With the restoration of free speech protections on Twitter, panic has grown on the left that its control over social media could come to an end. Now, some of the greatest advocates of censorship in Congress are specifically warning Facebook not to follow Twitter in restoring free speech to its platform.
In a chilling letter from Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Facebook was given a not-so-subtle threat that reducing its infamous censorship system will invite congressional action. The letter to Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, is written on congressional stationery “as part of our ongoing oversight efforts.”
With House Republicans pledging to investigate social media censorship when they take control in January, these four Democratic members are trying to force Facebook to “recommit” to censoring opposing views and to make election censorship policies permanent. Otherwise, they suggest, they may be forced to exercise oversight into any move by Facebook to “alter or rollback certain misinformation policies.”
In addition to demanding that Facebook preserve its bans on figures like former president Donald Trump, they want Facebook to expand its censorship overall because “unlike other major social media platforms, Meta’s policies do not prohibit posts that make unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud.”
Clegg is given Schiff’s telephone number to discuss Facebook’s compliance — an ironic contact point for a letter on censoring “disinformation.” After all, Schiff was one of the members of Congress who, before the 2020 presidential election, pushed the false claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, and he has been criticized for pushing false narratives on Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. (Schiff has previously pressured social media companies to expand the censorship of opposing views).
The letter to Clegg is reminiscent of another letter sent by several congressional Democrats to cable-TV carriers last year, demanding to know why they continue to carry Fox News. (For full disclosure, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox News.) As I later discussed in congressional testimony, it was an open effort by those Democrats to censor opposing views by proxy or by surrogate.
This is not the first time that some members of Congress have not-so-subtly warned social media companies to expand the censorship of political and scientific views which they consider to be wrong.
In a November 2020 Senate hearing, then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story. But Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., warned that he and his Senate colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”
Others, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called on social media companies to use enlightened algorithms to “protect” people from their own “bad” choices. After all, as President Joe Biden asked, without censorship and wise editors, “How do people know the truth?”
Now, Democrats fear Facebook and other social media companies might “backslide” into free speech as Facebook, among others, is faced with declining revenues and ordering layoffs. Tellingly, these congressional Democrats specifically want assurances that those layoffs will not reduce the staff dedicated to censoring social media.
It is not hard to see the cause for alarm. This hold-the-line warning is meant to stop a cascading failure in the once insurmountable wall of social-media censorship. If Facebook were to restore free-speech protections, the control over social media could evaporate.
Despite an effort by the left to boycott Twitter and cut off advertising revenues, users are signing up in record numbers, according to Twitter owner Elon Musk, and a recent poll shows a majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.”
The pressure on Facebook is ironic, given the company’s previous effort to get the public to accept — even welcome — censorship. The company ran a creepy ad campaign about how young people should accept censorship (or “content modification,” in today’s Orwellian parlance) as part of their evolution with technology. It did not work; most people are not eager to buy into censorship. Instead, many of them apparently are buying into Twitter.
The public response has led censorship advocates to look abroad for allies. Figures like Hillary Clinton have called upon European countries to force the censorship of American citizens.
Censorship comes at a cost not only to free speech but, clearly, to these companies. Nevertheless, some members of Congress are demanding that Facebook and other companies offer the “last full measure of devotion” to the cause of censorship. Despite the clear preference of the public for more free speech, Facebook is being asked to turn its back on them (and its shareholders) and continue to exclude dissenting views on issues ranging from COVID to climate change.
These members know that censorship only works if there are no alternatives. The problem is that there are alternatives. Fox News reportedly has more Democrats watching it than left-leaning rival CNN, which now faces its own massive cuts and plummeting ratings.
For whatever reason, these companies face declining interest in what they offer. Yet, some Democrats are pushing them to double-down on the same course of effectively writing off half of the electorate and the audience market.
This type of pressure worked in the past because individual executives are loathe to be tagged personally in these campaigns. However, their companies are paying the price in carrying out these directives from Congress.
In the past, many companies willingly — if not eagerly, in the case of pre-Musk Twitter — carried out censorship as surrogates, as the internal Twitter documents released by Musk have indicated. Some public officials knew they could circumvent the First Amendment by getting these companies to block opposing views by proxy. However, the public and the marketplace may succeed where the Constitution could not — and that’s precisely what these officials fear, as they see the control of social media erode heading toward the 2024 election.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg once famously told his company to “Move fast and break things.” When it comes to censorship, however, these members of Congress are warning “Not so fast!” if Facebook is considering a break in favor of free speech.
We need severe penalties for public official, both elected and unelected, who attempt to impede, or encourage anyone to impede free speech. The death penalty would be adequate.
