Below is my column in USA Today on why the opponents of President Joe Biden should make free speech the focus of this election. With the Supreme Court taking an off ramp in Murthy v. Missouri on Internet censorship, the free speech community is left, for now, with the political process to protect free speech. It is a potentially unifying issue for many Americans who are alarmed by the current anti-free speech movement. I have previously written that the Biden Administration has chilling analogies to the Adams Administration in the weaponization of the legal system and the crackdown on free speech. What should most concern Biden is the possibility of another aspect of history repeating itself: a defeat like the one in 1800.
Here is the column:
Since his dystopian speech outside of Independence Hall in 2022, President Joe Biden has made “democracy is on the ballot” his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish.
While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
The 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800 and, if so, it does not bode well for Biden.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” released last week, I discuss our long struggle with free speech as a nation. It is an unvarnished history with powerful stories of our heroes and villains in the struggle to define what Justice Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”
One of the greatest villains in that history was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.
Government efforts to limit free speech are Orwellian
We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history. President Joe Biden is, in my view, the most anti-free speech president since Adams. Under his administration, we have seen a massive censorship system funded and directed by the government.
A federal judge described the system as “Orwellian” in its scope and impact.
Biden has repeatedly called for greater censorship and accused social media companies of “killing people” by not silencing more dissenting voices. Other Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have pushed for restrictions on “unacceptable” speech.
The Biden administration seeks to censor even true statements as disinformation.
For example, I testified before Congress last year on how Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
The left has picked up the cudgels of censorship and blacklisting once used against them. During the McCarthy period, liberals were called “communist sympathizers.” Now, conservative justices are called “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
Candidates should call out Biden on censorship
In this election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Donald Trump and Cornel West should talk about the threats against free speech at every debate and stump speech. They will have to overcome a news media that has been complicit in the attacks on free speech, but these candidates can break through by raising it as a key issue dividing Biden from the rest of the field.
Democrats and the news media have hammered away at cracking down on those accused of “disinformation.” The public, however, has not been won over by those seeking to limit their right of free speech or the push to amend the First Amendment because it’s too “aggressively individualistic.”
So far, the anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment.
As discussed in my book, we are hardwired for free speech. It is in our DNA. Despite these periods of crackdowns on free speech, we have always rejected those who wanted to regulate the views of others. Jefferson called the Federalists “the reign of the witches.” (Ironically, Jefferson would himself prosecute critics, though not to the same extent as Adams).
Attacks on free speech have returned with a vengeance before another presidential election. After fighting in the courts and in the public to expand censorship, Biden should now have to defend it with the voters. Let’s have at it, as we did in 1800.
Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
DRUG TEST
Bidens approval poll numbers are running just below chlamydia.
Unfortunately, there is no indication whatever that the Republican Party generally, or Donald Trump in particular, has a different position on free speech than Biden, although they may differ on which topics/people should be censored. If anything, the Republican majority in Congress has been more aggressive in their efforts to silence dissent on US policy with regard to Israel’s war on Gaza than the Democrats. There is no principle here, except “whose ox is gored”
Calling for genocide not free speech.
Great article, but you do not go far enough. Yes, they want to destroy free speech, but that is one part of it. They have interfered with our elections, they are letting Hamas (not just their idiot supporters) run wild, they arrest a man for exposing child mutilators, weaponize our justice system, try to destroy women, they fund terrorists and our enemies, they weaken our military and try to corrupt all of them with racist DEI. These are not good people. They are not small d democrats. They are fascists and you should start using the word.
Bravo.
Interesting viewpoint, and a good one. At the time, there was what we can now call widespread social media, with hundreds of local newspapers, some very polemic, and the social aspect was through local gatherings of citizens in constant (personal) discussion. Nowadays, the scale of social media has exponentiated, the conversation is anonymous, and the newspaper influence has all but disappeared.
To beat Biden, let Biden be Biden. He is his own worst enemy.
Let them keep him in the basement.
Let them hide him from the press or taking real questions, unscripted.
Then hammer him with the real concerns the average American has: The economy, the illegal immigration crisis, crime, and then round it off with Biden’s assault on free speech.
