Below is my column on Fox.com on my book and how our current “age of rage” may be the most dangerous for free speech, but it is not our first such period in history. Indeed, the current debate is returning this nation to the very debate that erupted at the start of our Republic.
Here is the column:
As the nation heads into the July 4th holiday, we have rarely been more divided as a people. Ironically, we are still debating the core values that define us, particularly the right to free speech. Indeed, “debate” hardly captures the rising anger and animosity from campuses to Congress. That is also nothing new.
While I have called this “an age of rage,” it is not our first. The United States was born in rage.
Roughly 250 years ago, a group calling itself the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships and dumped almost 100,000 pounds of English tea into the Boston harbor. The “Boston Tea Party” is still celebrated as an act of defiance that helped spark the American Revolution.
It was also an act of rage, a key moment that is the focus of my book out this week, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
As a nation, we have gone through almost cyclic periods of unhinged rage, including periods of what I call “state rage.” The first victim has always been free speech, including in our current age of rage. Indeed, this is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history.
“The Indispensable Right“ is a reference to the description of Justice Louis Brandeis of core value in our nation. It is also a reference that captures our inherent conflict with free speech. Brandeis and his colleague Oliver Wendell Holmes are enshrined as civil libertarians who became the “great dissenters,” arguing for rights that remained unrealized for decades.
Yet, these two jurists would support some of the most abusive denials of free speech in our history. Holmes would supply the single most regrettable line of any opinion: that free speech protections do not allow citizens to shout fire in a crowded theater. That paraphrasing of his decision in Schenck v. United States continues to be used today as a rationalization for censorship and limits on free speech.
On free speech, Brandeis and Holmes were no heroes. Our true heroes are detailed in this book, a collection of true dissenters — anarchists, unionists, communists, feminists and others who risked everything to fight for their right to speak.
George Bernard Shaw once said “a reasonable man adjusts himself to the world. An unreasonable man expects the world to adjust itself to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable people.”
These are stories of wonderfully unreasonable people like Anita Whitney, a feminist who left a family of privilege to fight for social and political justice. The descendent of a family on the Mayflower and niece of Supreme Court Justice Cyrus W. Field, Whitney defied threats of the police that she would be arrested if she spoke in California in 1919 in Oakland.
With police standing around on stage, she refused to be silent and spoke against the lynchings of Blacks occurring around the country. Her abusive conviction would ultimately go before the court (with Brandeis and Holmes) and they would vote to uphold it.
Time and again, this country has abandoned our free speech values as political dissidents were met with state rage in the form of mass crackdowns and imprisonments. It is an unvarnished story of free speech in America and for better or worse, it is our story.
Yet, we have much to learn from this history as this pattern now repeats itself. The book explains why we are living in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history.
In the past, free speech has found natural allies in academia and the media. That has changed with a type of triumvirate — the government, corporations, and academia — in a powerful alliance against free speech values.
Ironically, while these groups refer to the unprecedented threat of “fake news” and “disinformation,” those were the very same rationales used first by the Crown and then the U.S. government to crack down on free speech in the early American republic.
The difference is the magnitude of the current censorship system from campuses to corporations to Congress. Law professors are even calling for changing the First Amendment as advancing an “excessively individualistic” view of free speech. The amendment would allow the government to curtail speech to achieve “equity” and protect “dignity.”
Others, including President Biden, have called for greater censorship while politicians and pundits denounce defenders of free speech as “Putin lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
Despite watching the alarming rise of this anti-free speech movement and the rapid loss of protections in the West, there is still reason to be hopeful.
For those of us who believe that free speech is a human right, there is an inherent and inescapable optimism. We are wired for free speech as humans. We need to speak freely, to project part of ourselves into the world around us. It is essential to being fully human.
In the end, this alliance may reduce our appetite for free speech but we will never truly lose our taste for it. It is in our DNA. That is why this is not our first or our last age of rage. However, it is not the rage that defines us. It is free speech that defines us.
Breaking
SCOTUS on Biden Administration censorship: plaintiffs lack standing
MURTHY, SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL. v. MISSOURI ET AL.
White House officials publicly and privately called on the platforms to do more to address vaccine misinformation. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a health advisory that encouraged the platforms to take steps to prevent COVID–19 misinformation “from taking hold.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted the platforms to COVID–19 misinformation trends and flagged example posts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency communicated with the platforms about election-re- lated misinformation in advance of the 2020 Presidential election and the 2022 midterms.
Respondents are two States and five individual social-media users who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment. Following extensive discovery, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit af- firmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that both the state plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. On the merits, the court held that the Government entities and officials, by “coerc[ing]” or “significantly encourag[ing]” the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action. The court then modified the District Court’s injunction to state that the defendants shall not coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to suppress protected speech on their platforms.
Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
IOW, SCOTUS majority are cowards and Biden’s Handlers will continue to censor social media …just in time for Nov election.
Barrett?
Kavanaugh?
Roberts… predictable
appalling decision to not decide. This will throw the election and the country’s direction towards censorship.
Worst decision in SCOTUS history!
Estovir…I wish I could say I’m surprised, I really do. Seems our friend ‘original’ George isn’t wrong when he says, “It’s the Courts, stupid!”
Excerpt from Alito’s dissent arguing standing was reached by plaintiffs
The record before us is vast. It contains evidence of communications between many different government actors and a variety of internet platforms, as well as evidence regarding the effects of those interactions on the seven different plaintiffs. For present purposes, however, I will focus on (a) just a few federal officials (namely, those who worked either in the White House or the Surgeon General’s office), (b) only one of the most influential social media platforms, Facebook, and (c) just one plaintiff, Jill Hines, because if any of the plaintiffs has standing, we are obligated to reach the merits of this case. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 52, n. 2 (2006)…..
Jill Hines and others were subjected to censorship. Hines serves as the co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana, an organization that advocated against vaccine and mask mandates during the pandemic. Over the course of the pandemic—and while the White House was pressuring Facebook—the platform repeatedly censored Hines’s speech…..
As we recently proclaimed in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Article III standing is an important component of our Constitution’s structural design. See 602 U. S., at 378–380. That doctrine is cheapened when the rules are not evenhandedly applied…..
***
Hines showed that, when she sued, Facebook was censoring her COVID-related posts and groups. And because the White House prompted Facebook to amend its censorship policies, Hines’s censorship was, at least in part, caused by the White House and could be redressed by an injunction against the continuation of that conduct. For these reasons, Hines met all the requirements for Article III standing……
For these reasons, I would hold that Hines is likely to prevail on her claim that the White House coerced Facebook into censoring her speech….
***
For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to ad- dress this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.
Alito’s argument is flawed. It does not show standing. It still relies on implied harm and possible causation without direct evidence that Facebook was threatened or coerced into censoring speech.
“Over the course of the pandemic—and while the White House was pressuring Facebook—the platform repeatedly censored Hines’s speech…..”
Yes, the platform was censoring speech, not the government. Pressuring facebook is not coercion, because merely pressuring facebook to look at certain statements or claims is permissible. What they failed to prove is government was telling facebook to censor speech or threaten facebook with punishment if they didn’t. Facebook chose to censor speech it deemed as disinformation and they CAN do that as it is spelled out in their terms of service.
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to ad- dress this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”
Sounds like something his wife would be saying, but I digress. That unsubstantiated claim has no bearing on facebook choosing to ignore the government. Because facebook had no obligation to listen to the government officials. Officials CAN complain and pressure facebook, but they can’t threaten retaliation or punishment. That’s what Alito fails to point out. Unless there was direct evidence of threats of retaliation or punishment towards facebook for not acting on their suggestions and warnings mere mention and pressure is not causing Facebook to censor certain content. Alito left out the fact that Facebook and even twitter refused countless requests and suggestions to about harmful content without a problem. Meaning they had the choice, it was theirs to make. Not government officials.
Implied threats, or assumption of punishment are not evidence that they occurred. This is why the standing issue prevailed. Plaintiffs failed to prove the government actually threatened or punished social media companies for not following their suggestions or warnings.
George: “the sky is not blue because it is not green, and besides, dang it, I know that to be the case!”
“Officials CAN complain and pressure facebook, but they can’t threaten retaliation or punishment.”
What pressure?
“The great War on Terror cop-out, standing…reared its head again.” -Matt Taibbi
So it’s a bad decision because you don’t like the ruling. Cool. But that doesn’t mean they are wrong about standing. Because that’s how law works.
The disappointment comes from the fact that those opposed to the ruling have been clinging to an erroneous interpretation of the law and a false narrative about the government’s efforts. They lacked standing because they failed to prove that they were harmed. Government simply pointing out a policy violation on a social media platform is not coercion. Coercion requires a specific narrow finding such as outright threats or punishment. Claims of implied threats is not evidence of actual threats. The whole thing relied on implied notions and assumptions. Not actual harm. That’s why they lacked standing.
LMAO and the “threat” to Raffensberger was real.
Bwahahahahahahhahaha
Am reading Gigi’s book.
It’s just called ‘RAGE!!!!!!!!’
It’s called the “COMMUNIST MANIFESTO!!!!”
NUTCHACHACHA is terrified of FREEDOM and SELF-RELIANCE and she/it/her exists of the crutch of wholly unconstitutional and generational welfare, affirmative action, quotas, public housing, Obamacare, SSDI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, etc., ad nauseam.
Lauren Boebert is just another smokin hot conservative.
Cheer up. You have Nancy and Maxine
LOL the “hottest” gal the libtards have is Kyrsten Sinema. But of course she couldn’t find satisfaction from limp dick lefty men, so she went rug munching.
No rage, just the facts:
Both George W. Bush and Trump support the foreign loyalty model of Nazi Germany during World War Two – loyalty to a single person. A foreign style Oath of Office to a single person.
Bush had the “Monica Goodling Scandal” where Bush was trying fire federal prosecutors supporting the American Oath of Office to the U.S. Constitution. It was in all the newspapers! Ms. Goodling was purging federal employees not loyal to Bush himself (Bush one of America’s biggest violators of the U.S. Constitution and Oath of Office).
Trump also subscribes to the Nazi model. Anyone not loyal to Trump is disloyal. If you place the U.S. Constitution over loyalty to the person, it’s essentially treason to many Trump supporters (exactly the Nazi loyalty model).
Here the rub: you only have 2nd Amendment gun rights and property rights under the American system. In the foreign Nazi model you no longer have gun rights or property rights!
If you can’t figure out WHO to vote for, then you ain’t black
—–NOT Donald Trump
“Here the rub: you only have 2nd Amendment gun rights and property rights under the American system. In the foreign Nazi model you no longer have gun rights or property rights!”
Who is taking property rights and gun rights???
Way to contradict yourself, idiot.
As America becomes less rural, so do the voters. If left entirely to the voters (without constitutional boundaries), in some towns and some states in 2024, voters would outlaw guns altogether today in 2024.
In this example, a Trump supporter in a no-gun town or no-gun state could then hire a constitutional attorney, sue the town and state, and very easily overturn that unconstitutional law as violating the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Your gun rights were only saved by a judge and attorney respecting the constitutional rule of law system.
Not saying Trump is a Nazi, but his disinterest and ignorance of American government is dangerous, supporting the foreign model of government identical to the Nazi Oath of Office (loyalty to a single person).
By Trump adopting the Nazi loyalty model, there are no constitutional judges – there are only Trump judges. If Trump or another dictator-wanna be (Trump’s own words describing himself) decides no guns one day, the judges will follow Trump or another dictator, not the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
By supporting a Trump dictator model (Trump said he wanted to do), that also supports a Biden dictator model form of government.
Steaming turd^^^
It’s not Trump who ATTEMPTED TO
ABOLISH THE FILIBUSTER and then
ADD TWO BLUE STATES
ADD 4 DEM SENATORS
PACK THE SUPREME COURT
GO FVCK YOURSELF
“By Trump adopting the Nazi loyalty model, there are no constitutional judges – there are only Trump judges. If Trump or another dictator-wanna be (Trump’s own words describing himself) decides no guns one day, the judges will follow Trump or another dictator, not the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Did we see that during Trump’s first term? NO!
Did we see that during Biden’s term? Yes!
You are led by an hysteria that doesn’t permit the mind to think rationally. If you believe you are being rational, you will provide the proof.
For purple Anon, the chicken little.
Elections have consequences.
This is made up hocus-pocus. Typical of a lunatic.
There is a very good answer to your “age of rage” and that answer is not DJT, using the author below words, trump is an odious thug. We do not need an odious thug as president.
Read this and think about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/26/biden-trump-debate-robert-reich
All I had to do was see the name “robert reich” in your hyperlink and I knew to just smirk and move on.
No one is going to read that GARBAGE from the Guardian, fool.
LMAO
The Guardian, who’s headline said that a janitor got a CGM for J6th and then refuted it in the same column.
Shows how cultish the trump cult has become. Not even allowed to read anything not approved by the dear leader?
Lol are you daft
Can and will. Look them up. Google is spelled google
I’ve been reading Turley’s comments on his own book and his argument on behalf of free speech always seems to be based on “it’s a human right.” And of course, that is one truth regarding free speech. But there are other truths that support it. I think an even more important argument for free speech is the John Stuart Mill argument that favors the free marketplace of ideas. How are we ever to know the truth of anything unless we are free to express and free to hear or read other sides of the “dominate narrative”? Mill wrote in “On Liberty,” ““The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” Or there is Milton’s argument in his Areopagitica: censoring ideas won’t make them go away. If we ever needed proof of Mill’s and Milton’s recognition of the value of free speech it is manifest in the censorship we experienced and are still experiencing in regard to covid and the so-called vaccines.
Turley keeps referring to our era as “the age of rage.” Nice rhyme there. I’m not certain how Turley explains the coming about of the rage since I have not yet read his book. However, in my view, the rage didn’t lead to censorship; the censorship led to the rage.
Mary Ann Caton-Well said and nicely thoughtful. A nice break from the morass of infantile comments that seemed to fill half the comments today. I agree with the conclusions and the loss we suffer when all opinions are not heard. If I can sit and listen to absurd and insane comments and then stand up and refute them in a calm voice then so can everyone else. I’ve noted that when people scream and act like fools their points are usually lost and the opposition just hardens their resolve. Having sat through medical group meetings where economic realities are told to physicians and then have to listen to comments and questions that strain one’s sanity and self control, then we can sit quietly through most other diatribes.
This article ties together the US intelligence community’s speech to influence the last two elections. I am appalled by our government’s involvement. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
James Clapper, Mr. October Surprise: How Obama’s Intel Czar Rigged 2016 and 2020 Debates against Trump
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/06/26/james_clapper_mr_october_surprise_how_obamas_intel_czar_rigged_2016_and_2020_debates_against_trump_1040444.html
Also, read the entire Joint Staff Report referrenced above. From pg 21:
Morell and Polymeropoulos drafted the Hunter Biden statement with the explicit goal of
assisting then-candidate Biden in his race to become president. As Morell testified to the
Committees: “There were two intents. One intent was to share our concern with the American
people that the Russians were playing on this issue; and two, it was to help Vice President
Biden.”72 Moreover, Morell and Polymeropoulos informed prospective signatories of the intent
of the statement prior to its publication, writing that the statement was meant to insulate Vice
President Biden from serious electoral vulnerabilities created by his family’s influence peddling
activities. Given the fact that some of the signatories were on active contract with the CIA—an
organization that is explicitly prohibited from operating domestically73—their effort to score
political points for then Vice President Biden undermined the integrity of the Agency
Clapper got away with it because it was completely unexpected. Now that we are aware of that particular method, we can expect something completely unexpected this time around.
Deep fakes.
About a third of the way thru your book. Very well done so far. Don’t give up the fight
This saga was the Chilling Effect in the Age of Rage (Assange)
The powers of the Faction will keep a lid on it.
Australia turned its back on Assange. Time made him a martyr
By: Tiffanie Turnbull, BBC News, Sydney ~ June 26th, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggv6zdk1do
–
The powers of the Faction will set & maintain the political status quo.
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes ripped for claiming Bowman race a ‘dead heat’ without pro-Israel AIPAC’s involvement
‘Squad’ member Bowman was routed by Democratic primary challenger on Tuesday
By: Jeffrey Clark – Fox News ~ June 26, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbcs-chris-hayes-ripped-claiming-bowman-race-dead-heat-without-pro-israel-aipacs-involvement
FREE SPEECH COMES AT A COST, BECAUSE IT’S A WAR ZONE
Free Speech – Indispensable in so many different ways
@Anonymous
It isn’t a faction. Our modern left are a sub-group of a larger global, elitist regime. They are a ‘faction’ the way the old aristocracy were; IOW, not really a faction at all, just a subset. There are very, very few true liberals left, ironically, on the left.
James,
The woke leftists have driven the Democrat party so far left, sane, normal, traditional Democrats like the good professor and my own sister, look right of center.
@Upstate
No kidding. I’m non-affiliated, as mentioned many times, but I would say in the past I leaned left on certain issues; by modern idiot criteria, I am Ann Coulter. 🙄 Anyone can see the absurdity.
The percentage which Jamaal Bowman carried in the Bronx, as compared to the rest of the district, in his dustup with George Latimer speaks louder than Latimer’s overall majority. Therein is the concern given Bowman’s message and those who supported it. One can only hope that Latimer’s success represents a turning of the tide which will sweep the flotsam and jetsam out of government.
I am not optimistic about public opinion swaying the academia, corporations, and the government. You will have to fight for it in every speech, every act, and every day. You will have to protest and demand that the government protect the right and demand transparency in government because the government now hides their activities in NGO’s, and contractors, and Academic centers like at Stanford (who recently shut down the speech suppression center or just faked it and went underground to slink away from the light.)
I think the professor’s comments on Justices Holmes and Brandeis are useful and our recent “conservative court” has been more protective of our speech rights than the “Liberal Supreme Courts” that preceded them.
Maybe being in continuous war since about 2001 has had an effect on the age of rage and government , corporate and academic truth and speech suppression.
Truth is the first casualty of war. You tend to not get into wars if you project leadership, strength and competence in your military. If not then lying and rage at questioning of strategy and performance becomes the default position. Just a thought.
Academia, corporations, and the government all rely on your money, spend it wisely, and vote for people that will spend it wisely,
GEB,
The Biden admin has proven it lacks the leadership, strength and competence to govern effectively.
“…You will have to fight for it in every speech….”
Being active in comment sections of online newspapers is one way to do our part.
It seems professor Turley is really flogging anything to promote his book. Nothing wrong with that. Free speech is always under attack. By the right and by the left. Book bans and bans on discussion of subjects like CRT, transgender identity, the Palestinian cause, etc. Censorship is the name of the game and it comes in all forms. From “civility rules” to “decorum”.
Professor Turley has always advocated for civil discourse and orderly debate and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, in his view anything other than that is not really free speech. To him it seems free speech is only valid if it’s exercised in a certain manner or within the confines of a tightly controlled environment. Unfortunately as he noted free speech is not. Our constitution does not require nor demand that the exercise of free speech be civil, orderly, respectful, etc. This is why offensive speech and even inflammatory speech is protected. But there are always limits. His disagreement with Holmes’s reasoning is flawed. That yelling “fire”in a crowded theater is not protected speech has its roots in the fact that it’s in the same category as an incitement. It can cause a stampede or panic which in turn can physically injure others. You can certainly yell “fire”, but you are also subject to criminal prosecution because it’s a form of incitement be it deliberate or not. Just l Ike yelling “bomb” in a crowded plane, or school is not going to result in some form of prosecution. You CAN say it. But, you’re not protected from prosecution for saying them in those situations.
On this site the civility rules state that openly racist comments will be deleted. But, it’s protected speech. It may be offensive, but that’s all it is. Offensive. Deleting it because it’s offensive it’s contrary to the same free speech values the professor claims to hold close to his heart. It is after all, “a human right” according to him.
Those on the left, demand certain things be said in a certain way as not to offend or illicit discomfort. People can say whatever they want, but they are also subject to consequences for saying them. Be it being cancelled, boycotted, shunned, or ridiculed. The constitution does not protect anyone from the consequences of exercising speech that is offensive, insulting, denigrating, etc.
Students protesting on campuses exercised their free speech rights. Those on the right still wanted them punished for doing so. Because they don’t like what they are saying. Protesting and civil disobedience like the Boston tea party have always been a part of this country’s tradition of exercising free speech in a manner that irks those who want it to be orderly, tidy, and in the correct way THEY prefer. It doesn’t work that way, it never did.
Bunker hil, lexington, and concord were after the boston tea party, moron. The Boston tea party was conducted by subjects of the British crown, not citizens of the united states. If that happened in our country, the perps would have been arrested and made to pay restitution.
“Civil disobedience is a tradition”.
You’ve been schooled on this before. They weren’t arrested for speaking. Trespassing is not free speech. Breaking into and occupying a building is not free speech. Those things are civil disobedience, and they are not protected. Traditionally, those things eventually result in a police response. Violently resisting arrest is not civil disobedience. Every time you repeat that nonsense you are removing any scintilla of credibility from your post.
As Justices Clausewitz and Orwell wrote in their concurrence, a boot in the face is also speech by other means.
@George: I actually agree with you today. Don’t get used to it. However, I think there is a difference between a personal blog with a comments section, which is what this is, and something like X or Facebook which are basically an online version of the now obsolete public square, subcontracted out to the private sector. Meaning that I think that private individuals or organizations have a right to safeguard their own interests when it comes to free speech. In the case of this blog, Professor Turley has a right to delete pretty much any comments he wants. If he wants to be consistent about it, then he can state his policy clearly and apply it consistently. However he can also just make it up as he goes along and keep plugging his book every 2 minutes if he wants and those who see a contradiction with his book are free to do so. In the same way, colleges and universities have a right and a fiduciary responsibility to protect their students and their brand. How much value have Ivy League degrees lost, in terms of market value and in terms of donations, due to the recent protests? For the record, I agree with the protests, even though I think the protesters are the usual spoiled army of kneejerk protesters who just go where they’re told, in this case the broken clock happens to be right. The fact that I am a right winger and lifelong Israel supporter (until now) does not blind me to the horror unrolling in Gaza. In any case, I learned in my Western democracy class back in Italy that governments exist on a continuum between freedom and order. Every government and every organization is always walking a tighrope between those two things. Bottom line, your freedom can’t take away my freedom and vice versa. If I decide to protest fictitious climate change by lying down in traffic, I just took away your freedom to make money and feed your family. If I decide to occupy a university campus to protest something, anything, and I prevent you from attending class, I just stole money from you.
What I would like to know is: where is freedom of speech absolute in this society where there is no longer a public square? Because as far as I know, there is no place where freedom of speech is absolute and that’s bad. I think it’s more than a little ironic that people like you and Professor Turley are absolutely horrified at American citizens exercising their first amendment rights in the place where the first amendment originated, if not physically, at least in spirit, i.e. Congress.
Anonymous said: “Professor Turley has a right to delete pretty much any comments he wants. If he wants to be consistent about it, then he can state his policy clearly and apply it consistently. However he can also just make it up as he goes along and keep plugging his book every 2 minutes if he wants and those who see a contradiction with his book are free to do so. ”
Exactly correct about Turley and this space. In the infancy of the web, author Jerry Pournelle hosted a site that had an editorial and comment section (“The View from Chaos Manor”) similar in structure to this one. Pournelle did personally participate in the forum portion, and had no compunction about deleting comments from repeat abusers and/or ripping commenters a “new one”, as he saw fit. There frequently were hard feelings among the participants, but I don’t recall anyone accusing Jerry of violating anyone’s 1st Amendment rights, no matter how fervently they disgreed with his words or with his arbitrary actions as moderator. Regarding your delineation of X and FB as equivalent to the “public square” and thereby justifying different rules, I’ll withhold comment, as I object to the entire corporatist model on which those entities operate under Fedgov auspices.
Turley has figured out the age of rage business model and positioned himself accordingly. He’s an American success story. Free speech for me but not for thee.
Your ability to post on this site proves you wrong.
I was regularly censored on this blog for years. It seems now the policy toward speech deemed inflammatory to its largely right wing base is strategically met with cyber bullying and attempted intimidation rather than systematic removal.
Funny to see the progression actually. I’d post in the morning eastern time and then when the moderator woke up on the west coast he’d systematically pull all of my posts. Now, I wonder if the moderator is actually the guy with the “steaming turd” obsession. The place has become sort of a dystopian survival episode that mirrors trumpism writ large quite effectively. At least the stage where trump encouraged his most rabid followers to punch dissenters in the face at his rallies and he’d pay their legal fees…
Of course he wouldn’t. He’s a con man that doesn’t even pay his bills. But you get the point.
Steaming turd^^^^
Dennis, Gigi and George are all harassed with vile commentary to whatever reasoned commentary they put up. None of the right wing base will engage on the merits…, it’s instantaneous personal attack and disingenuousness. You’d have to be blind not to see it.
Steaming turd^^^^
Dennis, Gigi and George post moronic, partisan, fabricated distorted opinions about any issue that Turley addresses due to their a) desire to be different, b) need for attention (see a) or c) their oddball weirdness.
HullBobby,
That right there. Fabricated and distorted is right.
HullBobby,
Well Said and Spot on.
Would add: d) They’re on someone’s payroll.
Hullbobby-UpstateFarmer-Anonymous 10:27am-Agree with you all but responding with humor and calm or just ignoring the infantile trolls altogether is more effective. Sometimes I would like to stand them up against a bullet pitted wall or roll in my mobile guillotine but stepping away for a brief time is better.
GEB,
Well said and thank you for the laugh!
For some reason, it comes to mind your mobile guillotine needs to be made out of carbon fiber so it can be towed by a Prius. Otherwise, the woke leftists will complain about the carbon foot print of a F150, even while we are putting their heads on the block.
And the bullets, better be lead free!
HullBobby,
As I have mentioned before, my sister is a registered Democrat.
However, she sees the insanity that has taken over her party and is pretty shocked, alarmed and sickened by it. Most sane, normal, traditional Democrats are.
Dennis, Natasha, moronic George are the woke leftist that my sister tries to avoid for obvious reasons.
A mix of their TDS, and the fact their party has become such a failure they cannot admit it. Hence their insane comments, attempts to whitewash history or attempts to change the subject.
Very cultist.
—Dennis, Gigi and George are all harassed with vile commentary to whatever reasoned commentary they put up.
Imagine if any one of the three ever posted anything resembling ‘reasoned commentary’. They’d get better comments.
Well it was worth a try, George. No one feels sorry for you, though. Now sign back in as ‘George’ so Upstate will read you.
I was thinking the EXACT same thing. That was definitely Svelaz-George. What a douche that guy is.
I engage him on the merits EVERY time. The added colorful vocabulary is a) for entertainment, because he is not a serious commenter and b) because it seems to bother him so.
Just like Gigi and Dennis, we know he is not here for intelligent discussion, because even when confronted with the facts, they obfuscate and deflect, and NEVER admit they are wrong. They just move on and repeat the exact same lie again.
They all 3 engage in ad hom attacks on the readership here, thinking they are clever because they address it to Turley, as though we are all just too dumb to see through it. He can cry me a handful.
Yep. Agree.
The only thing surprising about his comment
is that he didn’t ‘like’ it (yet).
Waters,
Well said.
That is why I generally just scroll past.
If someone responded to their comment, like you, I will read your comment and get the general gist of it.
Sometimes when someone like Lin, or John Say responds, then to get the context, then I will read Dennis or Natashas comment.
Also shows how delusional they are.
You’d be thinking wrongly then. It wasn’t George. It was someone else you often paranoidly see the voice of everywhere….
Or not. Maybe we’re all just dropping from the sky just to personally f$%k with your head. Who knows?
Muhf$%k’n bug
LOL well, if you don’t mind being mistaken for his whiney ass and low IQ.
Bwahahahahahahha
And Enigma is also attacked racially in response to his commentary. He’s got amazing patience when he posts.
Let’s just say those of you on the right here leave much to be desired in your practice of free speech tolerance. Several of you would regularly get rung up on sexual harassment charges for what you say to Gigi if this was a workplace or office.
Steaming turd^^^
You’re a fvcking moron if you think gigi is a woman.
I love this victimhood card this douche thinks he is playing. Its bug the alcoholic, crying in his vodka.
Dennis and Gigi are not serious commenters. They come here to post their steaming turds and sit back and admire them. They both go out of there way to denigrate and insult the readership here. Just because they do it while “talking to Jonathan”, is not clever, nor is it excusable. You use the term magats all the time, ya hypocrite.
So kindly shove that whiney shit up your ass. No one is buying it.
Enigma is a one trick pony that sees everything through a particular lens that is distorted.
Even his screen name says exactly who he is. He thinks his color defines him. Who are we to disagree?
Too bad he’s not a well rounded moron like you.
^^^says the misshapen moron
—for what you say to Gigi if this was a workplace
Gigi wouldn’t even have the job, talking so disrespectfully
to her ‘boss’ Mr. Turley the way she does here every day.
“Turley has figured out the age of rage business model and positioned himself accordingly. “
A strange comment from the idiot who posts every day that Turley has nothing to do with this site.
Just say whatever enters that tiny brain, eh?
@Anonymi
And yet here we are reading your (likely paid) drivel. Just as we have, day after day, for years. Spare us. 🙄🙄
Honored to hear you think I’m paid. But, from a business model perspective there is absolutely no ROI potential for trying to influence who frequents this blog. It’s a literal shrine to opinion set in stone with most here.
At least for those of us on the left. Fox obviously disagrees though with their rightist model and that’s why they’ve most likely bought the rights from Turley.
Thanks for all your responses though! Couldn’t have made my point any more effectively for me.
I particularly loved the drivel from the turd fetishist who seems impressed with his own low bar ability to recognize the tone in my posts.
What’s truly amazing is how clever and intelligent you see yourself, and yet you don’t even know that the person using “steaming turd” a) absconded the phrase from me, and b) is using it as a metaphor, dum dum. The fact you can’t hear it without picturing actual feces is your problem (and one you might seek help with).
You should be honored that anyone would respond to your drunken tirades. I rubberneck on horrific highway crashes too. It doesn’t make the DWI perp a star.
Have another sip, drunktard.
Have to admit, this was a first I never saw coming…, a magat upset over intellectual property rights around the phrase ‘steaming turd’!! Truly special!
You mean to say when you point to what you leave us in your training potty everyday with pride that it’s threatening to you that someone else is trying to take credit for it???
I’m thinking we should study you.
Did I say I was upset?? Bwahahahahahha. For such a clever guy, you don’t get much right when it comes to reading comprehension. I am fine with him using it. In fact, I think it’s hilarious because it seems to bother you so. You whine about it often. Ostensibly because you can’t help picturing a nice warm pile of shit.
^^^^So that is what I mean to say. Plain enough for you, dum dum?
Keep digging, drunktard. The crowd loves it. Sober up before you study.
“You mean to say when you point to what you leave us in your training potty everyday”
See…..proof that you can’t help it. Even when you were told it was metaphor. That must really suck, to be that weak minded.
See, Turd magat tommy, part of your major malfunction — and I’m sure the court appointed therapist that you got through the domestic — has broached this with you…, but you have ZERO sense of humor and are so insecure that you have to compete with everyone all the time. It makes you woefully inept at reading context and leaves you with only one option. That’s to constantly try to ‘one up’ people. It’s no doubt made your real life miserable and driven people away from you in droves. Of course when trumpism kicked in full on you were all in on it because of course you are. But trumpism is soon to get some unfavorable travel directions, at least as far as you’re concerned. Might be wise to adjust accordingly, no?
I laugh at almost everything you post. Including your little Colbert one liners. I just think the way you post them makes you a jack ass. And not owning them makes you a cheesedick coward.