Whenever I contemplate the role played by media and politicians in efforts to influence the general public, I think of myself as a young student, at which time a brilliant teacher read to our class Plato’s “Allegory of a Cave.”
I never forgot that lesson, it had a very, very profound effect on my young mind, as I visualized what Plato and Socrates described. I encourage anyone not familiar with it to look it up.
Well, it’s been a few years since.. (er, more like a few decades…) so today, reminiscing, I looked it up myself, and found a good site that can save you some time, for reference:
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Platos-Allegory-of-the-Cave-Explained
Moreover, as I scanned down the above site, I found a heading that read “Meaning of the Allegory of the Cave.” I was quite surprised to read this:
“The Allegory of the Cave presents the concept that the mental state of most ordinary people is like that of the prisoners chained in the cave watching shadows cast upon the cave wall. The modern equivalent would be people who only see what they are shown in their choice of media. The media executives, advertisers, politicians, religious leaders, etc., are like the captors in the cave; they control what the prisoners (citizens) think, see, and read.”
Lin, in “The Cave” the purpose of the shadows on the wall was to keep the slaves captive. The slaves would see the shadows and believe that their captors were much larger than they actually were. Just as in “The Cave” the left doesn’t want the people to see how small they are. They won’t be able to keep the fires burning if the free exchange of information is allowed on facebook. Just like in “The Cave” they want to make you think that they are bigger than they are in order to keep their power over you. Even when they are exposed there are some who will still refuse to leave the cave. You can find them here.
I’m afraid the allegory also has a darker meaning: that only the few have the intelligence to see behind the shadows to the reality, and only they are entitled to rule. Hence Plato’s ideal of the philosopher king.
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion? Indeed, the Allegory is expressly about the value of education for all (including women, controversial at the time) -and exposure to reality/the real world, –NOT about “only the few” (intelligentsia) as capable of seeing “behind the shadows to the reality,” as you say.
Plato (through the voice of Socrates), as prelude to the Allegory of the Cave, directly states,“Next, I said, compare the effect of education and the lack of it upon our human nature to a situation like this: [and he proceeds to describe the allegorical setting of the Cave, in which men are chained and restricted in what they can see or hear.]”
So it was the notion of education, inquisitive questioning and pondering of realities, that Plato respected, i.e. the very definition of “Philosophy” (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, ‘love of wisdom’) as “the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.” https://philosophy.fsu.edu/undergraduate-study/why-philosophy/What-is-Philosophy
But, to your point Daniel, here is a quote from Book VII of the “Republic,” where Plato describes his ideal:
“The State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed…for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life … And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?” He also refers to achieving the “good of the many,” not the good of a few (intelligentsia).
There is a nice article in Psychology Today about the Allegory and the true value of education: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201906/platos-allegory-the-cave
“I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion?”
In part, because of this:
“There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” (Plato, the Republic)
Plato argued that the state (ruled by an omnipotent philosopher-king) should control the individual’s life from cradle to grave. (For more evidence, see the Republic and the Laws.)
“I’m afraid the allegory also has a darker meaning . . .”
That is *exactly* its meaning. It is an epistemological argument in defense of totalitarianism. It is the wicked notion that man’s mind, by its nature, is defective and cannot know “higher reality.” But a few (the “philosophers”) do have a mystical power of insight into that supernatural dimension (where concepts such as “justice,” the “good” reside). Since those few have a superior power of insight, they should be “king,” endowed with omnipotent powers.
Plato is the philosophic father of totalitarianism. His epistemological arguments have been used, in one form or another, by every dictator throughout history. Substitute “philosopher” for vox dei or vox populi, and you have Plato.
Sam: Wait. wait. I was a nine-year-old kid in Fourth Grade. My grade-school teacher had the prescience to use the Cave allegory to make us little ones THINK and QUESTION reality– and the harm of limited perception or knowledge. No more and no less. That’s all I said, isn’t it?
Plato’s other speculative considerations are/were not a part of my post.
While I don’t disagree with you here, please go back and reread what I said, I was merely saying that the Allegory of the Cave relates to education and reality, not illusion. Plato’s other Books in The Republic were not even mentioned by me.
(And in the most simplistic of argument, I put forward that Plato posited that the ruling class belonged in the hands of those who were metaphysically exposed to Reality and had skeptically pondered its illusory alternatives. Thus, the class of philosopher-kings. The epistemological argument that you make, while not untrue, does in fact narrow its focus on those who would selectively abuse it, and belies the positive impact that Plato has had upon broader philosophical considerations, e.g., logic, ethics.)
Did you even know what vox dei or vox populi meant before yesterday, when it was plastered all over the Inet relating to Musk?
Thinkitthrough: True, it is about illusion over reality, isn’t it!
Lin, TiT,
Great posts.
TiT,
Illusion is all they have.
Free speech is a core foundation of the USA, if people don’t like what someone else is saying then don’t listen but trying to silence the speech of those you oppose is pure totalitarianism and anti-American.
They actually used official Congressional stationery for this letter? Well now, they can rationalize all they want but putting it on official Congressional stationery was to give it a veiled “Congressional order” feeling and that was wrong. What Adam Schiff, André Carson, Kathy Castor, and Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse did was certainly extra-legal or a b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n of legality or maybe even actually illegal, it certainly was ETHICALLY WRONG in every sense of the phrase and they should be expelled from Congress or at the very least formally censured.
When is the public going to stop putting up with this crap from obvious totalitarians?
Free speech is a core foundation of the USA, if people don’t like what someone else is saying then don’t listen but trying to silence the speech of those you oppose is pure totalitarianism and anti-American.
They actually used official Congressional stationery for this letter? Well now, they can rationalize all they want but putting it on official Congressional stationery was to give it a veiled “Congressional order” feeling and that was wrong. What Adam Schiff, André Carson, Kathy Castor, and Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse did was certainly extra-legal or a bastardization of legality or maybe even actually illegal, it certainly was ETHICALLY WRONG in every sense of the phrase and they should be expelled from Congress or at the very least formally censured.
When is the public going to stop putting up with this crap from obvious totalitarians.
Hey after a few years of complaining, they finally fixed their moderation software to not automatically kick out the word “bastardization” and instead send it to moderation for a quick check by a human being! I approve!
Steve, do you object to the following laws that are designed to impede certain election speech?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-nh/page/file/1328371/download
“putting it on official Congressional stationery was to give it a veiled “Congressional order” feeling”
Nonsense. It very clearly isn’t a congressional order. It’s on congressional stationary because it’s speech carried out in the context of their roles as members of Congress (not, say, campaign speech). In no way is it “extra-legal” or illegal.
Your opinion is that it’s unethical. People clearly have different opinions about that.
Anonymous asked, “Steve, do you object to the following laws that are designed to impede certain election speech?”
That is 100% irrelevant to the content of my comment and if you had a shred of integrity you would openly acknowledge that fact but instead you try a backhanded smear with irrelevant information that makes absolutely no sense in context.
Anonymous asked, “It very clearly isn’t a congressional order.”
DUH!
I didn’t write that it was. I wrote that it gave it a “veiled ‘Congressional order’ feeling” and if you can’t tell the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote then you’re a lot more ignorant than I thought you were.
Anonymous asked, “Your opinion is that it’s unethical. People clearly have different opinions about that.”
Sure, you’re welcome to your opinion no matter how foolish it makes you look.
Now how about you go troll someone else.
No, Steve, it’s not irrelevant. You said “trying to silence the speech of those you oppose is pure totalitarianism and anti-American,” and I pointed out laws that attempt to silence certain kinds of election-related speech because lawmakers oppose that speech.
You’re free to ignore the question, but don’t pretend that it’s not relevant.
That I disagree with some of what you wrote does not make me a troll. I’m a truthful, civil, sincere person who has some views that are different than yours, not a troll.
Anonymous wrote, “No, Steve, it’s not irrelevant. You said “trying to silence the speech of those you oppose is pure totalitarianism and anti-American,” and I pointed out laws that attempt to silence certain kinds of election-related speech because lawmakers oppose that speech.”
You’re a damn fool for doubling down on your claim, now it’s time to put up or shut up.
Prove your claim.
Quote the law(s) in its entirety from in the document you shared that “attempt[s] to silence certain kinds of election-related speech because lawmakers oppose that speech.”
Anonymous wrote, “That I disagree with some of what you wrote does not make me a troll.”
You’re correct but that’s not why I called you a troll. I called you a troll because your intentional sealioning and twisting of what others write fit the definition.
TROLL: noun Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, to draw attention to themself and for their own amusement.
Anonymous wrote, “I’m a truthful, civil, sincere person who has some views that are different than yours, not a troll.”
No, the stench of your regular trolling crap oozes from your fingertips.
I already did prove the claim. The relevant speech and laws are cited in the DOJ document in my initial reply.
Here’s an example from that document:
“Giving false information for the purpose of establishing eligibility to vote; … (52 U.S.C. §§ 10307(c)…).”
Giving false information in the context of establishing voting eligibility is election-related speech, and Congress attempted to silence that speech by making it illegal, as they oppose people giving false info in establishing eligibility to vote.
The law itself says “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, … shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
Another example is “Preventing or impeding qualified voters from participating in an election where a federal candidate’s name is on the ballot through such tactics as disseminating false information as to the date, timing, or location of federal voting activity (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242).”
Disseminating false information as to the date, timing, or location of federal voting activity is election-related speech, and again Congress passed those laws. Here’s an example of someone who was prosecuted for disseminating false election info under 18 USC 241: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/social-media-influencer-charged-election-interference-stemming-voter-disinformation-campaign
You’re clearly free to have whatever opinion you want about me, just as I am about you. I don’t let my negative opinion of you prevent me from having a civil, fact-based exchange with you.
I think what we are seeing is a lot of deflection from the left. They argue the law as if the distinctions are questionable and require extensive expertise to make a decision. The truth is that the coercive and instructive elements from the FBI were blatant. Aside from the FBI having over a dozen former FBI agents in critical positions at Twitter, the FBI wasn’t even discreet in their actions.
—
Latest ‘Twitter Files’ show FBI repeatedly grilled execs about ‘state propaganda’
Taibbi said the FBI and Twitter’s relationship had a “master-canine quality” and that the two parties were in “constant and pervasive” contact.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/18/latest-twitter-files-show-fbi-questioned-executives-over-users-spouting-state-propaganda/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_alert&utm_content=20221218?&utm_source=sailthru&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20News%20Alerts
“Twitter’s contact with the FBI was constant and pervasive, as if it were a subsidiary,” wrote Matt Taibbi
In a separate email, Roth questioned the FBI’s raising these questions, saying that Twitter had made clear that “official state propaganda is definitely a thing on Twitter.”
He continued, “The questionnaire authors seem displeased with Twitter for implying, in a July 20th ‘DHS/ODNI/FBI/Industry briefing,’ that ‘you indicated you had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.'”
It is obvious that all the posters on the left have read none of this.
John Say wrote, “It is obvious that all the posters on the left have read none of this.”
Well John to be real honest, they haven’t read any of this because their trusted news sources refuse to report the story, so as far as they are concerned the story doesn’t exist until their trusted news sources say it does. Until; their news sources report on it it’s just conspiracy theory.
Out of sight, out of mind works really well for ignorant “progressive” sheeple.
Correct, the current left can not survive without their silos, without massive censorship.
This is why Musk terrifies them so much.
I beleive there are 75M people on Twitter – and they are NOT mostly silo’d like the rest of the media is.
Those on the left stick to their outlets that protect them from stories that counter their naratives.
While those on the right may or may not follow the MSM but they supliment or entirely get their news from uncensored sources.
But the left entirely took over Social media. Gab, Parlor, Truth are tiny and there is no impetus for most people to move to them.
It is likely that over the long run – decades Truth or Parlor would likely become the equivalent of Fox today, but that could take decades.
In the meantime the Left has until Musk, owned the Media that about half the country gets its information from.
The loss of control of that is the end of political power for the left.
There are two big problems with Musk taking over Twitter.
The first is that some portion of the about 40M democrats on Twitter will start hearing things that they will be censored in the MSM.
The second is that if Musk succeeds, the Rest of SM will ultimately be forced to follow.
The fight against musk is Existential for the left.
The modern left can not survive without fairly heavy censorship.
This is also why Musk who is slowly moving from a slightly left of center democrat, to a libertarianish republican, is being massivelu villified by the left.
It is also a lesson for Republicans. This nonsense that if they Dumped Trump for a more palatable candidate they would win is BS.
Look at what is being done to Musk. No one in their right mind thinks Musk suddenly became a far right wing nut.
Yet Musk is being painted as the 2nd coming of Trump – or worse.
This will happen to ANY republican that is a threat to democrats.
If Republicans ran Romney, or Sasse or pick your favorite “establishment” republican, if that person was an actual threat to win – and possibly if they were not, they would get the same treatment that Trump and Musk are getting.
The left sees only two types of people outside the left. The impotent – who they will leave alone, and political threats who will receive the Trump Musk Treatment and be painted as worse than Hitler.
Anonymous wrote, “Giving false information in the context of establishing voting eligibility is election-related speech.”, “Disseminating false information as to the date, timing, or location of federal voting activity is election-related speech.”
No it’s not “election-related speech”, it’s intentional fraud and the reason why they’re doing it is 100% irrelevant to the crime of fraud.
I do think it’s interesting that Anonymous is openly trying to claim that laws created to prosecute individuals that have already engaged in actual fraud is equivalent to creating laws that are designed to silence free speech and that twistedly absurd logic is somehow equivalent to partisan members of Congress intimidating non-government entities into literally silence the speech they oppose so it cannot be heard. This extrapolation is delusional thinking.
Delusional: adjective characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
Anonymous wrote, “I don’t let my negative opinion of you prevent me from having a civil, fact-based exchange with you.”
Fact based? HA!!!
This, my fellow Americans, is why we can’t have reasonable discussions with internet trolls that refuse to argue in good faith, they take some fact(s) and intentionally twist reality and extrapolate it into some kind of absurd alternate reality deflection.
TROLLING: verb Posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
You continue to post insults. Grow up
Anonymous wrote, “You continue to post insults.”
Awww that’s sweet. As others around here have said in the past, “show us on the doll where Steve hurt you”. Anonymous trolls these threads and then Anonymous complains when others point out that fact, the word snowflake comes to mind.
Anonymous wrote, “Grow up”
Look in the mirror.
You continue to act stupid.
Not that you would know how to grow up.
I noticed that Adam Schiff disappeared from the news after he said that he’d seen proof of Donald Trump colluding with the Russians in writing. When he couldn’t come up with the goods they put him in mothballs. I guess you cant keep the head of the snake down forever. Adam wants to wrap his snake body around Facebook and squeeze until all breath is extinguished. He simply explains that there is a way to survive if only facebook will provide the rats he needs to fill his snake belly. Despicable is too kind a word. He is a champion of the left.
“With House Republicans pledging to investigate social media censorship when they take control in January …” — blah blah blah — insert more RINO-Fox political rhetoric here.
As the professor knows, the aforesaid “House Republicans” have ZERO power to DO anything about this issue, and wouldn’t do anything about it if they could, because just like their associates in the democrat wing of the republican-democrat UniParty, they get far more political and campaign-donor milage out of keeping issues alive than getting them resolved. From a purely practical standpoint, why resolve an issue and have it forgotten within two months, when you can yammer about it on cable TV for two YEARS and keep the issue alive to milk for the next election?
The House “investigation” led by republicans will succeed only in manufacturing endless hours of soundbites for Hannity — for example, picture Jim Jordan’s greatest hits, arguing with witnesses instead of asking pointed question intended to get direct answers — which will translate into free campaign ads come the next election. But the House “investigation” will also be an obnoxious circus sideshow that will turn voters off every bit as much as the J6 Clown Committee “investigation” turned off voters.
Meanwhile, there’s a productive alternative to another congressional sideshow that Turley COULD be talking about as a lawyer and legal analyst, and it’s the Missouri v Biden censorship case which is closing in on a ruling likely coming in April on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction aimed at putting an actual END to the illegal censorship.
An expert LEGAL opinion as to the possible form that court-ordered relief might take would be informative. Assuming Judge Doughty rules in favor of Plaintiffs, what could the court offer that would STOP the pervasive censorship that is no longer a secret but is proudly and unconstitutionally out in the open? After all, it’s one thing to rule that the censorship is illegal and must end, but it’s something else to figure out a way to actually stop it when the parties involved are fully committed to a lawless course of conduct.
Do we really need more endless paragraphs about how evil democrats are, or about how republicans are going to “investigate” them without any actual authority to DO anything? Don’t 23 hours per day of airtime on RINO-Fox cable TV sufficiently cover that Us vs. Them / republican vs. democrat UniParty rhetoric?
I’m afraid there’s all too much truth in what you say. The RINOs are all merely fiddling for the distractable public while the nation burns.
I wish I could “like” your reply, but for some mysterious reason when I go to log in to like comments, the website tells me there’s no such user, even though it’s the SAME log in information I use to post comments and this reply.
Anyway, yeah — it seems like all the “news” (politics) websites and pundits are content to give the public a steady diet of fake-wrestling political rhetoric to encourage people to cheer for one fake wrestler and boo the other — as if they aren’t both partners in the same fake wrestling match.
I just puch the ‘like’ star.
When I puch the like star, I get a pop-up box that tells me to log into my account — then when I log in using the SAME information I used to log in and post this reply, the pop-up box tells me there’s no such user.
Guess what Mr. Shifty Schiff, the American people recently took away your power to investigate anything. Shifty Schiff says, Ve have veys of making you not talk. Ve have veys of taping your mouth shut. Ve can even make it hard on your lived ones. You voudn’t want that now vould you. Now sign this document vike a good boy.
Do you ever read what you wrote or have you forgotten you first year Constitutional law class. What happens on FB has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with free speech. Good grief..
Even if it did, the definition of free speech on FB is that the man running the place doesn’t like to be disagreed with and he certainly isn’t interested in the truth. If he agrees with you, you are ok. If not, you can be silenced at any time. Of course as the owner of a private platform Musk can do that but even in your fantasy land free speech…it sure ain’t free speech. Professor…..you really can’t stop showing your bias.
You are making the common mistake of confusing or conflating free speech with the 1st Amendment. They are not the same thing.
Injustice Holmes ignores the fact that Mark Zuckerberg stated that Facebook censoring the Hunter laptop was a mistake. Injustice Holmes doesn’t agree with Mark Zuckerberg. This is simply a distraction by Injustice Holmes from the fact that Democrats want to control what you see and hear and if it takes intimidating through the use of investigations by Democrats to make Facebook toe the line then intimidation it will be. They say, Facebook we are warning you and you better walk right or you’ll have to answer to the man. The good Professor is correct when he states that the American people our seeing through the crafty mirage presented by the likes of Adam Schiff. Injustice Holmes just because you willfully make yourself blind doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t see the light. Justice indeed.
Maybe Mark will follow Elons lead. He once famously said:
“Personally I think the idea that fake news on Facebook … influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea,”
“I do think that there is a certain profound lack of empathy in asserting that the only reason why someone could have voted the way that they did was because they saw some fake news,” he said. “I think if you believe that, then I don’t think you have internalized the message that Trump supporters are trying to send in this election.”
“…MEN…DO…WHAT THEIR POWERS DO NOT AUTHORIZE, [AND] WHAT THEY FORBID.”
Only the owners of private property have the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property, understanding the exceptions of bodily injury and property damage.
Adamn Schiff must be impeached and removed for the crimes of high office of subversion of the Constitution, sedition, denial of constitutional rights and usurpation of power.
Congress has no enumerated power to regulate, control or participate in the operations of any free enterprise, Article 1, Section 8.
Congress has the power to regulate only the value of money, commerce among the States and land and naval Forces, Article 1, Section 8.
Congress has the power to tax for only debt, defense and infrastructure (i.e. general, as all or the whole, Welfare), Article 1, Section 8.
Dictatorship and the American welfare state are licit, legitimate and authorized, not by the U.S. Constitution, but only by the Communist Manifesto.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[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
______________
“…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
Someone please ring up the head RINO, Kevin “The Bumpkin From Bakersfield” McCarthy, and get some of his fierce action goin’!
Crickets…
For someone who likes to quote the Constitution, you seem to have some holes in your knowledge of it. Much as I’d love to see him gone, the simple fact is that Schiff cannot be impeached. There is no provision in the Constitution for the impeachment of Members of Congress. There are only four ways Congresscritters leave: 1) they die in office, 2) they choose not to run for re-election, 3) they run and lose, or 4) they are expelled by members of their own body. And that doesn’t happen very often.
So sayeth all those who had frequent flier miles to Epstein Island.
If you won’t say a thing to your Mama, don’t say it to others . .
Every time JT refers to “free speech”, my eyes glaze over. He doesn’t allow free speech on this website. He has a set of published Civility Rules, and judging by the delay of several minutes for posting content, moderators deciding on each comment submitted. Using language properly, this web site’s comment section is based on “moderated speech” backed by terms of use agreement. There are other unseen controls, one can only guess at….if you post too many times on one thread, you’re “censored” (even though you got most of your message thru).
These terms “censor” and “free speech” are becoming meaningless as elements of communication, and carried as either banners or truncheons on an unproductive, infowarfare battlefield.
How could JT be more candid and salient?…by illustrating some “edge cases” defining the limits of free speech rights as he sees them. Not just vague slogans puled from Court casework, but actual detailed stories that straddle the red line over what he believes should be protected “speech”. Suggestions: Cases involving doxxing and intimidation threats of injury, career injury, reputational injury that lead to actual harm perpetrated by a sympathetic actor, etc. Cases where an infowarrior promulgates known lies to a receptive audience regarding official acts and results (lies about verdicts in court cases, laws passed, who was certified as winning an election). Fighting words directed at a definable group, ethnicity, race or gender, not just an individual. Exhortations to mount, and technical advice offered, on attacks that serve to eclipse the legal rights of a fellow American. Or, even, does anonymous, unaccountable speech carry the same level of Constitutional protection as that of a self-identifying citizen or organization? How about speech where the receiver is defrauded as to who is originating the speech?
I challenge JT to get specific. He’s getting away with what is essentially a pre-internet conception of free speech based on old, pre-internet casework.
JT, if you want this site to be more than mere showboating, give us more sophisticated, operational definitions of free-speech and censorship, and demonstrate how they work with very tricky edge cases on both sides of the red line (some that pass muster and some that don’t). Then, you’ll show yourself to be the great legal mind we’re all hoping for to move forward with a free, civilized, productive 21st century infosphere.
JT is specific. Government censorship by proxy. Something your long rant ignored. The entire sum and substance of this blog post.
Right. So you’re going to write those wrongs with a law that bans “government censorship by proxy”?
You think you know what those words mean (in the case of Twitter Files). You cannot build law under such vague wording whose meaning is open to interpretation.