Alas, I wish Trump were smart enough. Sure, he is good with crude one liners, but his wit is mostly juvenile.
Imagine someone like Senator Kennedy of LA, debating Biden.
That would be an entertaining evening.
Seriously though, Trump should have an easy response to anything Joe might say, but he won’t. He doesnt commit anything to memory. He just shoots from the hip and thats not gonna play well.
Biden will be drugged up and ready to go. Even the 90 minute format was based on the half life of the drugs he is taking.
If somehow Trump could bring a blue tooth speaker in and during one of his two minute responses, just play some loud music.
That seems to be what triggers Bidens freeze ups
Mr. Haney would get his ass handed to him.
Great point Upstate!
Upstate, that’s what happened last time, and Biden won.
Whether the election results are accepted or not, he’s in office.
Following the same path as then will lead to somewhere different now?
It is truly amazing in what used to be a free speech country how many people do not want free speech.
I am sympathetic to Prof. Turley’s advice here; free speech is fundamental to all other liberties. However there is a problem with this analogy. First, in 1800 the U.S. had had the Constitution for less than a decade. Free Speech, and other liberties, weren’t exactly baked into our DNA, yet. Second, the detestable French Revolution, the prototype for all sorts of modern tyrannies (USSR, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc) was working to export its “liberation” across the world. Jefferson, and the Democrat-Republicans, the ancestor of the Democratic Party, were sympathetic to this revolution, even to its murderous excesses, but the French were working independently to divide the population and draw the U.S. into war with England. There were aliens seditionists — real ones; home grown ones also. It took a bit to learn that Adams’s cure was worse than the disease.
Finally, Joe Biden is not a John Adams. Joe Biden represents nothing but the worst characteristics of every member of the human race all rolled into one man. Amazingly he has served as a sort of litmus paper to demonstrate the corruption and perfidy of the Democratic party. He should be easy to defeat on any issue — pick one. Instead, the utopian and corrupt Demcratic party and their handmaidens in the press and so many NGOs have lashed themselves to the mast of SS Biden and now work without tire to corrupt rational thought in order to keep the rickety wreck afloat.
Our problem in this election, as in all others, is that it depends on rational voters of which there are few; and now also on the credibility of elections which most Americans have become highly suspicious of. Should have audited the 2020 election fully. Too late now.
There will be violence at the ballot boxes.
Mark my words.
I disagree with some of your analysis but do agree with your general conclusion.
1) The right of free speech was not created in the Constitution so for Americans free speech was in their DNA much longer than 10 years. Indeed Madison did not think it necessary to include the bill of rights and in fact thought that the bill of rights would endanger the validity of previous bills of rights. For the bill of rights we can be thankful for Edmund Randolph.
2) While we do not have a French revolution in progress, we do have a lot of radicals all strongly against Western capitalism and liberal democratic institutions including Islamic fundamentalist, the various Marxist groups that view themselves as oppressed including BLM reparationists and police abolitionists, Antifa anarchists, climate radicals, all of which exert surprisingly strong influence on many governmental and educational institutions.
Finally, agreed that Joe Biden is not John Adams but both have (had) strong anti-democratic tendencies not evident in their previous work before becoming President. Although Joe Biden was a long time Senator he did not submit for the Senate ratification an international commitment for the US to spend trillions in pursuit of an international agreement (Paris Climate accord). Biden has attempted to spend nearly half a trillion dollars without authorization by Congress (Student Loans forgiveness). Biden has squashed dissent to his COVID policies by discharging recalcitrant military and health professionals as well as working to suppress countervailing opinions in the press and social media. Joe Biden at his core is not a “little d” democrat and neither was John Adams. Indeed commenting on Adam’s Sedition act, Madison observed that it is “leveled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.” That sounds like a comment on the Biden administration social media censoring effort.
I agree with your concluding remarks though I would note that there are probably upwards of 40% of the voters that are “yellow dog Democrats” leaving the margin for your rational voters surprisingly slim given the arguably correct observation of Bill Barr’s that a vote for Biden is committing national suicide.
How about the RULE OF LAW?
Where the BIBENS Obviously took bribes from CHINA, Ukraine, etc….AND THE 100% Corrupt DOJ ignores it.
While the WHITE HOUSE/Democrats USE the entire government to Persecute Trump and the people around him…and the GOP blithely continues to FUND the FASCIST DEMOCRATS who are FIGHTING A CIVIL WAR?
The USA is currently a FASCIST State where 50 TOP Federal Intl Officials…used THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY TO LIE to the America People about the Biden LAPTOP and ALL its crimes to ENSURE a BIDEN victory through the OPEN FRAUD of Voting in Democrat centers in Atlanta, AZ, PHilly, etc.
Instead they DESTROY Rudy Giuliani WHO BROUGHT this to the Publics Attentions and the FBI/DOJ ignore the CRIMES brought to their attention!
The White House is sending their staff across the country to NY, AZ, GA, etc to Harass and destroy Trump
Stop talking about FREE SPEECH…that doesn’t WIN WARS!
THERE IS A ONE SIDED WAR GOING on against the AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Oof. That Boston Globe editorial cites the “general welfare” clause as a reason to abridge the first two Amendments.
Everybody drink!
Professor Turley,
Woodrow Wilson’s administration arrested and convicted nearly 900 people in 1919 and 1920 under amendments to the Espionage Act (and related anti-free speech laws) that he supported. The new language made it a crime to “utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane . . . or abusive language” about the United States government or to disagree with its actions overseas.
How can you possibly think that Biden’s administration is more anti-free speech than that?
You literally could have been arrested by Wilson’s anti-free speech government for writing this piece.
This is why SCOTUS ruled the 5th circuit was wrong on the facts. From Justice Barrett,
“ Some of the evidence of the “increase in censorship” reveals that Facebook worked with the CDC to update its list of removable false claims, but these examples do not suggest that the agency “demand[ed]” that it do so. Ibid. Finally, the court, echoing the plaintiffs’ proposed statement of facts, erroneously stated that Facebook agreed to censor content that did not violate its policies. Id., at 714, n. 655. Instead, on several occasions, Facebook explained that certain content did not qualify for removal under its policies but did qualify for other forms of moderation.”
It’s amusing that the majority of the evidence the 5th used involved misleading claims and misinformation to justify their ruling. Barrett saw thru the BS and called them out on it.
Why dont you just say that you are fine with government employees moderating speech? I mean after all, thats their job, isn’t it? Sitting around reading twitter and facebook? I’d like to see that gov’t job listing.
And dont give us some asinine analogy. Save it for the 3rd graders in your circle jerk.
Strange how suddenly ACB is a brilliant jurist, righting wrongs. Last week she was part of a right wing cabal.
George: Thank you very much for your cogent explanation of the Court’s decision and Barrett’s reasoning. I agree 1000%. The case was tossed on plaintiffs not having standing, meaning the justices never got to deciding whether the merits could stand or not. Yet, the pundits on TV and radio – both conservative and liberal- are misconstruing the decision to be pro-Biden or anti-free speech, depending upon what station you listen to. It is neither. We all too often assume a case like this brought by state AGs is solid when, in fact, most state AGs are politicians (e.g., NY’s Letitia James) and are prone to filing weak and poorly composed briefs. Barrett, a law professor, gave them an F but the issue remains to be decided, perhaps on a better prepared case.
You can’t make free speech and issue when Trump is on record wanting to loosen defamation laws and he pressured Fox News to suppress facts and spread lies after the 2020 election. His administration was also known for denying press credentials to networks as punishment.
Like anything else MAGA, every accusation is a confession.
What the fvck good is a press credential when the president get a list of the 3 people he cam call on in the 4 pressers per year that he does.
Idiot
Are you having a stroke?
Are you daft?
Have you checked the index in your copy of Turley’s book? Maybe he covers those “incidents”.
LMAO
Look, he’s laughing at his own incoherent “joke”
Care to explain this one Sammy?
Biden officials pressured health organization to remove age limits for transgender surgeries on minors
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/3059479/biden-officials-pressured-remove-age-limits-transgender-surgeries/
What is it with you leftists that want to mutilate children? What is with the desire to get the state in between a parent and their child? What is with the desire to have sexual relations with under aged children?
Who can say what SCOTUS intended. There may have been a willingness to approach the subject but only by a 5-4 decision and the Chief Justice wanted unanimity to show the real thoughts of the Supreme Court but could not get it. 8-1 or 9-0 would be more meaningful to both Republicans and Democrats. It’s been kind of the way the Chief Justice like to push things in the past. I don’t like it but the chief justice might have a point.
This is going to have to be done by votes. And if the Republicans win, then it’s followed by a deconstruction of the censorship industry. That, in itself, will be a huge task.
You need a free speech act. Sort of like the Civil Rights act and break the filibuster.
1-You have to remove the culling of conservatives in universities, professional schools by withholding of grant money. Since they are not there, their speech is removed and censored.
2-Deligitimize the DEI, Critical Race theory, reverse discrimination because again it removes the prescribed individuals and muzzles their outlet to protest and fight the injustice.
3-The private sector in media and internet can be regulated to a certain degree by giving users a bill of rights and to establish guidelines where people can have clear and established rules to follow when they publish on the YouTube, Rumble, X and other places and especially they have to be notified of the clearcut reasons why they have been removed and a clear pathway to be returned to the carrier they desire. A separate ombudsman can rule on this but must be separate from the censoring entity and politically neutral.
4-Forbid the contact of the Federal and state governments with the media or others in the private sectors in any way to monitor and control speech or threaten anyone who exercises their free speech.
5-Remove the monopoly of state run schools and push all states to allow home schooling or alternate schooling with the same amount of funds as used per pupil in government run schools. Otherwise pupils will just be bombarded with propaganda from the state and teachers unions. Nazi Germany forbade home schooling and that law has never been revoked and Germany still forces people to leave the country to get alternate schooling.
6-Revoke the FISA court, or allow attorneys with high security clearance to speak for those under scrutiny by the court.
This only a start. But there is the need for an all encompassing act to fully bring free speech back into our politics and daily life.
If Freedom of Speech is not sacrosanct in our society then where will it survive. There is no one else out there who is capable of carrying and sustaining the light that it brings to all of us.
If we have no real free speech then our Republic is a lie and is not worth defending.
Democracy is on the ballot, you cannot have a democracy or a representative republic without free speech.
Turley credits John Adams as being the worst President regarding free speech while giving Thomas Jefferson a passing mention. It was Jefferson who benefitted from the suppression of stories in Clementina Rand’s Federalist that reduced speculation about his affair with a neighbor’s wife and bearing children with one of his slaves. Widespread publication of his affairs didn’t break until J. T. Callender published “Her Name is SALLY” in 1802, coming after Jefferson was President. Here is part of what Callender wrote:
“If the reader does not feel himself disposed to pause we beg leave to proceed. Some years ago, this story had once or twice been hinted at in Rind’s Federalist. At that time, we believed the surmise to be an absolute calumny. One reason for thinking so was this. A vast body of people wished to debar Mr. Jefferson from the presidency. The establishment of this SINGLE FACT would have rendered his election impossible. We reasoned thus; that if the allegation had been true, it was sure to have been ascertained and advertised by his enemies, in every corner of the continent. The suppression of so decisive an enquiry serves to shew that the common sense of the federal party was overruled by divine providence. It was the predestination of the supreme being that they should be turned out; that they should be expelled from office the popularity of a character, which, at that instant, was lying fettered and gagged, consumed and extinguished at their feet.”
The clear beneficiary of suppression of free speech was Thomas Jefferson under circumstances not very different from Trump benefitting from stories not coming out about Karen McDougal, Stormy Daniels, and a rumored love child.
You blew your whole point when you said “RUMORED” love child.
His point was the story was being suppressed. You’re focusing on the wrong thing. It’s not about the details of the story.
Sewing circle
Boo!
The rumor was what the doorman was selling, by all accounts there wasn’t an actual child, though there must have been enough smoke to make the story worth $30,000. How would you have had me describe it.
Who cares?
You apparently did.
Comprehend much?
Right answer. Wrong question.
At the time, that’s what it was.
The way they wrote back then is still much better than how we write today. I doubt many would get what he said in the manner people wrote in those days. It requires you read with full comprehension of what is being said. Pretty cool.
^^^^ says the spastic idiot
Odd that Enigma doesn’t mention the FACT that Biden benefited by the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY silencing the NY Post and others regarding the Laptop???
About 20% of people that voted for Biden state that they may not have if they knew about the laptop being real.
Enigma is lying through omissions, a typical tactic of those doing the censoring. We used to call it SPIKING a story back when it was leftists supporting the Soviets doing it.
Yep, i noticed that too. Is anyone surprised?
They didn’t silence the NY post. All they did was issue a warning. The NY post withheld the story for only 24 hrs because they could not with any certainty assert the authenticity of the content in the laptop.
The pee tape is real
The lap top is fake
——-Svelaz-George
“Clementina Rand’s”
It’s “Rind.” Not “Rand.”
“Rand’s [sic] Federalist”
She never owned or printed such a publication.
“. . . that reduced speculation about [TJ’s] affair . . .”
Rind died in 1774, some 26 years *before* Jefferson’s presidency.
Other than that, I’m sure the rest of your “story” is completely accurate.
Thank you for making me go back and check my information. It was William Alexander Rinds “Federalist” published in 1799-1800 that Callender referred to that kept Jefferson’s name clear. This came at a time when Alexander Hamilton, writing under the pen name “Phocion,” was spreading dirt on Jefferson, hinting at Jeffersons children with Sally. Callender struck back with accusations about Hamilton and someone in Jefferson’s circle (some speculate Monroe) released the Reynolds Pamphlet outing Hamilton for his affair and blackmail money paid, ending his chances to ever become President. Those were interesting times.
“. . . check my information.”
Check further.
That publication was owned by a British Royalist. Callender (who then hated Jefferson) was the publication’s editor.
So your claim is: A publication that hated Jefferson suppressed a story, written by its own editor, that was harmful to Jefferson. And they suppressed the story to help Jefferson.
That “suppression” claim is absurd.
Thank you for making me go back and
check my informationgoogle it again.YW
Maybe ditch the wilipedia references, Enema
Just one question black.
Who gives a flying fvck?
Nice waste of words, bro.
“Just one question black” Hmmm. Jonathan Turley gave a flying fvck, hence the article we’re responding to.
Nope. If he gave a ff about jefferson or trump he would have written about.
By the way, NEWS FLASH——-even if he gaff, he doesnt read your drivel. So i ask again, RHETORICALLY, who gives a flying fvck?
Turley’s article discusses both Jefferson and Trump, did you actually read it?
Who gives a flying fvck, Enema?
I searched for, but failed to find, evidence of any overt “suppression” of the story of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings that was contemporaneous with Jefferson’s prominence or his Presidency, much less any allegations that Clementina Rind was somehow coerced not to publish such an account in her “Federalist” newspaper. Do you have any citation that corroborates “suppression” of that nature? James T. Callender was a notorious muckraker and scandalmonger (not that there is any justification for government suppression of the free speech of such a person) who, ironically, was imprisoned in the 1790s under John Adams’ favorite tool of speech suppression the Alien and Sedition Acts, for attacking Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps Rind and others declined to publish unsubstantiated (at the time) and scandalous stories about Jefferson and Hemmings out of concern for their integrity, and that of their publications.
I notices Sam’s correction about the publisher of the Federalist after posting, my points are not affected. Clementina Rind did assume publication of her husband William Rind’s newspaper, “The Virginia Gazette”, for the year following his death in 1773.
As Sam accurately pointed out, It wasn’t Clementina Rind who suppressed stories about Jefferson. That happened in W.A. Rind’s The Virginia Federalist which Callender noted in the excerpt I provided. Callender was a good friend of Adams (and Jefferson) until he wasn’t, ultimately turning on both men.
While there is much evidence of Jefferson’s friends (and historians) going to extremes to protect his name. There is little evidence Jefferson coordinated it. He did write a letter in 1876 denying his affair with Sally that Callender published. Annette Gordon-Reed describes some of their efforts in one of her books. https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Sally-Hemings-Controversy/dp/0813918332
You could make a case that all stories printed during those times were unsubstantiated. I can’t see anyone worrying about Hemings integrity as she was treated most unfavorably, as if she had a real choice.
Who gives a flying fvck??
You are apparently triggered this morning.
Who gives a flying fvck??
Why are you here, 14?
I enjoy some of the discussions with those who bring something to the table besides insults and stupidity. You are obviously not included.
Yet you have replied to me 8 times
I wanted to see if you could expand your vocabulary. I promise I won’t initiate a conversation with you.
Big words impress you??
You make some valid points that weren’t clear to me from your first post. Just for the sake of argument, suppose that the relationship between Jefferson and Hemmings was consensual, as much as was possible at the time, in spite of her status as a slave. What would have been the effects on Jefferson if he freed her, then continued the relationship? We can probably agree they would not have been good. But what would the effects have been on Hemmings? Mostly beneficial? Mostly harmful? I cannot immerse myself in the cultural milieu of the time sufficiently well to make that judgement, and I suspect that you cannot do that, either. Based on what I know about Jefferson in other respects, I’m inclined to give him a good bit of latitude here. YMMV.
I would disagree with the concept of a consensual relationship between Jefferson and someone he owned, the power differential was too great. She wanted to stay in France but he controlled her entire extended family. She returned based on the promise that he would free their children when they came of age. A promise he failed to keep, with the exception of one freed in his will that hadn’t come of age yet. He thought so little of Sally that he never freed her, even upon his death.
I too think of other things Jefferson did. He ended the international slave trade the first moment allowed under the Constitution which on the surface seems like a good thing but he had no desire to end slavery, ending the international slave trade was a protectionist measure to engance the domestic slave trade. The people most enriched were plantation owners in Virginia (like himself), Maryland, and Delaware who had excess slaves. In Virginia, slaves became the leading export surpassing tobacco. Jefferson wrote George Washington with his 4% solution saying having slave women produce a child every two years which would increase profits by at least 4% annually. The methods used to encourage more children included forced breeding and rape. That’s the Jefferson I know.
To your question, if he freed Sally Hemings and she continued the relationship, it would still be conditional. She would have to worry about what he might do to her brothers and children, and mother while she was alive. You might believe Jefferson would never do such a thing, yet he had no problem separating families when he staffed the President’s House (White House) after replacing John Adams as the second inhabitant. He had only a couple weeks to staff the building because of delays in the Electoral College and Aaron Burr fighting him for the presidency. Jefferson drew from his own staff yet split up families to make sure they wouldn’t attempt to escape if their spouses and children were back at Monticello. Sally saw all of that behavior, why would she think it wouldn’t apply to her family as well?
These are the points I would argue. Yes, Jefferson was the chief writer of the Declaration of Independence but can anyone argue he meant all men were created equal when he owned over 600 during his lifetime.
Could I argue that Jefferson did some good things? Certainly. Am I likely to forget all the other things he did? Not a chance. You may have read the works of historians like Edwin Betts who hid letters of Jefferson’s showing that teen slave boys were beaten in his nailery to increase productivity because those letters didn’t match the narrative. That’s the Jefferson I know.
Professor Turley’s hyperbole and hysterics regarding free speech are nothing more than a plug for his book.
Strangely, Turley ignores censorship from the right that is far more evident and purposeful than what he claims is coming from the left. Book bans, banning story time for kids because someone dresses as a crazy caricature of a woman or something similar. Seeking to punish students for exercising their free speech rights on school campuses. There are plenty of issues regarding censorship and stifling of free speech coming from the right, but Turley conveniently ignores all that so he can focus only on the left to demonize and denigrate purely to satiate his far-right readership.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling was correct. Justice Barrett once again had to slap down the 5th circuit’s erroneous ruling, which has been the norm lately. Turley rarely dives into the details of a case. Instead he focuses on what he can exploit for his most valuable asset, MAGA supporters. Because he claims to be a constitutional scholar and a practicing lawyer he should have recognized the problem of standing and actual harm which is required to prove that what he claims is happening is true. Clearly that is not the case. Instead, he proceeds to engage in hyperbole and insinuations without explaining why his position is legally sound.
The Supreme Court explained why the plaintiffs could not sue. Because they could not and did not prove the government did what they claim they did. The only things they could provide were allegations, insinuations, and assumptions instead of concrete evidence of harm. They could not argue on the merits of their claims because they did not show any evidence of harm or prove their claims of government censorship. Pressuring or wanting private entities such as facebook, twitter, and others to curtail or remove certain content is not illegal or unconstitutional. Only if there are specific threats of punishment, retaliation, for not doing what the government wants is when things get illegal and unconstitutional. The plaintiffs could not prove that social media did not have a choice in deciding whether to censor or not. Justice Alito in his pithy attempt to make a valid point failed to acknowledge that social media companies always had the last say on whether to follow through on the government’s suggestions or not. The majority of the time they refused and that alone is evidence showing allegations of coercion and alleged threats of punishment were just that, allegations.
Until plaintiffs, republicans and right-leaning organizations find someone with real standing to sue with evidence to back up their allegations and assumptions. The government CAN continue to do what it has always been able to do. Trying to convince, pressure, even demand certain information be removed, held back or changed as long as the decision to to do so remains solely on the journalist, publisher, or organization.
Funny you seemed to like the 5th circuit ruling on Daniels, because you thought it might help Hunter.
Is it going to get slapped down, Nostradamus?
Which circuit was Rahimi, ass hole?
What a douche.
Perhaps, the way the court goes it could change its mind. But that’s just a guess.
I didn’t “like” it per se. I just pointed out the ruling is a reasonable defense for Hunter Biden to use in his case.
No, you defended the ruling like a rabid dog.
Just like rahimi, you said it was in keeping with bruen.
Maybe you need your tarot cards in braille.
I said Rahimi MAY help hunter. It also exposed the flaw in Bruen.
No, you said Rahimi would likely be upheld. And that would help hunter. You were wrong.
Rahimi had nothing to do with hunter. Zero
Rahimi is not bruen.
Rahimi is not daniels
Hunter is not daniels
You seem very confused about this.
I though Waters explained it all pretty well. You should go back and read those posts again.
Yes, I said “likely”, “may”. Not that it “will” as you falsely claim.
Rahimi is just one case and it’s the weaker one to use as a defense. Daniels is much better. But like I have always said, it may help Hunter’s case. So far it’s more likely than not.
You should go back read yours. Clearly your paraphrasing is way off.
Wasn’t me, idiot. It was waters. But we all saw the smackdown. It was hard to watch.
You are waters, Tom, and foul mouthed anonymous.
Who is Tom?
So what? It is still relevant to Hunter’s defense.
You were wrong. So what? Good question.
If you’re ever right, so what??
Exactly
We have always limited speech when it comes to minors. For some reason there’s a very loud segment of society that wants to constantly push that envelope. One can only guess why.
At a time when the Federal government is considering legislation that directly affects tech providers and social media platforms, a threat wouldn’t have to be explicit. It’s a tired cliche’, but “Nice platform ya got there. Shame if something happened to it” is a legitimate observation.
A valid point, however the law requires an explicit threat in order for it to be a constitutional violation. Barret made that point regarding standing.
What pressure?
First off, the Paul Pelosi attacker wasn’t a Trump supporter, he was a deranged Canadian anarchist who was in the country illegally.
Secondly, no Trump supporter I know has rejected Reagan or Eisenhower. They are both seen as great Presidents.
Finally, the left continually says: no one is above the law. But the same is true of our constitutional rights: no one is beneath the Bill of Rights, including Trump and his supporters.
Dont bore the spastic idiot George with details.
Thats not why he is here
My question is how do they break through the MSM in the fight to address free speech. Too many still get their “news” from the old big 3 or CNN. Why else would boomers favor Biden? They are not hearing the truth.
The First Amendment and Bill of Rights were created primarily to “restrain” the authority of government officials – to protect citizens (not government officials).
Trump has exploited a huge weakness and loophole in the American system.
Trump can “legally” incite violence as a government official (with the largest megaphone in the USA), then his cult followers break the law committing violence, including attempted murder (ie: Paul Pelosi and many more).
This is absolutely a cult. Trump’s followers even reject Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower and everything the GOP once stood for – this is a cult not a political party. Even conservative Republicans oppose the Trump cult.
Why couldn’t there be a higher standard for top government officials with huge megaphones? Without infringing on the rights of regular citizens – which is the group the First Amendment was intended to protect? Trump is the group that the Bill of Rights were intended to “restrain” as a top government official.
Wow. You are incredibly misinformed. First, Trump tried – twice – to call out the national guard, and Pelosi stopped him from doing so. Trump told people to protest peacefully. There is zero evidence that he incited anything, which is why he hasn’t been charged with that. Had he really committed wrongs, the J6 Committee wouldn’t have withheld testimony that exonerated him, testimony we now know about b/c of FOIA. Second, if you think Trump’s followers reject Reagan, you are hugely out of touch. Meanwhile the current administration, which made millions off of the covid scare (censoring the 98% survival rate, for instance, and encouraging the media to focus on deaths rather than survival) and the ensuing vaccine, disallowing any discussion of its harms, has literally killed people by not allowing them to be fully informed. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The First Amendment should be an absolute right – Turley is correct in that is essential for our freedom and our general well-being. It’s too bad SCOTUS chickened out.
The survival rate is above 99.997%
The nonsense that Mr. Anonymous spews here daily is on full display today. The First Amendment was not intended to “restrain” any group but was intended to give all of us the ability to say in public what we think. Including such mental midgets such as mr. Anonymous. There are many “cults” in the US today, including those with TDS and those who attempt to murder Republican Congressmen at a baseball practice or stalk the homes of Supreme Court Justices armed and ready to kill. Yesterday six SCOTUS Justices said they were not ready to address this issue directly but would wait until there was a plaintiff who could show he or she was in fact censored or punished for speaking freely. When that occurs, I have no doubt that the vote will be 9-0, especially if the speech that has been censored or punished is from the Left or “Progressive” side of the aisle.
That other “Anonymous” should keep words and language simple and put on his Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmütze.
His/her head is far too swollen for the Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmütze.
There are two contrasting styles of mind-control opinion-shaping: censorship of information others are trying to get out, and 2) propaganda (pushing out alternate narratives (fabrications) you want to have the public believe). The 1st Amendment only covers the weaker technique of censorship where govt. is the offending actor.
Both Trump and Biden used whoppers on the public in the 2020 election lead-up and post-election chaos. Both whoppers got traction from sympathetic media, and molded opinion as intended (to a degree that still shocks me).
I didn’t realize how tribal instincts kick in when people are made to feel threatened, and those instincts then warp common sense reasoning, placing tribal loyalty much higher in value than objective truth.
This is why maintaining a fiercely independent mindset (you’re determined to hold BOTH parties equally accountable) is crucial. Both are perfectly willing and able to dupe someone willing to “takes sides” with them.
I think a key point that is missed here is that this is not government.
Exactly WHAT government job has the defined duty to police the rhetoric in the “public square” for violations of terms of service?
Answer: Not a goddam one. This is bad actors within the government, abusing their position and acting outside of their authority and job description. That is defrauding the government and should be prosecuted by the incoming DOJ
Progress to a Democrat: today is what you can’t say; tomorrow is what you have to say.
🎯
It is happening in medicine
How do they talk about free speech if they’re silenced by the Biden hologram with the full support of SCOTUS?
The good news is that SCOTUS tossed the case based on lack of plaintiff “standing”, so no precedent is being established. Another govt. censorship case can come later, and lead to a real opinion.
The bad news is that SCOTUS does not recognize the public infospace as something that may be “injured” by infowarfare actors. A trustworthy infospace is key to any well-functioning democracy’s ability to make good decisions in realtime. What we have now is not trustworthy, and very little is getting done in solving problems.
I think SCOTUS bailed on this case….kicked the can down the road.