is done.”

        “But back in your office, while you bask in the glory of your success, a dreadful thing is happening inside the brains of your students. The neural networks that your training inspired are beginning to dissolve, and as a result, your employees are quietly forgetting almost everything you presented.

        “How bad is the problem? How much do people forget? Research on the forgetting curve (Figure 1) shows that within one hour, people will have forgotten an average of 50 percent of the information you presented. Within 24 hours, they have forgotten an average of 70 percent of new information, and within a week, forgetting claims an average of 90 percent of it.”

        – Learning Solutions

        https://learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1379/brain-science-the-forgetting-curvethe-dirty-secret-of-corporate-training

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: