In my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about a global anti-free speech movement that is now sweeping over the United States. While not the first, it is in my view the most dangerous movement in our history due to an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media forces. That fear was amplified this week with polling showing that years of attacking free speech as harmful has begun to change the views of citizens.
As discussed in the book, our own anti-free speech movement began in higher education where it continues to rage. It then metastasized throughout our politics and media. It is, therefore, not surprising to see the new Knight Foundation-Ipsos study revealing a further a decline in students’ views concerning the state of free speech on college campuses.
The study shows that 70 percent of students “believe that speech can be as damaging as physical violence.” It also shows the impact of speech codes and regulations with two out of three students reporting that they “self-censor” during classroom discussions.
Not surprisingly, Republican students are the most likely to self-censor given the purging of conservative faculty and the viewpoint intolerance shown on most campuses.
Some 49 percent of Republican students report self-censoring on three or more topics. Independents are the second most likely at 40 percent. Some 38 percent of Democrats admit to self-censuring.
Sixty percent of college students strongly or somewhat agree that “[t]he climate at my school or on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe, because others might find it offensive.”
The most alarming finding may be that only 54 percent of students believe that colleges should “allow students to be exposed to all types of speech even if they may find it offensive or biased.” That figure stood at 78 percent in 2016.
The poll follows similar results in a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of the population as a whole. It found that 53% of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. So there is now a majority who believe that the First Amendment, including their own rights, should be curtailed.
The most supportive of limiting free speech are Democrats at a shocking 61%. However, a majority (52%) of Republicans also agreed.
Roughly 40% now trust the government to censor speech, agreeing that they trust the government “somewhat,” “very much,” or “completely” to make fair decisions about what speech should be disallowed.
It is no small feat to convince a free people to give up their freedoms. They have to be afraid or angry. These polls suggest that they appear both very afraid and very angry.
It is the result of years of indoctrinating students and citizens that free speech is harmful and dangerous. We have created a generation of speech phobics who are willing to turn their backs on centuries of struggle against censorship and speech codes.
Anti-free speech books have been heralded in the media. University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade has written how dangerous free speech is for the nation. Her book, “Attack from Within,” describes how free speech is what she calls the “Achilles Heel” of America, portraying this right not as the value that defines this nation but the threat that lurks within it.
McQuade and many on the left are working to convince people that “disinformation” is a threat to them and that free speech is the vehicle that makes them vulnerable.
This view has been pushed by President Joe Biden who claims that companies refusing to censor citizens are “killing people.” The Biden administration has sought to use disinformation to justify an unprecedented system of censorship.
Recently, the New York Times ran a column by former Biden official and Columbia University law professor Tim Wu describing how the First Amendment was “out of control” in protecting too much speech.
Wu insists that the First Amendment is now “beginning to threaten many of the essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.” He claims that the First Amendment “now mostly protects corporate interests.”
There is even a movement afoot to rewrite the First Amendment through an amendment. George Washington University Law School Professor Mary Anne Franks believes that the First Amendment is “aggressively individualistic” and needs to be rewritten to “redo” the work of the Framers.
Her new amendment suggestion replaces the clear statement in favor of a convoluted, ambiguous statement of free speech that will be “subject to responsibility for abuses.” It then adds that “all conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.”
Franks has also dismissed objections to the censorship on social media and insisted that “the Internet model of free speech is little more than cacophony, where the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates . . . If we want to protect free speech, we should not only resist the attempt to remake college campuses in the image of the Internet but consider the benefits of remaking the Internet in the image of the university.”
Franks is certainly correct that those “unlikeable voices” are less likely to be heard in academia today. As discussed in my book, faculties have largely cleansed with the ranks of conservative, Republican, libertarian, and dissenting professors through hiring bias and attrition. In self-identifying surveys, some faculties show no or just a handful of conservative or Republican members.
The discussion on most campuses now runs from the left to far left without that pesky “cacophony” of opposing viewpoints.
One of the most dangerous and successful groups in this anti-free speech movement has been Antifa. I testified in the Senate on Antifa and the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. I specifically disagreed with the statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler that Antifa (and its involvement in violent protests) is a “myth.”
In the meantime, Antifa continues to attack those with opposing views and anti-free speech allies continue to “deplatform” speakers on campuses and public forums. “Your speech is violence” is now a common mantra heard around the country.
Faculty continue to lead students in attacking pro-life and other demonstrators.
Antifa is now so popular in some quarters that it recently saw two members elected to the French and European parliaments.
Antifa is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. It is laid out in Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” in which he emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”
Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
However, the most chilling statement may have come from arrested Antifa member Jason Charter after an attack on historic statues in Washington, D.C. After his arrest, Charter declared “The Movement is winning.” As these polls show, he is right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
Wake me up when every single post isn’t a plug for the book.
OK.
Do you promise to not comment again until then?
See below as Dennis the Draft Dodger again refuses to address the “black job” that his late mother told him to “never let go”.
Is tending your vineyard a “black job”, Dennis?
Wake me when you’ve written a book you never plug.
Jonathan: Your continued columns about so-called attacks on “free speech” have become tiresome. Your claims have no basis in fact.
Take your claim that the Biden administration has “censored” conservatives. Last term, the SC had an opportunity to address that very issue. In a 6-3 decision by Justice Barrett she ruled that conservative plaintiffs could offer no proof they were “censored” by any actions by the Biden administration. You have chosen to ignore that important decision.
Then you claim conservatives are being purged from university faculties through “hiring bias and attrition”. Your last attempt at that false claim was your column “All men are created equal” (7/25/24) discussing the views of conservative Prof. Bruce Gilley at Portland State. Gilley believes only MEN are created equal and he opposes the DEI policies at PS. Has Gilley been purged as a result of his vociferous opposition to PS policies? Nope. He is free to express his racist and misogynist views.
As to Antifa, what is the evidence that this “movement” is behind all the violence and attacks on “free speech”? The shooter who tried to take out DJT had no known associations with Antifa. He followed right-wing social media. The last big attempt to suppress “free speech” was on Jan. 6 when DJT and his right-wing MAGA paramilitary supporters tried to cancel the votes of millions of Biden voters. Any evidence Antifa was involved in J. 6? Nope.
If you want to address the real threats to a “free speech” you could point to DJT’s “Project 2025” where it sets out a plan to purge or silence anyone in government who does not support DJT’s authoritarian agenda. That’s the real existential threat to “free speech” you don’t want to address!
Dennis – do you live in the real World the Murty decision was on STANDING, NOT PROOF.
The shift in politics Campus faculty is unbelievably well documented.
Are you honestly so stupid as to argue that the political views of colleges reflect those of the people as a whole ?
They do not even reflect the political views of incoming freshmen.
Are you debating the FACT that the political views of professors on campus reflect an unhealthy one sided perspective that can not help but harm education ?
Or are you making the nonsensical claim that the massive shift left is purely accidental ?
There is no “massive shift”. That you believe that is purely of your one self deceit.
The Supreme Court ruled the states lacked standing, however Dennis is correct that states could not prove Biden was censoring conservatives. Government has free speech rights like everyone else. I know it’s hard to grasp that the government can exercise free speech like everyone else. The only distinction is they can’t prevent others from expressing their views. Elon Musk the absolute free speech advocate censors others on Xitter and has threatened to sue advertisers for not advertising on his platform. Because they are exercising their free speech too.
Universities hire based on what the majority of students want. Conservative views are not prevented from being expressed, but if there is little to no interest in conservative views or ideas the school has no incentive to hire them. As a free market enthusiast yourself you should understand that the demand for conservative instructors is not there. It seems it’s a demand and supply issue. If there is little to no demand then there’s no reason to hire what students do not want.
There are plenty of conservative professors at private religious colleges. I don’t see Turley demanding they hire liberal faculty because they need to have view point diversity.
“Universities hire based on what the majority of students want.”
Cite your reference. Making shit up again. A Svelaz specialty.
Prove me wrong first.
Not my job. You made the shit up out of thin air.
I don’t have to prove that big mouth bass don’t live at the bottom of the Marianna’s Trench either.
Just calling you a spastic for saying it will suffice for most.
Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens 1955 Democrats than Republicans, 47% to 16%
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1969 ,46% of professors described themselves as liberal, 27% described themselves as moderates, and 28% described themselves as conservative. They also reported that faculty in the humanities and social sciences tended to be the most liberal
Carnegie Foundation held in 1975, 1984, 1989, and 1997 showed an increased trend among professors toward the left, apart from a small movement to the right in 1984. By the 1997 study, 57% of the professors surveyed identified as liberals, 20% as moderates, and 24% as conservatives.
HERI a comprehansive study every 3 years form Between 1989 and 1998, the survey showed negligible change in the number of professors who described themselves as far left or liberal, approximately 45%. As of 2014, surveying 16,112 professors, the percentage of liberal/far left had increased to 60%.
In 2007, Gross and Simmons concluded in The Social and Political Views of American Professors that the professors were 44% liberal, 46% moderates, and 9% conservative.
According to Abrams, the ratio of liberal to conservative professors was highest in New England, where this ratio was 28:1, compared to 6:1 nationally.
“Prove me wrong first.”
I did – however that is NOT the standard.
If you are making absurd claims – often ones that run contrary to your own ideology and motives and certainly to common sense and significant public reporting – the burden is on YOU
If you have a reputation for pulling claims out of your ass and making things up – which you most certainly do – the burden is on You.
I provided a series of self reporting surveys of academia starting in 1955 and going through to 2014 demonstrating the trend towards a left leaning academia.
The sources I provided stopped at 2014 – which numerous sources such as Fire and hetorodox academy have noted was a watershed year – First this year was the arrival in large numbers of students steeped in Social media and suffering from anxiety and depression. You have correctly claimed that Students have been driving academia. For most of history that has been false. But since 2013 that has been true. Even left leaning professors and administration have essentially lost control caving to looney students.
Myriads of studies have confirmed that despite the slow shift of academia to the left – prior to 2013 there were no sigfnifican efforts to purge conservatives or ANYONE based on political views.
Starting in 2013 things have gone to H311 on college campuses. Alot of that is student driven, but a significant part is because the number of conservative professors who would stand up to the nonsense of students had dropped too low to fix things.
Our institutions are all going to have some bias. We can not sexually racially, politically or in any other way balance any of our institutions. They will work if they are out of balance – they can even work Well. But there is a tipping point at which out of balance turns into disaster – between the influx of students heavily afflicted by social media and a academia that had gone from 2:1 to 11:1 in political skew – disaster has struck.
This is when the actual censorship started, this is when black balling started, this is when the efforts to purge not only the few remaining conservatives, but even those on the left that did not toe the ideological line perfectly.
There are a large number of academics – most of them self identifing as on the left – atleast until recently that have come to the fore, often being targeted, specifically because they do not perfectly toe the left ideological line.
These are often refered to as the IDW – The intellectual Dark Web, People like Pinker, The Weinsteins, Heather Heyer, and many many others – few of which would be described as conservative. These have all been driven out of colleges and universities or driven out of academia – by further left professors and students.
This is also the foundations of the idiotic ProHamas protests on campuses.
John, you showed change in society not because conservatives are being censored or purged from universities and colleges. Like I said, this is similar to what happened during the renaissance. It’s not because conservatives are being persecuted or discriminated because of their views. It’s because their ideas and views no longer appeal to a majority in society. They judge conservatives and even libertarians by their actions, judgement, and cruelty of others who don’t comport to their values. When they are getting ignored, criticized, and mocked they cry victimhood and persecution. Most students see this and it’s why there’s little to no interest.
“ This is also the foundations of the idiotic ProHamas protests on campuses.”
This is exactly why conservatives are not being considered by students. When you deliberately label them as something they are not and judge them by the actions of others not related to their cause and be deliberately disingenuous you drag every conservative with you into the stereotype of bigot, racist, sexist, or whatever issue they are judging against. You’re the problem. Students are the ones who decide what education they want. They are the ones paying for it. Because there are fewer conservatives and libertarians in academia it means the ideologies are not as relevant as they once were. Instead of reflecting on that reality you choose to denigrate and cry persecution and victimhood. Evangelicals are very adept at that.
“John, you showed change in society not because conservatives are being censored or purged from universities and colleges.”
Do you have a brain ?
I did not demonstrate societal change.
As to your idiotic argument that this reflects some societal changes
Here is Pew tracking party identification from 1994 to the present.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/04/PP_2024.4.9_partisan-coalitions_1-01.png
There has been no societal change of party identication in 30+ years – NONE.
That argument is complete garbage.
What I provided was data showing the changfe in political identification of professors in colleges and universities.
That is NOT society as a whole.
Whether you like it or not, the shift on campuses is driven by forces ENTIRELY on campuses – not societal.
You claimed that nothing has changed – I PROVED that you were wrong.
The studies I reported told us what happened – which you denied.
Not why – which you are nakedly asserting without any evidence.
Frankly I do not need to establish why. It does not matter much. The decline in political diversity among professors on college campuses – particular after the tipping point in the 2nd decade of the 21st century is inherently BAD,
It probably matters very little if colleges are 60:40 on the left or 60:40 on the right.
It matter enormously when they are 95:5 – espectially when that is a radical departure from the real world.
It means that colleges are a distorted progressive bubble that is certain to fail to educate students properly and prepare them for the real world. That BTW would be true if colleges were 95:5 conservative – though that would be less dangerous, because conservatism is not an ideology, it is really more of a law of social science. Most new things fail.
Most new things are worse than the problems they try to solve.
Is it really that hard for you to understand why some left wing loons with ideas they think are new – but historically have failed over and over – often with copious bloodshed, are unlikely to do better than what humanity has worked out excruciatingly painfully over the past 7000+ years ?
To be clear – I am not opposed to exploring new ideas – this country was born of the last great advance in thought – the Scottish enlightenment. The idea that men could best govern themselves – just ONE of many great ideas that came out of the Scottish enlightenment. This country has been a massive and successful if not perfect experiment.
There is nothing wrong with new. But great care must be taken – because failure is easy and likely and success hard.
The scheme of government – the constitution our founders developed was pretty complex – and deliberately so. Because as great as this new idea of self government was they were all too well aware how easily it could go wrong. Greek democracy was fleeting.
“Like I said, this is similar to what happened during the renaissance.”
People who are ignorant of history should not be talking about the renaissance. While I do not seek to piss on the Renaissance – it was a vast improvement over what preceded it. But it is not some model for progressivism.
The renaissance was ultimately displaced by the periods that followed – right up to the present, and each represented an improvement in some ares over what preceded. The renaissance can be credited as the birth place of western thought – though even that is complex – because the Renaissance owes a great deal to the romans, and greeks and even jewish though that preceded it. Regardless while no one with a brain would want to go backwards to the Renaissance. Most anyone from before would be happy to time travel to the renaissance.
“It’s not because conservatives are being persecuted or discriminated because of their views. ”
A naked assertion without evidence.
“It’s because their ideas and views no longer appeal to a majority in society.”
A demonstrably false assertion – I provided the PEW data.
Can you please check your facts before making stupid claims.
“They judge conservatives and even libertarians by their actions, judgement, and cruelty of others who don’t comport to their values.”
Again assumes facts not in evidence. And bizarre definitions of words.
Historically – both over senturies and recently it is the LEFT that has repeatedly proved to act badly excercise poor judgement and to impliment poor and cruel policies.
As to the lefts “values” – what are those ?
Are you honestly going to argue that the epitomy of humanity is to have XY boxers pummel the crap out of XX Women ?
Because that is where your values lead. The idiotic intersectionality of the left accomplishes women’s liberation – through men in dresses breaking all the glass ceilings for them. It would be hard to come up with a value system more degrading to women.
As to creulty – I can hardly think of anything more cruel that to tell various minorities that the world hates them the can not succeed on merit, and they will only get ahead by engaging in the same vile discrimination of others that they were victimized by in the past.
Regardless, what are these purported values of the left that you think are so appealing ?
Most of this has been tried before – repeatedly and ended badly.
One of the reasons that you need a minimal body of conservatives on campus is to Warn you of how stupid and destructive your values are.
Regardless – I will give you some 200 year old principles from KAnt to start with
Universalizability:
An action is moral only if it can be willed as a universal law, meaning that it would be acceptable if everyone acted on the same principle.
Categorical Imperative:
The moral law is a categorical imperative, which is a principle that is absolute and unconditional, rather than hypothetical or dependent on personal desires or consequences.
Maxims:
Kant distinguishes between subjective maxims (personal principles of action) and objective laws (universal principles of morality). He argues that an action is moral only if it can be derived from a universalizable maxim.
Some permutation of this is the foundation of Western thought.
The Values of the modern left are not reconcilable with these PRINCIPLES.
““ This is also the foundations of the idiotic ProHamas protests on campuses.”
“When you deliberately label them as something they are not and judge them by the actions of others not related to their cause and be deliberately disingenuous you drag every conservative with you into the stereotype of bigot, racist, sexist, or whatever issue they are judging against. ”
Wow! – typical left wing nut – Conservatives are evil because they actually take those on the left at their word and they call things by the same labels as the leftist participants use for them, and then get accused of a long list of ism’s for saying precisely what the left says.
PLEASE refer to Kant above – if your values are not consistent and universal – they are immoral and you are a hypocrit.
Conservatives as well as much of the country would be tolerant and possibly even support peaceful protests regarding the Palestinians. But that is NOT what has occurred. It is also NOT what those in the protest labeled their own protests for the most part.
There is very little difference between what is happening in Gaza and what happened in Afghanistan.
Terrorists committed an act of war against a soverign nation and that Nation went to war to destroy the terrorists and to destroy the government that supported those terrorists. Approximately 200,000 Afghanis were killed in the US war in afghanistan. That is unfortunate and I will support any claims that we should have done better – in fact we should have left 90days after the war started when The Taliban was driven from power and Al Queda driven out of Afghanistan.
We SHOULD have destroyed Al Queda – but that was OUR error, and they were no longer in afghanistan so unless we were invading pakistan we had no further business in Afghanistan.
Oct 7, 2023 Hamas committed an act of war against the state of Israeli. Hamas is the government of Gaza.
Israel had the same right to destroy Hamas and the government of Gaza as the US did to go after Al Queda and the Taliban. There have been civilian casualties – that is regretable.
But just as the Afghani’s have suffered as a consequence of the acts of war of they government – so have the Palestinians.
You want my sympathy – you have it.
I would note that the Nazi’s started WWII and millions of people – mostly civilians – many of them Germans died in that war. We fire Bombed Dresden. We targeted Civilians – and that was tame compared to what we did to the Japanese.
I have the same sympathy for the Palestinians as I do for the Afghani’s and Germans and Japanese.
I would note – ifg the Government of Joe Biden F#$Ks up in Ukraine – within 8 minutes about 80M americans will be dead, within a year nearly all of us will be. When a government F#$Ks up – its people suffer.
Trump is promising to bring the UIkraine conflict (and the Israeli one) to an end.
We all know that yopu left wing nuts beleive Trump is some reckless war monger – despite the fact that for the first time since Ford a president started no new conflicts and ended most. Biden inherited a world more peaceful than anything in my lifetime. Today the Doomsday clock is closer to midnight than it has been since the cold war.
Most rational people – including elsewhere in the world believe that had Trump been inaugurated in 2020, there would be no Ukraine war, there would be no mideast war. And a Million people in Russia and Ukraine and 20,000 in Gaza would still be alive.
So much for the “values” of the left.
So much for YOUR Orwellian “NewSpeak”.
Are you done with your daily two minutes of hate ?
“Students are the ones who decide what education they want.”
Nope
“They are the ones paying for it.”
Nope.
“Prove me wrong first.”
That is a child’s admission that his claim is utterly arbitrary.
Svelaz-George:
Why won’t you answer the questionairre?
“There is no “massive shift”. That you believe that is purely of your one self deceit.”
The sun rose today and it will rise again tomorow – the demonstrated shift of academia from merely left leaning 50 years ago to falling off the edge of the planet left over that time is not debateable.
Professors and administrations SELF REPORTS demonstrate that – this is not some right wing conspiracy. It is a FACT.
Only left wing nut idiots like you are so stupid as to think that you can LIE about something you did intentially, and successfully accomplished.
The only people you have successfully gaslit is yourselves.
Howe ios it that you expect anyone to respect you or to treat you as having the slightest intelligence if you want to argue – not just about things that are obvious FACTS.,
But that you sought to do intentially and accomplished.
How stupid do you think everyone else is ?
I can pull up the polls that show the ideological changes in academia over the past 50 years – again these are SELF REPORTED.
Are you saying academics are LYING to all of us and that they are mostly closet conservatives ?
Whjy would you expect anyone to take you seriously about anything when you want to lie about fundimental facts ?
Do you think it is some right wing conspiracy that the sun will rise tomorow ?
John, progressive and liberal dominance in colleges abc universities is a natural outcome. When science and the emergence of free inquiry became more prevalent since the renaissance conservative philosophy and ideas became less relevant.
Students go to college or university not just to study their chosen fields, but to go explore new ideas and views. Conservative ideas and views are not new. They are constantly presented in society, politics, and religion and most of it is not attractive to the younger crowd. Some for obvious reasons like racism and intolerance of others and the denigration and cruelty associated with conservatives. They are not exactly making an effort to appeal to students. It’s just like Trump’s disastrous interview at the NABJ. Like Trump, he’s not aware that his racist views are a big turn off to the audience. He’s oblivious to it and cries persecution or victimhood because he sees the reaction to his ignorance as an attack. Conservatives are no different. Most are not like that, but a significant few in power are and they represent the whole of conservatives because they are the loudest most vocal on their persecution complex.
It’s just a matter of what students want and they don’t want or are interested in conservative views or ideas. Perhaps when they are older, but certainly not when they are younger.
Wow. George and Gigi just upvoted each other. Timing is amazing!
“John, progressive and liberal dominance in colleges abc universities is a natural outcome.”
Of what ? Natural outcomes are not magic, they are driven by real forces in nature.
There is a reasonable basis much as you claim in the foundations of scientific inquiry for academia to be more liberal than conservative – generally – that would be about 2:1 not 11:1 or worse still the 28:1 we see in New England colleges.
I would further note that the “natural outcome” would absolutely NOT be lopsided.
Scientific inquiry is a yang/yang of liberalism/conservatism. Science must be open to new ideas, but science and the scientific method is very conservative in its standards of proof. Without that NATURAL balance – scientific inquiry goes off the rails.
Standards of proof decay and science turns to chaos – and that is what we have seen.
You are correct that there is good reasons driving the specific balances of ideology among academia in the past.
Law schools as an example were heavily conservative – even when my Wife graduated from UofP Law in the early 90’s there were ALOT of conservative professors – and that forced the liberal profressors to be better.
That is not true to day.
I noted -= as have Fire and Heterodx Academy that 2013 was a watershed year – we had an academia too far left to resist the onslaught of the depressed anxiety ridden social media addicted incoming classes and colleges started to go to h311.
Fire saw a massive increase in free speech violations and worse still while previously they ran 2:1 targeting the right, they suddenly shot up to 20:1 or more.
Further by 2017 these problems had moved from Academia into the rest of the world.
I would note that as this woke generation of students left academia and hit the real world – where the expectation is like generations before them they would be brought to heel by the realities of the real world.
The opposite happened. Unlike Academia where they primarily targets conservaitves they went out into the world got hired almost exclusively by liberal institutions and immediate set to world destroying them.
This it eh period where NYT and WaPo went from left leaning to batshit crazy,.
It is actually fortunate for the country that the victims of this woke generation have MOSTLY been the older generation of the LEFT – not the right.
Look at NYT – the controlversy over the Tom Cotton editorial – which was tame compared to nearly identical ones NYT later published saying the same things only from the left. Resulted in purging people like Barri Weiss – a jewish left lesbian who has a long record as aliberal.
Her sin ? Liberal is not Woke.
Look at the debate HERE. For nearly all of western history Free speech has been THE CORE LIBERAL VALUE.
It has near universally been conservatives that sought to constrain free speech.
It has been the ACLU and Alan Derschowitz and the leading lights of the left – liberals older than Turley that have been the tip of the spear fighting for free speech.
It is only with the rise of the woke progressive left that the left has become the worst advocates of censorship in history.
This woke progressive left has FORTUNATELY expended a great deal of its energy destroying its own mentors.
The ACLU has had an internal culture war between the leaders of the civil liberties movement for the past 60+ years and young woke idiots whose progressivism has very very little overlap with past liberalism.
The US fortunately is NOT Mao’s china – but this woke left progressivism most closely resembles the Cultural revolution in China. Not only does it share the same nonsense with very young adults but it also shares its use by powerful elites to kneecap political rivals. Mao used the Cultural revolution to disempower political threats, his wife and her crew used the cultural revolution to boost their power. And yet in the end it was all for Naught. Mao eventually turned on the leaders of the cultural revolution when they had served their purpose and then Mao died and for several Decades China had a leadership that was tepidly reaching out to the west.
The progression of Wkjoe progressivism in the US only resembles that of the Cultual revolution – there is no Equivalent to Mao in the US and while democrats have used Woke progressives to secure power, they do not have the degree of power and control as Mao did. This country is still mostly free.
I beleive Peter Theil is correct and we hit Peak Woke in 2020. I am honestly surprised that it took that long to grasp how stupid and dangerous this badly thought out infantile ideology is. I am still surprised that it has not collapsed faster.
But it is collapsing.
While I am arguing with you – because so much of what you claim is pure nonsense.
I am libertarian not conservative and my fear is that consertvatives will NOT let this die on its own.
Woke progressiveness was a massive political power grab and Conservatives though far less dangerous – bot now and historically than the left, are far to prone to hold onto the power that progressives have grabbed focusing on eliminating the offensive excesses without giving up the power.
” When science and the emergence of free inquiry became more prevalent since the renaissance conservative philosophy and ideas became less relevant.”
You are incredibly historically ignorant. Conservatism as an ideology was born with Edmund Burke in the 18th century coincident with the american revolution. Though Burkean conservatism is shy of the libertarian elements of US conservatism.
Further those like Locke, Smith, Watt – the Scottish Enlightenment, that are the foundations of modern US conservatism are the LEFT of their era and the heirs of the renesaince. The modern Woke Left has Rouseau and the French Revolution and Robespeirre as its moral and intellectual antecedents – and later Marx, and Hegel, communism and socialism.
“Students go to college or university not just to study their chosen fields, but to go explore new ideas and views.”
They go to colleges and universities to learn how to think critically – something that our best colleges and universities have failed miserably at more recently.
“Conservative ideas and views are not new.”
Nor is Woke progressivism in the slightest “new” – it is just a reshod version of the nonsense of the french revolution or marxism.
” They are constantly presented in society, politics, and religion and most of it is not attractive to the younger crowd.”
Possibly true – the truth is not usually a shiney new thing. Honestly it is uncommon for bad ideas – such as woke progressivism to be new.
Regardless – College is suppose to be a place to learn critical thinking – not filtting arround chasing ephemeral butterlies.
“Some for obvious reasons like racism and intolerance of others and the denigration and cruelty associated with conservatives.”
All you are demonstrating now is your own inability to think.
First are you so stupid to think that racism is a consequential problem today ?
A million people have died in the past two years in Ukraine.
In the US whether you like illegal immigration or not we have had to deal with the disruption of atleast 10M additional people with nothing of consequence in the way of planning to deal with that – as if it was all going to work by Magic.
We have had a spike in inflation caused by monetizing a spending bubble that has destroyed about 5 yuears worth of prior gains in standard of living.
I can go on with many many problems far more consequentuial and impactful than racism today.
The KKK is not coming for you – they can not even get half adozen people to show up to protest the removal of a Robert E Lee statute.
Further the greatest purveyor of racism today is THE LEFT.
It is racist to presume that various minority needs preferential treatment by you.
That is only barely less vile that whipping minorities.
As to intolerant – what a laugh – the modern left is the most intolerant generation in US history.
Next you tie Racism and intolerance to conservatism – sorry but there is no such link.
I noted above the racism of the current left, but the FACT is that Racism more generally is much more strongly associated
with the left – including historically.
You keep talking about this left wing nut progressiveness as if it is something new – but it is not.
Conservatism is not an ideology. It is the simple fact that most new things fail. It is the demand for Proof that something works before imposing it by force on all of society. You say that sciences is about what is new – and too and extent that is true, but the scientific method is conservatism in a nutshell.
Improvement in human standard of living is another ying/yang process. It is a willingness to try new things and take risks, and a requirement that those efforts must rigorously prove themselves to be accepted.
Which is why striving for the next big thing must occur outside of government and inside the free market. Because free martkets are very good at dealing with failure, and govenrment is the one thing that must never be allowed to fail.
And that is one of the fundimental errors of the left – whether it is old school liberals or current progressives. That is the idiotic effort to do through government – force what never belongs in government.
You talk about progressivism in colleges and universities – yet the bastion of conservatism – or atleast the bastion against the left in academia is the hard sciences – STEM. This is the science you claimed to celebrate – yet except the soft sciences – the Science parts of academia are the least progressive part of academia.
“They are not exactly making an effort to appeal to students.”
You seem to think that truth is decided by good marketing.
” It’s just like Trump’s disastrous interview at the NABJ.”
Trump did fine. And that is why you are trying so hard to paint it otherwise.
Your terrified that Trump and other conservatives will reach out to minorities.
Trump left his rallies where he was guaranteed a receptive audience and went to NABJ where atleast some of those present were going to be openly hostile to him – and the first reporter did her best to prove that right.
The 2nd was far better – she asked and intelligent question and she got not only a good answer – but Got Trump to clarify his own position – to make clear that his support for the conduct of police is not absolute.
The 2nd reporter was not particularly Trump friendly, She asked a provocative and important question. She challenged Trump on his remarks and she demonstrated what Salena Zito said of Trump 8 years ago.
Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not litterally, his adversaries take him litterally but not seriously.
When Trump said something to the effect that police officers need immunity, the reporter was able to get him to clarify – he did NOT mean that absolutely or literally. What he meant is that the police deserve the benefit of the doubt when there is one.
Regardless, NABJ went fine, and you can expect your fears to play out – Trump and republicans are going after the Black vote, the hispanic vote, the minority vote, and they are willing to leave fawning audiences of their supporters to go where they will face some hostile and disrespectful questioning and some difficult and forceful questioning.
Lets see Harris or any other democrat come to CPAC.
“Like Trump, he’s not aware that his racist views are a big turn off to the audience.”
Some of the audience at NABJ reacted negatively to Trump, some reacted positively.
What you should be terrified of is that he likely left with more of the audience thinking of voting for him than when he went in.
And you keep ranting about Trump’s racism – yet I am completely unclear about that.
a reporter asked if Harris got the VP slot because she was a black women.
Of course she did – Joe Biden explicitly said that his VP would be a black women.
He also said his first supreme court nominee would be a black woman.
What do you want – Trump to LIE ?
If you do not want questions about whether Harris is VP because she is black or a women – do not say that you will be selecting a VP that is black and a women.
One of the problems with this DEI hiring nonsense is that the moment you say that hiring will be about something more than merit, you automatically create suspicion that those who are minorities did not earn the position through merit.
YOU created that problem – not republicans. You will have to live with it. You are the obvious racists, not the rest of us who are left to question Harris’s qualifications when you openly admit that no one who was not black and female would get the job.
Harris atleast has a credible claim to being black. But that does not mean that Trump is not correct and that Harris did not start to identify with her black background ONLY when it was politically advantageous to do so.
Fortunately for her indian american voters who are quite angry that she has disrespected that part of her heritage after celebrating it much of her life, are a small group than blacks.
“He’s oblivious to it and cries persecution or victimhood because he sees the reaction to his ignorance as an attack.”
Do you have any idea what you are saying ? It is almost as bad a word hash as Krazy Kamala.
Trying to Guess. For the most part Trump does not play the helpless victim card – though he does play the Martyr card – which is different and he has earned it.
But if you are taliking about the victimhood of others – if that is how you see yourself – then your life will be crap.
In March 1983 my wife of 6 months was abducted off the street on her way to play the organ at a church 5 blocks from out home. She was dragged into an abandoned building and brutally sexually assaulted for 3 hours.
That is a h311 I do not wish on anyone. Not what she went through not the lessor agony that I had to deal with because someone hurt the most important person in my life badly. I wish I could say that we just got tight up and moved on. But it was incredibly hard and took years. Eventually my wife decided to go to law school. I persauded her to apply to University of Pennsylvania.
She was offered a free ride by Dickenson. She graduated suma, nearly got a federal clerkship leading to a supreme court clerk, still got a federal clerkship, and unlike her peers from Penn she did not take a 6 figurte job in NYC, but went to work for the public defenders office. Today and for more than a decade she has been the head of the appelate unit in our county. She is one of the top criminal appellate lawyers in the state. And she has two clients on the Innocence projects Exonerated list.
The majority of her work is with sex offenders.
Bad things happen in life – when they do you are perfectly entitled to stake a claim in victimhood – that is your right and I will not deny that to anyone who has been the victim of something bad. But if you want your life back – you have to let go of being a victim. No one else is going to make you whole. No one else is going to fixit. No matter who has done whatever bad thing to you – only you can take your life back – no one else. We have at most 100 years to live. You do not get back the years you choose to be a victim.
There is no such thing as social justice – actual injustice is by defintion individual and personal. Thje nonsense about social justice is just an effort to give permission to people who have not had anything that seriously bad happen in their lives to wrap themselves in victimhood. Even if they might be entitled – that is a stupid choice to be encouraging. No rational person wants to live as a victim. Take it from me personally that is a miserable existance – you are stupid if you are encouraging it.
“Conservatives are no different. ”
Been through this before – Conservatism is just the factual observation that most new things fail, that nearly all the time the boring what is – no matter how flawed works better than some new idea. That is not a reason for avoiding new ideas,
It is a reason to attempt them in free markets where failure does not harm all of society.
But I am guessing that by “conservative” you mean the collection of policies that republicans are advance today.
I and most republicans will be happy to go though those polices one by one We will be happy to compare them directly to the policies of democrats.
Is the republican platform perfect – nope. that is a good reason to debate policies. But it is a damn sight better than that of democrats.
If the Republican platform bothers you so much – why wasn;’t that what was discussed at NABJ ?
“Most are not like that, but a significant few in power are and they represent the whole of conservatives because they are the loudest most vocal on their persecution complex.”
Do you live in the real world ? No only aren’t republicans ranting about some persecution complex. What they are very vocal about is Taking power and Ending your reign of terror. That is empowerment – not persectuion
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.”
I expect that Trump will win in November. Harris is probably close to peak honeymoon right now, and Trump still leads in all swing states and beyond the margin of error is swing states sufficient to win the EC. In a no tossups election – he wins by about 300EC votes. And the odds greatly favor that lead expanding as we head into November.
But lets say that Democrats pull off a miracle and Harris is elected. Lets say this is a miracle as great as Christs resurection and Democrats take the house and Senate.
That does not matter – the ideology of the left has failed. Should she manage to get elected Harris will be pretty much as bad a president as Biden – probably worse.
Trump picked up 8pct in the popular vote since 2020. That did not happen by accident. If did not happen because he is a moron.
It did not happen because he has magical powers and zombifies people to vote for him.
It did not happen because he remade himself into a completely different person than he was 4 years ago – though democrats keep pretending he is going to be Hitler – as if we do not know who he is going to be because he was already president.
Regardless Trump gained 8pts because the past 4 years of democrats rule has been disasterous.
The best weapon that the GOP has going for it is that traditional liberal democrats are nearly extinct. That the democratic party has been taken over by left win loonies who are guaranteed to fail.
If Trump can not drive you from power in 2024 – that outcome is still inevitable. We will just have to wait for you to alienate another 8pct of the electorate.
When Biden took office in 2020, I warned Republicans who were already sure tha 2022 was going to be big for them, that Biden was in the cat bird seat. All he had to do was sit back and do nothing and everything would get better and he would be seen as a hero. The economy was already growing rapidly and would continue to do so. Inflation was low, unemployment was low and dropping.
But democrats could not coast into incredible success. instead you broke things right and left and pissed off nearly everyone.
Trump did not do that – YOU did.
If you pull of a miracle and rig the election again. You can not help yourselves but screw things up further.
“It’s just a matter of what students want and they don’t want or are interested in conservative views or ideas. Perhaps when they are older, but certainly not when they are younger.”
No it is not about what students want or don’t want. A part of being an adult, learning to think critically is to grasp that you are not going to get everything you want handed to you. That if you want to succeed – you need to work your ass off and often even that is not enough.
“. . . since the renaissance conservative philosophy and ideas became less relevant.”
Really?
John Locke’s ideas — ideas that inspired the Founding Fathers — “became less relevant”?!
Idiot.
Liberal professors wont work at conservative colleges. Why would they???
I LMAO at the ignorant shit you say.
Are you slow, or just plain stupid?
This is a serious trend with you. You keep missing the point.
You obviously don’t pay attention to what you read. Your impulse to insult overrides your ability to think first.
George I have put significant effort into addressing your remarks almost word by word.
You not only do not pay attention to what you read you do not appear to pay attention to what you write.
You have a fixation on the Rennaisance – which is fine, it was a remarkable period. But it was not the end of the evolution of modern thought, though it can be thought of as the begining.
You keep referring to science as somehow liberal – I would not actual liberalism and progressivism are radically different.
Progressivism is more closely historically tied to the worst of conservatism than to actual liberalism. Wilson was progressive, Jim Crow was progressive, Eugenics was progressive, fascism was progressive, the dixiecrat south was progressive, the KKK was progressive.
Even your fixation with science – amercian progressives provided the eugenic foundations for Hitlers final solution.
These people made the same scientific errors that you make today, and the same ones that forced Galleleo to recant.
Fascism was incredibly progressive, it wrapped itself in the mantle of science – much as you do.
Frankly the Fascists made less scientific errors than modern progressives.
The impetus for science is creative – liberal. But the foundation of science – the reason that it produces trustworthy results is unbelievably conservative. The requirement for INFINITE reproducability.
If you do not have that – you do not have science.
On issue after issue you put together thoughts and worlds – without any connection to reality.
Over and over you are just making things up with no real connection to reality.
You talk about values – but how can you have values of any consequence if you have no grasp on reality.
You talk of the Renaissance and of science – apparently imagining yourself as Galileo. But in fact you are the church scholars who condemned Galileo for requiring science to correctly reflect the world – not beliefs.
It is rare for you to put more than two words together without making a serious logical or factual or historical error.
You claim your chasing some shiny new thing that will magically work wonderfully – but your own claims show you as beliving 200 year old nonsense that has failed every time it has been tried.
Not only don’t you have any idea what conservatism is – but you either do not know or can not articulate your own values and principles. The best you manage to do is make it clear that you hate Trump and conservatives – while being unable to articulate why or what it is that they beleive that is wrong.
You treat racism – like it is a label that you can just slap on to anyone you do not like – while buying into the most racist ideology that ever was. I have noted that Jim Crow, and DixieCrats and Eugenices and Fascism and … were all progressive.
It should not be even slightly surprising that modern progressivism is as racist as that of the past.
Every effort to amplify wedges in society based on race or class or to create new catagories of oppressor/oppressed ALWAYS end in bloodshed. Learn something from history.
And for god’s sake learn that you can not just string words together to suit your argument – that they have to actually mean something, that they actually have to connect to history, to facts and to logic. We do not live in a fantasy world where saying something makes it true.
T”he Supreme Court ruled the states lacked standing,”
Correct
” however Dennis is correct that states could not prove Biden was censoring conservatives.”
False.
You left wing nut idiots are constantly conflating court decisions on legal technicalities with decisions on the merits.
Leches, Standing, ripeness, mootness and several other legal doctines – all of which are important, but all of which are also abused by the courts to avoid hard decisions are all NEVER decisions on the merits.
The lower court in this case not only found that the government had infringed on Free speech, but that it had done so so egregiously and obviously that a TRO could be issued before a complete hearing on the merits. That is almost the highest bar that a court can have to overcome to reach a conclusion. The lower court had to find that if EVERY disputed fact favored the Govenrment – they STILL would have acted unconstoitutionally to abridge freedom of speech.
SCOTUS did absolutely nothing to undermine that finding.
They merely conclused that the wrong plantif brought the case.
I think they are wrong on that.
Standing is probably the most abused legal doctrine that the court relies on to avoid difficult decisions.
“Government has free speech rights like everyone else. ”
Not only FALSE, but impossibly false. If government has any rights – and particularly the right to free speech – that would drown out all individual rights.
Government has constitutional powers. The necescary and proper clause gives governemtn the power to speak where necescary and proper ONLY to fullfill the other constitutional duties that it has – NOTHING ELSE.
There is absolutely no government right of any kind.
Only constitutionally delegated powers, as well as a constitutional grant empowering government to act in the ways that are necescary to perform those delegated powers.
That is all.
“I know it’s hard to grasp that the government can exercise free speech like everyone else. ”
Not at all – you are just plane wrong.
“The only distinction is they can’t prevent others from expressing their views.
Nope, Government has no rights of any kind. It has very specific powers and the constitution grants the power to speak where necescary and proper to accomplish those powers.
This is a ludicrously stupid claim.
“Elon Musk the absolute free speech advocate censors others on Xitter and has threatened to sue advertisers for not advertising on his platform. Because they are exercising their free speech too.”
You are diverging from the legal to the moral.
What Muck has the right to do it entirely different from Government, Musk has constitutional rights. Government does not.
Outside of a very narrow domain – censoring actuallyu illegal speech – using the US constitutional standard of what is impermissible speech which is incredibly narrow, I OPPOSE all censorship by Musk. I oppose his community notes. Which are not specifically censorship but will ultimately be abused. I do not support using a stupid weapon the left has used against the left.
If it is wrong, it is wrong – whether the left or Musk does it.
The approopriate response to speech that you do not like on X is to comment – as an ordinary user. If Musk wishes to elevate some comments over others – based on a community driven rating system – like the rating of buyers and sellors on Amazon or Ebay I am fine with that. But X itself should not step in, nor should it delegate that power to some committee. If it does so that power will ultimately corrupt
But that is MORAL (and practical) argument. Legally Musk can do whatever he wants – WITH the contract he has with users.
As to Musk suing people – it is my understanding he is suing people who are making FALSE claims about X to actual advertisers.
Personally I think SCOTUS should obliterate defamation law entirely. But they have not done so yet.
False claims abotu X are defamation and Tortuous interferance in contract.
If Musk can make his case in court – then he will and should win.
So long as SCOTUS allows defamation as a valid tort that does not violate free speech.
Again – I would flush defamation law entirely. We are better off KNOWING that people are free to lie and allowing the free market to establish the credibility of speakers through what ultimately are as close to objective systems as we can manage.
This is why the rating systems on places like Amazon or Ebay are so important – they are a free market determination of the trustworthyness of someone you are considering transacting with.
They are Yelp or Glassdoor on steroids.
“Universities hire based on what the majority of students want. ”
FALSE and not the purpose of universities.
You are under the delusion that Students are or even should be in control of universites.
Students are 4th or 5th in the hierachy that Universities seek to please.
Parents are more important than students – they are typically paying all or part of the cost, even where there are loans they are typically cosigning them. He who provides the gold makes the rules.
Because Universities accept govenrment funds – they are treated as an agent of government – that means they are required to conform to nearly the same freee speech requirements as Govenrment is.
But unlike parents – Government is actually constitutionally limited in the demands it csan place on a universit in return for its money.
Donors are next, Again he who provides the gold makes the rules. We saw this when major donors forced the resignation of several Ivy league presidents.
Finally but most importantly – employers dictate. A college degree is only worth whatever value the market gives it.
Graduating from The south Newark Mail order Law School is NOT going to get you 200K/yr job with a NY law firm. It is NOT going to get you a clerkship with a district magistrate much less the supreme court. It is not going to get you an eventualappointment as a judge much less a supreme court justice.
That sheepskin has value by virtue of schools DEMANDING performance from students – not the other way arround.
Students do not seek to go to Harvard because they like Cambridge. They do so because a Harvard education and a Harvard degree will open doors that no other degree will.
It opens those doors ONLY because those controlling those doors believe in the value of the degree.
The more Universities fail to produce students that live up to expectations – the less valuable those degrees become.
Europe used to have the most prestigious schools in the world. Now the best a degree from most european universities means is that you got the experience of being in another country. With few exceptions European universties have significantly declined in their value and preestige.
Conversely for a time – the US has increased the value and prestige of our higher education system.
But we are in the process of trashing it.
To sumarize – what Students want from a college is not very important. Harvard is only going to remain Harvard if HARVARD is picky and demanding of Students, and if HARVARD produces the graduates that continue to prove the value of a harvard degree.
And I can assure you that the entire rest of the university system is eagerly looking to capitolize on the mistakes of those universities that are currently more elite.
The “gold” collected in tuition and in donations is directly proportionate to the value of the education – not the whims of the students.
“Conservative views are not prevented from being expressed,”
Because you say so ?
It took a court order to allow Ben Shapiro to speak at Berkely. Comedians do not do colleges anymore – students are too easily offended. Conservative speakers are physically assaulted at campuses all the time. Even liberal professors who chose to bring conservative speakers to present diverse views get beaten up or fired.
Fire files and wins (100% success rate) lawsuits against universities for free speech violations.
Fire is non-partisan – they will and have defended those fromt he left and right, but increasingly there cases are nearly all from the right
“but if there is little to no interest in conservative views or ideas the school has no incentive to hire them.”
That is an absurd claim .
Your argument that there is no interest in conservative views is belied by the ACTUAL FREE MARKET.
While Fox has taken a beating because of their tepid support of Trump – they STILL dominate the entire rest of the left win MSM put together. Contra your claims – it is left wing dominated viewpoint experssion that is failing in the markets.
WaPo NYT, are losing a fortune every year – but for the support of benevolent billionares. the leading lights of the left would be dark.
Conversely conservative (broadly speaking) media is thriving – making money, making fortunes.
And that despite the efforts of the left to cut them off from advertising revenue.
If your standard is the free market – it is progressivism that is held in very low regard.
Nor is this that new – more than 50% of Nobel Econmomic prizes over the years have gone to loosely conservative economists
The bulk of the rest have gone to keynesians and neoliberals – none of which are even close to the modern left.
And this despite the fact that nearly all govenrment economists are on the left.
3 of the 4 greatest economists of the past century – are LIBERTARIAN.
As are a disproportionately large number of nobel prize winners.
If the market is the determining factor for the value of various viewpoints – progressives have LOST badly.
“As a free market enthusiast yourself you should understand that the demand for conservative instructors is not there.”
By Who ? By Students – while I think you are incorrect even in that – while incoming freshmen lean left more than right,
there are still a significant portion of students – even at Harvard that are NOT on the left and who would prefer SOME professors that reflect their views.
All you have done is highlighted more of the differences between conservatives and left wing nuts.
The left seeks to destroy those it disagrees with – often even its own. There are plenty of conservative students on campuses, There are YAF chapters everywhere, or Young Republicans I beelive every law school has a federalist society.
But conservatives do not seek to get progressive professors fired. Conservative professors do not black ball progressives seeking tenure. Conservatives do not go to progressive events and disrupt them and try to shout down speakers.
Conservatives do not mostly try to get advertisers to refuse to advertise on outlets they do not like.
When Conservatives respond negatively to progressives they do so DIRECTLY.
Progressives tried to boycott twitter after Muck took over. No one noticed when they left.
They came back.
Bud Light pissed on the values of its customers – and lost 24% of its marketshare and has not regained it.
Disney has pissed of its custmers and shareholder value remains half of what it once was.
Tractor Supply went DEI and the threat of a boycott by customers had them purge all that nonsense in days, appologize to customers and commit to focus on products not politics. Much the same occured with John Deere.
Conservatives use they OWN power directly to get what they want, and mostly what they want is not to be force fed left wing garbage.
While the LEFT tries to leverage power that is NOT their won – they scare advertisers, they threaten banks, they use government, they form innocuous sounding censorship cabals.
They Harrass professors they do not like until they leave – they file constant stupid complaints without merit. They leverage the administration to harrass conservatives.
The rarely work through the free market – they nearly always use threats and leverage power that is not there and not that of the free market.
” It seems it’s a demand and supply issue. If there is little to no demand then there’s no reason to hire what students do not want.”
It is always hillarious listening to a left wing nut trying to explain something they do not understand.
“There are plenty of conservative professors at private religious colleges.”
Actually pretty much not. While private religious colleges are an entirely different faction of the left – more like old school liberals.
They are for the most part NOT conservative. They are just not progressive. There are likely more conservatives at private religious colleges than elsewhere – but they are still a minority.
“I don’t see Turley demanding they hire liberal faculty because they need to have view point diversity.”
Because private religious colleges are already liberal and do not censor on the scale that the rest of academia does.
If you actually wanted to understand the ideological distribution of colleges – while it is likely that 2nd and third tier colleges will eventually take advantage of the failure that comes from the top tier universities falling off the left edge of the world – these places are still not conservative – at best they are just not loony left.
Regardless the ideological divisions in college professors today are primarily by discipline.
The administrations – which have grown bloated as a result of government subsidized loans. Lean heavily left – almost entirely.
But not looney left, still they are actuially more of a problem than the few looney left professors, because they have power.
The humanities and the arts and social sciences are very nearly the exclusive domain of the left. That is also where the greatest proportion of the looney left is. There are very very few conservatives in these fields.
It is therefore unsurprising that the worst failures of science today are by far concentrated in the humanities and social sciences.
These are the places where absolute garbage that does not replicate gets published. These are where the largest portion of accademic frauds occur. A lack of ideological diversity creates a intellectual bubble where bad ideas do not get challenged early and often gain a significant foothold before failing dramatically. The field of psychology as an example is retracting a large body of major papers findings and principles some dating all the way back to the 50’s. Ideas – mostly left leaning that have been presumed as gospel for 70 years – so much so that nobody bothered to replicate them are failing now that some people ARE trying to replicate them.
We see similar problems in harder sciences – but not to the same scale as in the soft sciences. I would note that though bias related failures are not exclusive to any ideology, they are much more common to the left, that is generally because of the far greater tolerance for unethical conduct by the elite left. Many studies have show little difference in morality based on ideology – but that is true broadly.
It is false narrowly – as Rassmussen found in SELF REPORTED POLLING – the eleites – people with post graduiate degrees, and income of over 150K/yr are 20 times more likely that ordinary people – including ordinary people on the left to be willing to cheat if they thought they would not be caught and that it was for a purported good cause.
This BTW is why communism and socialism have ALWAYS been unbelievably bloody. Whether it is the french revolution of Stalin or Mao or the cultural revolution or castro or Pol Pot, the left has had no problem murdering people over political differences – for the greater good. It is always only a small number of people who drive this, but they are almost exclusively on the left.
John say,
Those legal technicalities matter. When they pose a problem to your poor argument you choose to dismiss it. It’s very convenient.
The states were not able to show or prove to the courts that the government was censoring conservatives.
The government has as much right to point out violations of TOS as anyone else. That action is not censorship it’s not coercive or a vailed threat. Just because you want it to be doesn’t make it a fact.
“ Because private religious colleges are already liberal and do not censor on the scale that the rest of academia does.”
That’s false. Private religious colleges are not liberal. Most of them aren’t. Liberty University certainly isn’t. Those that don’t take government funds.
You just disagree with reality and that’s ok. But you don’t get to make your own facts.
It’s always amusing when you go off on long winded rants and saying very little. We get it you’re an ideologue.
Legal technicalities and facts do get in the way. When George is confronted with them, he does not conveniently dismiss them… He simply pretends he and gigi didn’t see them, thus erasing his need to respond to them ON POINT.
John say,
“Those legal technicalities matter.”
Not with respect to the merits of the case – and that is what you are arguing.
If you run cross country and you miss a turn, you will be disqualified – you lose the race.
But that says absolutely noting about whether you are the faster runner or not.
While SCOTUS was incorrect – inarguably the AG of MO has standing to bring a case against the federal government for infringing on the rights of its citizens – the justices need to reread the constitution. States have standing to sue the federal government and specifically federal agencies for many things – but particularly violations of the constitution.
Regardless, Standing is BY DEFINITION a decision unconnected to the merits of the case. PERIOD.
Standing is a legal doctrine – not a technicality – it is a construct created by the courts not the constitution.
It is actually important and has a place., But it is also overused by courts seeking to duck issues they do not wish to decide.
“When they pose a problem to your poor argument you choose to dismiss it. It’s very convenient.”
Once again – you do not live in reality. While I stated CORRECTLY that SCOTUS was wrong on standing in the Murty case.
I also stated correctly and consistent with the Murty decision that SCOTUS did NOT decide the case on the merits.
One thing about Standing – that you are clueless about is, it is NOT a final decision on a case. All SCOTUS said to the MO AG – was go find a better plantiff. I beleive there is an Alex Berensen case on fundimentally the same facts working its way to SCOTUS already. TYhis term SCOTUS 9-0 decided NRA vs. NYS which is pretty close to exactly the same case as Murty – except that the defendant is a state government and the plantif is a private individual. The NRA vs. NYS decision – which IS on the merits clearly states that governmetn can not act through third parties to censor the speech of others.
“The states were not able to show or prove to the courts that the government was censoring conservatives.”
AGAIN FALSE
Why do you keep repeating such garbage.
This is a legal blog if you do not know what standing means – LEARN.
Regardless a Standing decision is never ON THE MERITS. Standing NEVER addresses the Facts.
Lets try an example you might understand.
Judge Cannon’s decision to dismiss the MAL case was essentially a standing decision.
She found that SC Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional and illegal and that therefore he could not prosecute the case.
She did NOT decide the case on the merits. She decided that Jack Smith can not prosecute a case not against anybody.
Barrett in Marty decided that the MO AG could not bring a case against the federal government.
Barrett did not address whether the conduict of the federal government was l;egal or constitutional.
BTW the Biden admin had actually ceased that conduct a coupdl of years ago – because they expected to lose.
And ultimately they will.
“The government has as much right to point out violations of TOS as anyone else. ”
That is not what they did and they do not have a right to do so. As I stated before Government has NO RIGHTS.
“That action is not censorship it’s not coercive or a vailed threat. Just because you want it to be doesn’t make it a fact.”
No the actual communications from government agencies to SM make it coercion and an explicit threat.
You are entirely unfamiliar with the facts. You also seem unfamiliar with the Twitter files and similar evidence from FB and other sources.
1). The government provided lists of people or posts to take down. They did not provide reasons for taking them down.
These were long lists. They did not claim TOS violations, they rarely if ever provided reasons.
Because Musk made Twitters communications public – we have the emails from the government – we KNOW exatly what they did – we need not speculate – as you are doing.
2). The government made explicit threats. In several instances SM did not respond to first (and sometime 2nd and 3rd requests) by government to take something down – because there were no TOS violations – this was pure political censorship.
Again we have the internal communications for places like Twitter where they looked at some of these demands from govenrment and determined there was no violation. And still govenrment repeated the demand. Often follwed by explict threats to tank favorable regulations or to impose unfavorable ones.
The evidence for all of this is overwhelming. Further while the majortity of the targets were conservative – not all were.
But all were targeted for similar reasons – political reasons, because they were speaking views that the government opposed.
Not because they were violating TOS.
You really are completely clueless.
““ Because private religious colleges are already liberal and do not censor on the scale that the rest of academia does.”
That’s false.”
Shows how little you know about religion.
“Liberty University certainly isn’t.”
That is debatable – regardless you really think liberty U is representative of private religious colleges ?
“Those that don’t take government funds.” Again do you think that anyone beleives you know what you are talking about ?
Nearly all colleges of any kind in the US take federal aide.
There are very few exceptions.
“You just disagree with reality and that’s ok. But you don’t get to make your own facts.”
Confession through projection.
“According to the US Department of Education, there are over 7,000 US colleges and universities that report a religious affiliation – with over 50 different religious affiliations”
“It’s always amusing when you go off on long winded rants and saying very little. We get it you’re an ideologue.”
More confession through projection.
Regardless responding to you is fun. You make so many stupid mistakes it makes it easy to tie you up in knows and use your errors to say whatever it is that I want.
You are too stupid to know what you do not know.
You just make stuff up all the time – without thinking.
You beleive because you want something to be true that it is.
On subject after subject you have repeatedly proven to not know what you are talking about.
You made claims regarding the trends in political identity of college professors and then demanded proof you were wrong – when you obviously were – when even other left wing nuts have accepted those trends.
Then yuou reversed track and tried to make new and poorer claims.
You are under the delusion that colleges are run by the students.
You seem to think that Liberty U is reflective of private religious colleges.
Liberty U BTW accepts federal financial aide – you could have eaisly checked that.
You could easily check all the stupid things you say.
“standing doctrine can limit access to federal courts for those seeking to challenge government actions.”
Standing is about whether you can bring a case at all – not the merits of the case.
Regardless, I would strongly suggest that google is your friend.
Before you post more idiotic nonsense – atleast check some of you facts.
When you make stupid errors like presuming that libertty U is representative of private religious colleges or that private religious colleges in any significant numbers do not take federal aide,
you just make a fool of yourself and burn the little credibility you have.
These are easy things to check.
But if you are in doubt – and frankly even if you are not – because your judgement is so poor,
CHECK your made up claims FIRST.
That will save the rest of us time debunking your nonsense.
“Universities hire based on what the majority of students want.”
You keep peddling the same lie.
Which is unsurprising, since a desire for the truth is not one of your assets.
Is Antifa the driving anti-free speech force ? Probably not. They are just one of many – ALL FROM THE LEFT.
Antifa is not even likely the driving force for left wing political violence – they are just one of many.
Are you arguing that Antifa is a good thing ? That they are not left wing terrorists ?
DJT’s project 2025 is incorrect. DJT has Agenda 47 as his platform. Just fyi
If you’re tired you have the freedom to not read or write at JT’s page.
Thank you
Dennis hasn’t heard that DJT isn’t associated with Project 2025.
Dennis lives in his wine cellar apparently, while his “black man”, who his late mother bequeathed him, works the “black job” of tending his “vineyard”.
It is worse than that – Dennis does not have a clue about Project 2025 – short of what some internet talking head that has received talking points from The DNC has said.
Project 2025 is a 925 page document that is this years update to Heritage foundations paper that they produce for every single presidential election. Most of it is decades old. Most of it is not controversial.
And I doubt Dennis knows a single sentence from hit.
But he is prepared to lob it around as it it is a racial epitaph.
Trump should be judged by HIS platform.
The hertitage foundation by their paper.
I will be happy to discuss either. I will defend Trumps platform or project 2025 where I agree with them and reject them where I do not,
and I will be happy to contrast them with those of Harris and democrats.
Project 2025 is NOT Trump’s and it is not heinous.
Of what I have read it is more neocon than I would like – but that makes it very similar to democrat policies.
“Project 2025 is NOT Trump’s and it is not heinous.”
Agree completely. Almost certain that the Trump campaign’s distancing itself from Project 2025 is an almost purely political maneuver (I think that there is a fairly large overlap between between Trump’s platform and that project), and I have no problem with that. I agree that it, and Heritage, are more neocon than I prefer, and Trump somewhat more populist. On the gripping hand, I am a LOT more comfortable with either Trump’s brand of populism, or Heritage’s brand of conservatism, becoming the official political direction of the US, than I am with the destructive, idiotic, insanity that has been the hallmark of the Biden administration, and that would almost certainly worsen under Harris.
Dennis – sop many of your argument are little more than
“I disagree with the specific details of the way Turley says something is going to h311”
SO WHAT ?
Colleges have become an unhealthy monoculture. Personally I think Turley is giving those on the left far to much benefit of the doubt as to how that occured. Regardless whether through malice or accident – the lack of diversity is very bad for the colleges and their students.
Are you disagreeing with that ?
Your argument seems to be – we must leave colleges F#$Ked up because they did not get that way as a consequence of left wing malignance.
Your argument regarding Antifa is much the same. Is it critical that YOU agree on precisely the mechanism by which speech has been silenced ?
Though for the life of me I can not understand why you or anyone would defend Antifa.
I am constantly taking you to task for your nonsense about Nazi’s under the mattress, Or your efforts to silence those you call Nazi’s or some similar epitaph.
I will defend the equal rights of actual Nazi’s to speak – should we even encounter any actual Nazi’s .
But I do not defend Nazism or Racism, I attack you for your idiotic view that the nations is full of Nazi’s and White Supremecists and that we are one election away from returning to Jim Crow.
But you actually defend Antifa – while concurrently pretending the do not exist.
That is completely absurd. I do not personally think that Antifa is some massive threat to the country – it is those like YOU that are far more dangerous. It is not the anarchists and bomb throwers the far left fringe. Antifa is not going to take over the government.
Frankly Antifa is as likely as conservatives to find themselves in some modern form of left wing Gulags – once they have outlasted their usefulness to the left.
It is not Antifa that is dangerous – though they occasionally kill people. It is YOU.
Your happy to silence those you disagree with – while concurrently pretending no such thing is happening.
Myriads of people had their accounts shutdown on Social media, more have had their posts artificially put in a black box so no one sees them.
This is being done almost exclusively by those on the left – and it is being done for ideological reasons.
Absent government involvement is MAY not be illegal – but it is ALWAYS immoral.
To the extent government is involved – and we have government actiuvely funding this and demanding it and that is illegal and unconstitutional.
And absolutely no court has found this is not occurring.
John Say, colleges and universities do what the majority of students seek. Basic free market. If there is no demand for more conservative professors or ideas or whatever is associated with conservative ideals then there is no reason to hire.
“ Absent government involvement is MAY not be illegal – but it is ALWAYS immoral.
To the extent government is involved – and we have government actiuvely funding this and demanding it and that is illegal and unconstitutional.
And absolutely no court has found this is not occurring.”
It is NOT illegal for social media to censor, suspend, and delete accounts that violate their TOS. The immorality issue is irrelevant. It’s only immoral to those who are upset at being censored because it’s not illegal. Musk who claims to be a free speech absolutist censors speech on his platform. I don’t see you chastising him for being immoral.
The states did NOT show proof that that the government demanded censorship. They couldn’t because the government was not seeking to censor. Pointing out violations of TOS is not illegal or unconstitutional. Government has just as much a right to point out violations as anyone else. The courts did not find the government was censoring speech. They found the government was pointing out violations of TOS to the private entities controlling the platforms. You leave out the fact that the majority of the time social media ignored the government’s warnings. Because it is still THEIR choice. That is not a constitutional violation of the 1st amendment no matter how hard try or how much you try to twist it into something it’s not.
colleges and universities do what the majority of students seek.
Another steaming turd pulled from Svalez’s ass.
They seek education. They receive indoctrination. Only low IQ people such as yourself seek indoctrination.
Prove me wrong.
They seek the education THEY want. They get it and move on. They paid for it. Why are YOU so upset about decisions that have nothing to do with you?
They have every right to choose what they want. But you seem upset at the idea that somehow you have no control over it.
So long as the federal government subsidizes studen loans and provides aide to colleges and students it is ABSOLUTELY my businjess. And AQbsolutely I have the right to control how my money is spent.
Those tiny fraction of colleges that do not accept federal aid – can do as they please.
I can assure you that the feelings of their students are pretty low on their values.
Calling something a free market – does not make it one.
Regardless, Students do not and should not control colleges.
As I noted before the value of a college degree is the belief people who hire that that college degree means something – like that you have learned critical thinking – and if it is from an elite university – that you have learned it well.
If colleges fail at that – the free market – which is NOT students will quit hiring people whose degrees do not reflect anything of value.
As that happens the value of the degrees will decline and colleges will cease to attract students and money from donors, and tuition from government and parents.
“It is NOT illegal for social media to censor, suspend, and delete accounts that violate their TOS.”
Correct – but it is actually a contract violation to do so when the TOS is not cuiolated – and that means the TOS at the time the user signed up, as a rule contracts can not be unilaterally alters.
“The immorality issue is irrelevant. ”
Really ? So if slafvery was legal – you would own slaves ? If stupping children was legal you would do that ?
DO YOU THINK BEFORE YOU POST ?
“It’s only immoral to those who are upset at being censored because it’s not illegal.”
No it is plain immoral.
“Musk who claims to be a free speech absolutist censors speech on his platform. I don’t see you chastising him for being immoral.”
Then you have not read my posts. I have specifically taken him to task for his community standards notes. and I have attacked him here and on Twitter for censorship.
Separately there is no such thing as a litteral free speech absolutist. Neither Musk nor Turley no I support posting child poornography.
“The states did NOT show proof …. ”
Snip – we have been through this already – you are lying.
“ the lack of diversity is very bad for the colleges and their students.”
The right is against diversity. In fact they are actively removing it from universities. You know the first letter of DEI stands for diversity, right? Equity? Do conservatives want equity of their views in college or university? Yes, according to Turkey. Inclusion? They want to be included too. Oops. Looks like THEY are against all of those. So why should they be complaining about not having enough conservative professors?
Sounds like they could have used DEI as good argument to include conservative views and ideas. But stupidly they are against it. Now they have to argue on the merits of their conservatism instead of whining about it.
“The right is against diversity.”
Because you say so ?
The right is against quotas, affirmative action and DEI and other forms of actual racism.
George – you do not have any clue what equity is – nor what DEI is.
“Sounds like they could have used DEI as good argument to include conservative views and ideas.”
All you have done is prove that DEI has nothing to do with Diversity Equity and Inclusion.
You are also displaying how incredibly without any principles and morals you are.
The categorical imperative is “make no rule that is not universal law”
Or more simply – don’t be a hypocrite.
If you actually beleive in DEI then you are obligated to provide it UNIVERSALLY – even to those who do not accept it.
If you beleive in Diversity, Equity and inclusion – then you are morally obligated to diversity that includes conservatives
Equity towards conservatives and inclusion of conservatives.
You are obligated to that – even if Conservatives do not want it.
I beleive in free speech – that morally obligates to defend the free speech rights of actual nazis – or facists like you.
If I do not I am a hypocrite who does not really hold the beliefs I claim.
This is important for more reasons than just morality and hypocrisy.
Values and especially principles must work universally – even in the worst cases.
If they do not – they fail the catagorical imperative – they will not work in practce and they are immoral.
George thinks accredidation is something that students do. Teenagers determine what’s taught at college campuses.
Could anyone possibly be more removed from reality?
No one outside of a University has any say in what goes on inside it. The teenagers determine.
Aside from the fact he just made that shit up, and is completely divorced from reality, he also thinks it would be a good idea. LMAO
With respect to Giley – I do not know him – and neither do you. Please provide PROOF in context of the views you claim Gliley has.
Regardless, assuming that you are correct – which has about a snowballs chance in H311 of being true – that does not alter the fact that you are not free to silence him.
“With respect to Giley – I do not know him – and neither do you. Please provide PROOF in context of the views you claim Gliley has.”
John, you are asking an uneducated individual to prove his statement. Dennis only knows what other people want him to say. Gilley has written favorably on colonialism, much like Nial Ferguson in Empire. He criticizes the lack of liberal thinking in academia, so they hate him. The best I can think of is that, as usual, the left took a statement out of context or made up the story Dennis was telling.
Dennis knows nothing about Gilley. Like Gigi and George, almost everything Dennis says is made up.
I do not care if Adolph Hilter, Stalin, Mai, Musollini, and Genchis Kahn opposes DEI policies – no parade of Horribles alters the FACT that DEI policies are wrong, immoral and in many instances illegal and unconstitutional.
We are not very good at weighing merit. That does not alter the FACT that if we do not strive to make choices based primarily on Merit we MUST end up being poorer, and less capable.
That idiots like you can not grasp that is amazing.
Is it really hard for idiots like you to grasp that on the whole what people make important is what they get ?
If you do not value merit – you will not get it.
Whether it is your doctor or the pilot of your plane, the designer of the bridge you are crossing or something as mundane as those packing your food. You will GET what you ask for. If you wantg competence – that is what you will get. If you want something else – that is what you will get.
With respect to “all men are created equal” that is solely with respect to their rights and their relation to the law and government.
Only a moron thinks that each of us is actually created equal ? I have a tenant with an IQ of 80. Nice guy, if you think we are all created equal, lets send him to medical school and have him perform your heart surgery ?
Humans are NOT ants – we are not all equal, and humanity would be radically different if we were. We have different talents and abilities.
Individually and as a society we improve standard of living the most and the fastest the more that we match each person and their abilities and talents to tasks. The worse we do at that the worse off we all are.
Do you honestly think you could be Elon Musk ?
Project 2025 is by the Heritage Foundation – not DJT.
Regardless, I challenge you to support your claims regarding Project 2025.
That said – absolutely the Biden administration should speak reflecting the policies and platform of President Biden.
At is not censorship to say as Obama did that elections have consequences. The winner of the executive is answerable to the voters, is answerable to the courts. They are not answerable to the permanent executive.
If you are an executive branch employee – you can go home and blog as you wish.
But in the work place – you support the agenda of the president or you quit.
If you actually beleive the actions of the president are unconstitutional – you quit and protest.
If you work for Speaker Johnson – you are expected to publicly conform to Johnson’s policies.
If you work for Pelosi – you are expected to publicly conform to her policies.
That is the job.
Dennis,
so ‘tiresome’ you come here every day?
Plenty of other sites to go ‘poke holes’ at.
“Polling, to god-damned hell with polling! We have no polling. In fact, we don’t need polling. I don’t have to show you any stinking polling, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!
Come out there from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you.”
– Gold Hat, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
“’The Movement is Winning.’: Polling Shows Drop in Support for Free Speech”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_____________________________________________________
Turnout in 1789 was 11.6% and voter qualifications were generally male, European, age 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
– Wiki
_______
“[We gave you] a [severely-restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
The parasites forced by communists into America as “beneficiaries” since 1863, whose rudimentary purpose is to “fundamentally transform the United States,” must have been denied admission or compassionately repatriated as direct and mortal enemies.
The Constitution holds dominion in the United States; it provides, among others, the absolute freedom of speech.
The personal desires of parasites as established by polling are not a concern of the Constitution.
Demands and expectations for different, superior, and unequal treatment are antithetical and unconstitutional.
In extremis, the freedom of speech may be abrogated by amendment.
“Q&A delayed over an hour because Trump ‘did not want to be fact-checked’: NABJ president”
Yep, I love headlines. And I really want a fact free president for the next 4 years. Oh wait, he will be president in perpatuity.
FACT CHECK: FALSE
The NAJB President lied about why the Q&A was delayed. It was due to technical difficulties
To the douche above. Maybe you’d like a stab at the notable quotes questionairre below. Don’t be shy.
Make yourself useful and answer.
Some quotes, check them out if you want.
NABJ President Ken Lemon told Axios, “(Trump’s team) said, ‘Well, can you not fact check? He’s not going to take the stage if you fact-check.'”
Axios reporters Delano Massey, Sophia Cai and Russell Contreras note that the discussion was delayed for more than an hour — a delay that Trump initially blamed on audio problems.
Lemon, however, told Axios, “There were audio problems, but they were resolved very quickly. The bigger problem was his threat not to take the stage when he had agreed to go on. He did not want to be fact-checked, but we could not let him on the stage without fact-checking…. I was prepared to go on stage to craft a statement, saying he decided not to go on stage because of fact-checking…. We couldn’t compromise on that.”
Trump did, however, go on stage and talked to a panel of Black journalists that included ABC News’ Rachel Scott (the moderator), Semafor’s Kadia Goba and Fox News’ Harris Faulkner.
Lemon told Axios, “Our whole team stood our ground.”
FACT CHECK:
FALSE
There are quite a few names there that describe the day. What do you have that says they are lying?
Trumps team consists of 86 people.
They all describe it differently.
They all say the NABJ Pres is lying.
Thats 86 to 4
FACT CHECK:
FALSE
Also, Trump described the holdup contemporaneaously ON THE STAGE.
He was not fact checked or corrected on the spot. Why is that, if he was being “fact checked”?
FACT CHECK:
FALSE
YOU:
GULLIBLE
YEa, the guy that lied, what was it? 30,000 times in 4 years as president can be believed? trump wouldn’t even answer the first question from the panel. Those where his words read to him and he calls the reporter nasty. If the report reading the words is nasty, what does that make the person that said the words.
“I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today,” Scott acknowledged up front. “You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama, saying that they were not born in the United States; which is not true. You have told four congresswomen of color who are American citizens to go back to where they came from. You have used words like ‘animal’ and ‘rabid’ to describe Black district attorneys. You’ve attacked Black journalists, calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are ‘stupid’ and ‘racist.’ You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you: Why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?”
So, 18 statements of supposed “fact” and a leading question at the end. LMAO
Where the fvck were you? He answered the question.
So, pervert…when did you stop cornholing your nephew?
Then go answer the notable quotables questionairre below. Why won’t you?
Would a black journalist ask Biden why black voters should vote for him after he said:
1. If you don’t vote for me, you aint black
2. He’s the first bright, clean, articulate, “14” in mainstream politics
3. To own a hotel or 7-11, ya gotta have an Indian accent
4. I dont want my kids going to school in a racial jungle
5. Latino’s resist vaccinations because they’re afraid they will be deported
6. Black’s resist the vaccine because of the “Tuskeegee Airmen” (this is one of my favorites)
7. Unlike the African American community, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things
8. The Senate is lesser without (KKK) Robert Byrd.
9. John “Southern Manifesto” Stennis was a “hell of a guy”.
10. Segregationists like Eastland and Thurmond and all those guys. But at least we’d end up eating lunch together.
Answer that, disingenuous one?
Who will be your cult leader when trump steps down from being the nominee for president? When he is offered a plea deal to step down and not run for president or go to jail for his NY fraud, what do you think trump will do? Failing poll numbers, near zero chance of being elected president, or get a get out of jail free card. What will the cult leader do? And come December, when trump, or his replacement, has lost the election and the Republican Party dissolves because, well, because it is now the trump party, who will you follow? JD? Mike Pence?, Nikki, Don Jr, Eric? Melania?
Any of those better than Kameltoe, dreamer.
Can I save this post along with your prediction that Trump would be in a Georgia prison by now?
Do you intend to answer the questionairre, or just remain a sackless kunt coward for now?
We have ways of making you talk.
Dennis, Gigi, Svelaz-George, and Lawn Boy the booger eating troll:
10 points for each correct attribution. Who said the following (Trump or Biden)?
1. If you don’t vote for me, you aint black
2. He’s the first bright, clean, articulate, “14” in mainstream politics
3. To own a hotel or 7-11, ya gotta have an Indian accent
4. I dont want my kids going to school in a racial jungle
5. Latino’s resist vaccinations because they’re afraid they will be deported
6. Black’s resist the vaccine because of the “Tuskeegee Airmen” (this is one of my favorites)
7. Unlike the African American community, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things
8. The Senate is lesser without (KKK) Robert Byrd.
9. John “Southern Manifesto” Stennis was a “hell of a guy”.
10. Segregationists like Eastland and Thurmond and all those guys. But at least we’d end up eating lunch together.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/15/bidens-racist-history/
Mary Anne Franks: “the Internet model of free speech is little more than cacophony, where the loudest, most provocative, or most unlikeable voice dominates . . . “
Franks is an ass.
For decades the Left said we had to protect expansively the rights of the most disagreeable elements of society—like Madalyn Murray O’Hair or the Black Panthers or Jane Doe—because they are the canaries in the mine of civil rights.
Now that the Left think they’re ascendant, their message is F*** YOUR SPEECH! We’ll tell you little brains what you can say and when you can say it.
Most liberals are political cretins. Most have zero intellectual integrity. Their ethics are strictly situational. Liberalism in practice is just a gateway drug to communism and decadence.
Exactly right.
Diogenes,
Yeah! You sum it up quite nicely.
Thank you, gentlemen. I wish was wrong, but I’ve lived too long to be fooled ever again.
This thread has deteriorated into name calling. What is serious is information including history is being deleted as we speak. It’s all digitized and subject to script overwriting all history and when the little machine is done no one will have ever heard of the USA, the Constitution, a good people that once were and worse. It’s evil. It’s the face of the liar. It’s doomed to delete even itself.
Looks like I’m being missed, lovely.
Ever since president Biden has dropped out of the race Turley is no longer criticizing Biden or mentioning Hunter Biden’s cases. Just as Fox News has. All he has left it seems, are free speech issues and the odd isolated incidents he can use to stoke the rage of his MAGA readers.
Free speech is not under attack or in danger of being ‘smothered’. Turley is just practicing good ol’ fashioned entrepreneurship by finding multiple ‘occasions’ to plug his book and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s his free speech right to do so.
Now as to some his examples of free speech being “destroyed” (paraphrasing). Republican students are not self censoring because they are afraid of being ‘attacked’ for their views. They are self censoring because they are afraid of being mocked or ridiculed or dare I say it…..criticized. How horrible. Law students afraid of getting ridiculed or criticized because their ideas or views turn out to be silly or stupid or just outlandish. The professor seems to forget that free speech is also about accepting the responsibility that what you say will be subject to criticism, mockery, and ridicule. It happens on this blog every single day and to their credit the majority of commenters here don’t self censor because they are afraid of being criticized or ridiculed.
Heckling is also an exercise of free speech. It’s a well established tradition going back to the founding of this nation. Protesting that ends up in violence is also a well established tradition. Turley mentions a well known example, the Boston Tea party and out most recent one, the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt (or super mild riot according to the right).
Turley does not really understand free speech. It’s only when conservatives are affected that matters. He ignored Elon Musk’s stifling of free speech on Xitter when the site suspended the white guys for Kamala for no clear reason or when Musk threatened to sue advertisers because they chose to not advertise on Xitter AFTER telling them to F*ck off. Turley even ignores the conservatives seeking book bans and banning drag performances ( he mentioned it once almost in passing to be fair).
All Turley is doing with these free speech columns is stoking rage (to support the age of rage) of his MAGA readers, and plugging his book ( which I suspect is not doing well).
Svelaz George shows up to whine and complain about Turley.
Also whining and complaining about Musk
Also whining and complaining about “MAGA viewers”
Svelaz, make yourself useful and go answer the questionairre I just left for you.
Or don’t because you are a coward and a LIAR.
Funny how much George has gotten more insulting every day, just like Gigi and Dennis, as all three face the jury of fellow bloggers who point out their errors and lies. All three get more negative and start tearing down JT and his column. Yet they are here everyday without fail.
Their purpose here is transparent, but the entertainment value of ridiculing them is priceless, nevertheless.
Svelaz pretends he believes half of what he says. Hell, he still pretends he’s not Svelaz, though he often alludes to having been here a long time when his current screen name clearly has not.
Dennis contradicts himself every other post.
Gigi pretends to be deluded.
If they were real people, their shame would not allow them to be shown for utter tools, and press on. Humans don’t behave that way.
Criticism of Turley’s views and positions are fair game. It’s part of the whole free speech thing he holds dear.
Its whining and complaining. Go answer the questionairre.
Still pretending you’re not Svelaz
Acting like a douche and making unsubstantiated assertions, blatant falsehoods, ignorant statements, and saying shit I don’t even believe is all just free speech
—-Svelaz pretending he’s not Svelaz
Your medication is not working. Unlike Turley moving on to the new expression of the left’s suckiness, you seem to be stuck in whataboutism as an excuse for DNC standard operating procedure.
And again, being denied the ability to be a perv and perverting children is not a free speech violation, it is a police power meant to stop democrats from doing even more harm.
Republicans seem to be the biggest pervs here. They are the ones always obsessed with these scenarios about things that they believe happens when you mention the word “trans” or “gay” which is funny because they usually turn out to be secretly trans or gay and hate themselves for it so they lash out onto others to avoid the reality that they may also be part of that community. You know, like preachers who turn out to be pedophiles and anti-gay republicans turning out to be gay.
Svelaz George, asserting that to be trans or gay is to be perverted.
Interesting.
See, he doesn’t believe half of what he says.
He just says shit to say it. It doesn’t even have to make sense.
Preachers don’t “turn out to be pedophiles” moron. Pedophiles choose to be preachers and priests for easy access. Can you possibly be that dumb?
No, you’re asserting that.
Republicans seem to be the biggest pervs here.
which is funny because they usually turn out to be secretly trans or gay
No. Svelaz did.
These people are absurdly stupid and completely unqualified for ANYTHING.
Anyone who thinks that speech is the same as violence should have someone take a baseball bat to their arm.
Loons that claim that free speech NOW threatens national security – how did we ever survive the past 200 years ?
We were not so stupid as to surrender our freedom – and particularly free speech to win the cold war.
But for our own stupid meddling in the world, we are at one of the safest times in history.
The most dangerous countries in the world – Russia, China and Iran are those with the least freedom, Particularly freedom of speech.
You seem to miss the point. Free speech is not absolute. I’m sure even you know that. Inciting violence is not protected speech. Defamation or Libel are not protected speech when it’s specifically meant to harm others.
Inflammatory speech is a grey area, it can either end up on the inciting violence or not.
Misinformation and disinformation in and of themselves are not harmful. But, when you add intent it CAN be deemed harmful. The problem is proving intent which is very difficult but not impossible like Trump’s falsifying of business records case that ended up in 34 felonies.