And there it is. When the libtard can’t say anything worthwhile, its about Trump. So weak, bro, even for you. I don’t like Trump. I think he is a low IQ jack ass. I’ve never given any indication that I give a flying fvck what happens to him.
You have read my responses to that idiot, Ralph Di Maxipad, so I know you already know this. But you got nothing else. You should seek help. It’s a disease.
Lets hear you admit that Joe Biden is just as scummy, and is not only unfit to run the country, he hasn’t been running the country.
Look in the mirror for the one who is a cultist. That turd don’t float here.
Hey Bug man! Look dude, that guy, um…uh…Steven Colbert, yea dude, he is looking for you. He really likes your stupid little one liners you’ve been posting lately. Says he wants to hire you. I guess to work his son’s bar mitzva??? He knows you’re gay, but I didn’t tell him about your predilection for little boys. I might’ve promised him that you’d suck his dick.
Steaming turd^^^^^ Anon@10:31
@Anon
There’s little ROI on it anywhere else, either (largely due to the fact that most people are not nearly as stupid as the perpetrators suppose); that doesn’t stop it from being a thriving business. Good attempt at obfuscating, though.
No one is censoring you, and if you think disagreement is some form of malevolence, you aren’t exactly disavowing anybody of their notions regarding the modern left.
That isn’t the purpose of comment bombing, though, and you know it. 🤷🏽♂️
James,
Just scroll past. Dont bother reading anything they say. Their comments are worth reading.
too late….Democrats FASCISTS already are jailing people for free speech!
We need to Defund their centralize power and jail the lot of them!
When you have jduges like in NY make up the law and fine people $1/2 Billion…you need to TAKE ACTION! Trump is under a GAG order BTW….so much for FREE SPEECH!
End ALL Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and Colleges. Cut Federal Spending 50%…and Jail every person involved in persecuting Trump(Russian hoax & various others), PROTECTING Bidens, lying about COVID, helping Illegals and I mean by the 1000’s
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Left Wing DEM’s, Bernie Sanders wing in Biden Admin, along with the Media, so called Intellectuals and our Elite pushing a two class system, The Elites and then the rest of us. Shut up, do as I say, Eat Bugs, live in cramped cities, no meat, no cars and be happy. Biden Admin. is full of these left wing radicals. Hopefully the elections will allow cleaning house and send them back to their caves.
You cannot truly prohibit speech. You can only drive it underground.
… You can only submarine it into the Intellect of the Mind.
In the end, this alliance may reduce our appetite for free speech but we will never truly lose our taste for it. It is in our DNA
That’s a great line. Imagine for a moment what that quote means. Free speech is the prodigal son of our natural rights. We can, and many do, try to deny the existence of these natural rights. But no matter how hard one tries not to believe, there they remain, waiting for us to welcome them back into our lives.
Amen. And there is more evidence to believe we were and continue to be right about Hillary/Obama and Democrats / MSM colluded to rig the 2020 election. Fired CBS Reporter Catherine Herridge explains with receipts:
Catherine Herridge
@C__Herridge
#HunterBidenLaptop
“…the explosive allegations about Biden family misconduct were buried and millions of Americans cast their votes for president without a full set of facts. “
NOTE: At least one participant figured prominently in controversial talking points during Obama admin.
https://x.com/C__Herridge/status/1805759728188113179
Executive Summary
The Committee on the Judiciary, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have revealed how, in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about Biden family influence peddling.1 In issuing a public statement using their official titles, these former intelligence officials sought to cast an explosive New York Post story and Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as “Russian disinformation.”2 President Biden even cited to the statement in a televised debate with President Trump shortly before the election to accuse President Trump of leveling false accusations.3 As a result, the explosive allegations about Biden family misconduct were buried and millions of Americans cast their votes for president without a full set of facts.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 51: HOW CIA CONTRACTORS COLLUDED WITH THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN TO MISLEAD AMERICAN VOTERS
Second Interim Joint Staff Report of the
Committee on the Judiciary, Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
June 25, 2024
Democrats are the greatest threat to US Democracy and they will never concede that their marionette Joseph Biden is unfit for Office. That would mean that they would lose their vehicle to wield their power. Once authoritarians have power, history demonstrates they never ever willingly let it go.
Estovir,
Well said and spot on.
There’s no doubt that the unholy triumvirate of government, corporations, and academia allied against free speech values would like to THINK they can control public opinion. But the one thing they are most susceptible to is, in fact, public opinion — adverse public opinion. Given enough public ridicule and pushback, they will turn on a dime, reverse course, cancel that product marketing, hide those signs, fire those influencers, and halt those plans for that new government agency.
The triumvirate may be a tiger, but it’s one made out of paper.
As in Singin’ In the Rain, “dignity, always, dignity.” Yeah. Right.