The task going forward is to clarify how the 1st Amendment constrains government in nudging deceptive infowarfare out through private media companies and platforms.
P.S. it will greatly help to frame what the FBI was doing with Twitter at the time of the Hunter Biden laptop revelations — not as censorship — but as inserting a false narrative to reframe the Bidens as the victims of Russian intelligence.
Censorship is a 1930s conception of thought control. What we’re facing is more broad in its techniques, and much, more sophisticated. Therefore, I think we’ll accomplish more to define the FBI transgression here as “deceptive infowarfare designed to defraud the electorate”.
You HAVE TO get it right about what the FBI did. If you indict them for “censorship”, not promulgating a false (counter-) narrative, the FBI will ably defend itself against the charge of censorship. What they did was much more modern and sophisticated infowarfare.
You have to be clear about what was done if you want any chance of changing things for the better, otherwise meaningfull reform will slip through your fingers like water.
Part of the FABI’s effort to promote a false counter narrative was to censor the truth. If social media acted as the FBI’s agent in doing this they violated the first amendment. It’s not that complicated.
“In response to the ‘Twitter Files,’ a spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News Digital, ‘The FBI regularly engages with private sector entities to provide information specific to identified foreign malign influence actors’ subversive, undeclared, covert, or criminal activities. Private sector entities independently make decisions about what, if any, action they take on their platforms and for their customers after the FBI has notified them.'”
Un less it is actual criminal activity, why is it the FBI’s business at all?
Why should the FBI need to notify social media companies about what the Daily Mail or the Guardiabn reports?
Right. So you’re going to write those wrongs with a law that bans “government censorship by proxy”?
Its the first amendment. SCOTUS has already ruled on the proxy angle, so yes Schiff theatening facebook is a violation of the Constitution.
At least you are back on track.
In 1992 the Supreme Court held that a city could not punish so-called “fighting words” directed at a race, religion or gender. They considered this content discrimination that is prohibited by the first amendment. The “fighting words” doctrine first articulated in the 1940s in Chaplinsky has now been so much narrowed as to be effectively dead.
“Every time JT refers to “free speech”, my eyes glaze over. He doesn’t allow free speech on this website.”
Pbinca, you realize that except what WordPress deletes (Turley has no control over that) every deleted post ends up in our email folders if you provided an address.
When one looks at the email folders, one recognizes there is no censorship of political ideas and very little censorship of everything else except Persistent foul language and violent or excessive racist speech.
Oh but protesting is insurrection… do the democrats think US citizens are stupid? How long are taxpaying citizens going to sit for this communist regime.
The tragically ironic hypocrisy of the these prog/leftists in their desperation to keep the truth from becoming free and available is both highly entertaining while at the same time despicably terrifying. I hope there are more “Musk” like individuals who will push back hard against the fascism of the prog/left and allow people to understand just what dupes and tools they have been for decades for the prog/left power and wealth maintaining machine.
Sure. The dems aren’t a totalitarian regime. Nope, not at all. 🙄 The sheer number of actual threats and calls to violence on the part of this party over the past number of years are getting tough to count, and the public nature of these statements is shocking and unprecedented (remember when radical hippies just did PSAs about planting trees?) for a group operating in a free Constitutional Republic.
The stalwart must remain stalwart, because the dems/globalists aren’t going to stop, and a whole lotta people can’t be bothered to care. It’s time to start walking it back, and I personally think the blowback has begun in earnest across the globe. Pray for our brainwashed youth, though, that’s going to be very tough to rectify.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT NO ONE, BE THEY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS OR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT MUCH LESS THE AUTHORITY, TO DICTATE POLICY TO SOCIAL MEDIA PUNDITS. WHETHER I AGREE WITH SOCIAL MEDIA PUNDITS OR NOT I STILL HAVE THE POWER TO DISCONTINUE THE SOURCE IF I DISAGREE.
This is clearly a case of government officials attempting to circumvent the 1st Amendment by using corporations as proxies. So for the legal experts here: is there someone who could bring action here? Who would have standing to mount such a suit? Would such a suit need to be brought against one of the corporate actors, or could suit actually be filed against Schiff and company?
Anyone censored in violation of the first amendment can bring a claim against the violators. That could be for a declaratory judgment, an injunction and/or damages. Violators could include the government, governmental and elected officials, and private companies and individuals acting as agents for the foregoing. It is possible that anyone who was denied the right to read, see or hear the censored information could also bring a claim under the first amendment’s “right to know,” but that would be more difficult.
I believe the Missouri/Louisiana/Bhattacharya case is based on these theories.