Very few people are saying free speech is the same as violence. That does not mean every one is saying it. That’s just being disingenuous. Free speech has always been under attack by both the right and the left. Turley has a knack for ignoring attacks on free speech by the right. Mostly because it would be frowned upon by his employer, Fox News. He self censors because they could decide not to use his ‘legal expertise’ or he could be subject to….getting rated by a private company who is also exercising their free speech right to offer a review of Turley’s blog for anyone who wants to.
All the hysteria revolving this ‘anti-free speech movement’ is an excuse to sell a book. A book. Every conservative whining and complaining about being censored is still able to express and publish their views like everyone else. There are literally so many ways to express those views. It’s almost impossible to really stifle free speech. Republican sure try hard when it comes to LGBTQ issues and CRT and other issues they don’t like. They even punish legislators. Like the to black members in Tennessee for exercising free speech under the dubious pretext of rules of decorum.
Here is Svelaz George, whining about “conservatives” and whining about “selling a book”.
He also demostartes that he doesnt know the definition of “employer”. Thats not surprising, as it’s certain he has never been one.
John is always complaining, in fact everyone here is complaining. Even Turley. So what’s your point?
Fvcking moron. Are you that dense? You have been using the “complaining” complaint as some sort of evidence that your opinion has merit and someone elses doesn’t. YOU are the one who has used the term DOZENS of times recently to absurdly and pathetically attempt to discredit the views of others.
YOU are enightening us with your brilliant “opinions”. Those who disagree with your pathetic musings are “complaining”.
I seriously think your IQ is double digits. I mean that in all sincerity.
Do you get it now, dum dum?
LOL!!! You have serious reading comprehension problems. You must have been homeschooled.
There it is! the infamous Svelaz tell and George stand by.
“LOL” with 3 exclamation points and “reading comprehension problems”.
EVERY time he is cornered like the little rat bastage he is, this is it. EXACT same wording and punctuation.
He can’t explain himself because as I said, he doesnt even believe half of what he says, so its “LOL!!!” and “reading comprehension problems”. EVERY time. Lame. Boring. Can we get someone in here who can debate?
_______________
As evidence of his low IQ, he went to his Bazooka Joe insult book and pulled out this one. As if his public school education has amounted to anything.
Yes, I was homeschooled at Naval Nuclear Power School, Trident State Technical College, Thomas Edison State University, Purdue University, Westinghouse, and the Naval War College. Or did you forget, IQ=90?
90? So you’re below the average. Not surprising. That you needed to show your education creds must be an insecurity.
Svelaz-George please go answer the questionairre.
I bet you cant get 5 right.
You sound desperate.
“sure trying hard…”
A new phrase you just picked up in the last day or two after someone accused you of that. (Meyer? Esotvir? Lin?)
Another common trait you share with Dennis and Gigi and Biden
Let me beat Dennis McIntyre to commenting with off-topic Morning Breaking News:
Judge Rules Haley Biden, Hunter Biden’s Sister In Law And Sex Partner Must Testify On Biden Family Tax Fraud Trial But Has Amnesty From Criminal Prosecution Based On Testimony
Notably, that amnesty from prosecution doesn’t extend to The Big Guy, famed neurosurgeon and babysitter Dr. Jill, Uncle James, and the rest of the family that pocketed 30+ million dollars.
It appears that Dennis has taken the morning off, along with his good pal George, who somehow spared us from having our ears bleed, listening to his constant complaining and whining.
Censorship, which is the life-blood of propaganda, is key to the Democrats’ election stratety. Imagine, because contrary views are not allowed by the MSM, hi-tech, Hollywood or the Democrats themselves, we are about to elect a Democrat to be President. It does not matter that Kamala has no accomplishments unless sleeping with Willie Brown is considered an accomplishment, and a mere three weeks ago, Democrats from top to bottom recognized this fact. According to them, Kamala was a disaster, wholly unqualified to be a candidate for President, much less the actual President. An alternative had to be found. But when none was, and Biden’s forced withdrawal caused a change in plans, the Democrats far and wide, without skipping a beat, made a U-turn and today, according to these same Democrats, she is the Messiah. Democrats in massive numbers are lined up easily switching from one position to the next because they have been told by their leaders what to do. Besides, intellectual honesty is so 1950ish. In the Democrats’ world, up is down and black is white, interchangeable as the situation warrants.
I read a column this morning by Tyler Durden that attributed a quote to Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World Revisited.” This is the quote:
“By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms — elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest — will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial — but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.”
I have no verified the accuracy of the quote, but the message describes the Democrats’ election plan, in deed if not in word. It turns out that “Brave New World” was not fiction at all. And Huxley’s revisit was in 1958 before the mass communication (propaganda) tools of this age existed.
Honestlawyermostly,
Great comment.
AKA “Well Said/ Spot On/ Good Catch/ Sane and Normal”
Jonathan, when our mutual dear friend Dennis McIntyre shows up for work today with his campaign speech of the day, when he gives you his usual greeting on his way through the door to your comments section, ask him why Kamala Harris is doing the equivalent of Biden campaigning from the basement in 2020.
The coup that removed Biden as the nominee was successful over a week ago, and yet Harris his hidden ever since behind puffball appearances where she is guaranteed to be safe from questions about her record. Not her record of getting her political start working a sweat up under Democrat Speaker Of The House Willy Brown. Her record in political office in California and then as Senator.
Dennis knows Trump has a record of what he did in office and he knows Harris has a record of what she has said and done in office. Her record as California AG, her record as a Senator, her record as Vice President.
After you exchange greetings today, could you ask Dennis to explain why such an inclusive, human, loving and kind Kamala Harris can’t get her political employees to stay working with her?
92% of VP Harris Staff Quit: “She’s Unbearable And Takes Out Her Failures On Women And Employees In Minor Positions”
https://rumble.com/v5969a2-damning-report-shows-what-working-for-kamala-harris-is-really-like.html?mref=22lbp&mc=56yab
Dennis has been attending all these fundraising cocktail parties in Michigan where he knocks back cocktails with Muslim hajjis Rashida Tlaib and the rest of the pro-Hamas Democrat movement… surely you can get Dennis to explain why Harris is in hiding and can’t find staff that will continue to work for her more than a month or two
Dennis hasn’t been seen since he couldn’t answer whether the black man who was bequeathed to him by his late mother and tends his “vineyard”, counts as a “black job”.
Seems like you’re fixated on Dennis
he’s just a troll
not worth anyone’s time/effort.
And why do you care?
Why do you care about why someone else cares or not?
Why do you care why I care?
75% of Trump’s administration quit and won’t endorse him because he’s impossible to work with. One of his own cabinet members called him a f*cking moron. None of them have said good things about him. Some have ended up in jail or worse, disbarred. If you think that’s not good then why support Trump?
I dont understand. 92% is greater than 75%.
do you think its good? You must.
You don’t understand.
Which of those 75% would have liked to see stick around? Cheat: Bolton was ousted.
Trump’s a moron.
You don’t say.
To this idiot, Karl Marx and Obongo are intellectuals.
Does JT censor this site?
Yes, he deletes clearly racist comments and vulgarity despite the fact that both are protected forms of free speech.
What vulgarity, you spastic kunt?
See, no censoring, you “14” lover.
Question 13 from the Knight Foundation/Ipsos Study cited by JT:
If you had to choose, do you think it is more important for colleges to: allow students to be exposed to all types of speech or protect students by prohibiting offensive speech.
To understand the tradeoffs involved, I’d recommend viewing this short 27 second youtube video clip before answering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3GGKF6CsjY
My point? These poorly constructed, multiple choice, polling questions often force folks to produce a distorted view of their real opinions.
Those that Man the rudder control the course.
Imagine today, Cagney’s most quoted line “You dirty rat, you killed my brother”, what would the control freaks say? Society has allowed simplistic minded fools to assume control and threaten draconian measures against freedoms that are Natural. We must reject their wares and politely show them the EXIT, as we would any guest that has insulted us.
Vote for sanity and discipline, the only logical vote is Republican at this time in our history, we must correct course with a wide swipe to rid ourselves of the absurd embarrassment we currently have.
George W,
I agree with you in spirit, this is a guest who not only will not Exit, but demand we acquiesce to their control and their reality in our own home.
We might not have to be so polite when asking them to Exit.
Don’t worry s@@tlibs, you’ll get your sought after and beloved “hate speech” laws. As the demographics of the country drive it further left, it is only a matter of time.
And JT, don’t think that your support of liberal causes otherwise will protect you. You’re a “nazi” too!
antonio
Try as they might, our natural right to free speech will never be eliminated. We exist, so that right exists. It can however be forcibly disabled. So this battle is not measured by winning or losing. It’s measured by freeing or enslaving.
Unemployment rate increased in July to 4.3%, number of new jobs far below projections
I no longer believe in the veracity or credibility. The numbers are manipulated month by month for political purposes. Watch as the numbers get really good just before election.
There is manipulation – that is typical of leftists.
There is an excellent video of Rassmussen analyzing polls on our values.
Only a small percent of americans will cheat to get what they want – even if they can get away with it and even if they beleive it si for the good of all.
BUT something like 2/3 of those with advanced degrees, earning over 150K/year would cheat if they thought they would not get caught and if they thought it was for everyone’s good.
THESE are the people – not merely running but at most levels of our government.
These are also our academics, our scientists and researchers – especially those that are government funded.
This is a major reason why we have had significant problems with science in the past 40 years.
Peer review is no substitute for reproducability.
These are the people collecting and publishing statistics in government.
Yes, they cheat.
But they is only so much of that you can get away with.
As a business you can game your taxes. You push income or expenses into the next year.
So long as this balances out year after year, so long as you are not always moving one way, it works out in the end and ultimately you end up paying the correct taxes.
But when the pushing is nearly all going the same way, the problem gets bigger and bigger each year until what you are dealing with is a giant and impossible to hide fraud.
A version of this is what brought down MCI Worldcom.
And we have seen this in This administration.
One of the tricks today is to publish glowing numbers and then “correct” them later,
Or to find out a purportedly accidental mistake 6 months later and correct it – without anyone reporting that you were off by several hundred thousand 6 months ago.
Also missing from the glowing jobs claims analysis is that we are adding about 4M immigrants per year to the US – that is 1M legal immigrants and about 3M illegal immigrants. They need JOBS. Assuming that only half of them work, that means we need 200K new jobs every month just to deal with mass immigration. That is in addition to the 150K new jobs we need each month to deal with our own growing population.
Regardless, the government is not the keeper of all statistics. There are plenty of independent sources.
Further as Adam Smith demonstrated when writing the Wealth of Nations, there are very creative ways to measure economic trends.
And finally, and one of the great weaknesses of the modern left, we should expect that our data and its sources should always pass the smell test. That it should be consistent with the world that we personally experience and that if it does not there should be very clear reasons why.
If you know 10 people who have lost their job and only 5 that have gotten new jobs – and the government is telling you that jobs are readily avialable, it would be wise to be suspicious of those government claims.
John, everyone cheats. Trump does. He built his empire on cheating. Republicans cheat, so do Democrats, Billionaires, millionaires, the poor, everyone. Whenever there is an opportunity to game a system anyone will take it. When there’s an opportunity to bend the rules or get away with it by playing semantics they will do it. Even you would take advantage. It’s the rare few that don’t cheat.
Svelaz
Trump’s cheating hasn’t cost me a dime.
I enjoy golf trips, fine spirits, great food and sex with gorgeous women, without having to cheat anyone. You’re cheaters make that harder for me.
That’s the difference.
You like your cheaters because you get to keep your drag queen story hour.
Go answer the questionairre, racist.
*Your
As usual you miss the point. Nobody cares what it does to you. Nobody asked. But keep whining.
Its not just me, dum dum.
LMAO YOU missed the point! Wow, I’m starting to think 90 is generous.
Enjoy your 9% inflation and 8% interest, drag queen story hour!
As many people care about my opinion as yours, dipshit. Irony has no place in yyour world, does it?