In addition, it is a federal crime to deprive anyone of their civil rights. One of these civil rights is the first amendment right to be free of government abridgement of free speech. There may be similar crimes defined under the laws of various states. Accordingly, prosecutions could be brought against governmental and elected officials, and the private companies and individuals who conspired with them,to deprive anyone of his right to free speech.
But it’s an open legal question whether anyone has been “censored in violation of the first amendment” by Twitter or Facebook.
The government is free to make requests of social media companies, and as long as the request isn’t legal coercion, it’s legal, per SCOTUS.
That would be a question of fact. The law is clear that if the government induces a private company to censor that is a violation of the first amendment.
SCOTUS restricted it to the government “exercis[ing] coercive power,” not government “inducement.”
“Antone censored in violation of the first amendment can bring a claim against the violators.”
If one is fighting the government one has to realize that in most cases the individual has limited funds while the government has unlimited taxpayer funds. It is hard to collect from the government.
I know that responses to Turley’s own blog are monitored and censored by Turley or his designee(s). Turley does not permit a lot of nasty stuff. He simply does not. As he often notes, Twitter, Facebook and the like are not governmental entities that are prohibited by the First Amendment from censoring non-dangerous incitement. So how does Turley square his censorhip with his opposition to censorhip by other privately held social media? I believe that hypocrite is the word the applies to the professor. I’ll look to see if this gets pubished.
The government isn’t demanding that Professor Turley control speech here. That is the fundamental difference. And for whatever it’s worth, this blogs moderators are pretty light on the nuke button considering what they allow to stay up.
The government didn’t dictate to Twitter. It nudged a sympathetic actor with rationalizations to back a false-narrative. The first step to correcting the excesses of Twitter is to use precise, neutral language to describe what went on. If you exaggerate, oversimplify, or fail to see the sophistication, the remedy will miss its mark.
The threat we face is professional infowarfare loosely coordinated among sympathetic actors, aimed at defrauding the electorate. The first step is deciding if voter information gathering is a core process of our Constitutional democracy that needs to be protected from frauds and deceits. If yes, then we can make progress on keeping the election-season infospace protected from outright deceits.
Whom would you trust to provide this protection in an even-handed manner?
We can trust no one which is why we do not censor.
A long ends justifies the means rant.
Your legal argument is rubbish, but it is irrelevant.
Are you actually defending depriving voters of any unfavorable truth in order to gain power ?
We have listened to you rant about voter supression – how is depriving hundreds of millions of voters of the truth less offensive that requiring ID to vote, or coming to a poll to vote ?
Do we have democracy if 100% of people vote, but most of them know only what one side wants them to know ?
How can you dare claim to champion democracy, when you conspired to hide the truth from hundreds of millions ?
Even the NAZI’s did not break the law. Is that your standard for morality ?
Turley censoring his own blog is very, very different from the government demanding that an otherwise-private platform censor certain points of view. There is nothing hypocritical here, at least not in this instance. Do you not see that difference? BTW, your comment is published for all to see. Not sure what you thought would generate censoring.
Turley remains a private party, so the First Amendment does not apply. FB, Google, and formerly Twitter have become public marketplaces with HUGE worldwide influence.
They have already proven they can change the results of an election by using (misusing) their technology.
Plus…The Left used to protest censorship. They now demand it.
What changed?
FB, Google, and Twitter have the same First Amendment rights as Turley.
So how does Turley square his censorhip with his opposition to censorhip by other privately held social media?
Must be a leftist. Comment without at least reading the headline. This article is about CONGRESS threatening social media to censor “or else”
The or else is implied congress writing a law forcing censorship, but writing he law cant withstand 1st amendment challenges. The other way to threaten companies is through tax and regulatory harassment. Like they have been doing to Trump since he was a candidate and continues after he left office.
Facts not in evidence – you get published all the time on this blog, just like you did this time. Besides, it’s not “privately held social media” as soon as said media starts working hand in glove with the federal agencies to censor what they don’t like. At that point, it’s no better than Pravda was in the USSR: another instrument of the state…
“I know that responses to Turley’s own blog are monitored and censored by Turley or his designee(s). “
Some of us get the emails and can see how frequently things do not appear on the blog. Only a very small number, and they mostly have nothing to do with content. ATS uses an email to prove he is censored, but he is intentionally using a banned address, so that his postings are removed from the net. He addressed many to me in that fashion, but they appeared in our respective email folders while being erased from the blog. The other ones to be banned are hate and foul language. We have seen that displayed in our mail boxes as well.
Since we all get to see the banned emails that are not prevented from being sent in the first place by WordPress, sentient people recognize the banning is minimal and justified.
We’re quickly approaching the stage where words and investigations no longer suffice, especially when the evidence clearly shows where the perpetual problem lies. Buckle up. 2023 will not be pretty!