Below is my column in The Hill on why a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free speech. A long-standing advocate for censorship and other speech controls, Vice President Kamala Harris just added an equally menacing candidate to her ticket for 2024.
Here is the column:
The selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris has led to intense debates over crime policy, war claims, gender identity policies and other issues.
Some attacks have, in my view, been inaccurate or overwrought. However, the greatest danger from this ticket is neither speculative nor sensational. A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech.
For over three years, the Biden-Harris administration has sustained an unrelenting attack on the freedom of speech, from supporting a massive censorship system (described by a federal court as an “Orwellian Ministry of Truth“) to funding blacklisting operations targeting groups and individuals with opposing views.
President Biden made censorship a central part of his legacy, even accusing social media companies of “killing people” for failing to increase levels of censorship. Democrats in Congress pushed that agenda by demanding censorship on subjects ranging from climate change to gender identity — even to banking policy — in the name of combatting “disinformation.”
The administration also created offices like the Disinformation Governance Board before it was shut down after public outcry. But it quickly shifted this censorship work to other offices and groups.
As vice president, Harris has long supported these anti-free speech policies. The addition of Walz completes a perfect nightmare for free speech advocates. Walz has shown not only a shocking disregard for free speech values but an equally shocking lack of understanding of the First Amendment.
Walz went on MSNBC to support censoring disinformation and declared, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
Ironically, this false claim, repeated by many Democrats, constitutes one of the most dangerous forms of disinformation. It is being used to convince a free people to give up some of their freedom with a “nothing to see here” pitch.
In prior testimony before Congress on the censorship system under the Biden administration, I was taken aback when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), declared, “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.
That false claim has been echoed by others such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer. “If you espouse hate,” he said, “…you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the claim of Gov. Walz. For example, in the 2016 Matal v. Tam decision, the court stressed that this precise position “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
As the new Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Walz is running alongside one of the most enthusiastic supporters of censorship and blacklisting systems.
In her failed 2020 presidential bid, Harris ran on censorship and pledged that her administration “will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.”
In October 2019, Harris dramatically spoke directly to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, insisting “This is not a matter of free speech….This is a matter of holding corporate America and these Big Tech companies responsible and accountable for what they are facilitating.” She asked voters to join her in the effort.
They didn’t, but Harris ultimately succeeded in the Biden-Harris administration to an unprecedented degree with a comprehensive federal effort to target and silence individuals and groups on social media.
In my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I detailed how President Biden is the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Unlike Adams, I have never viewed Biden as the driving force behind the massive censorship and blacklisting operations supported by his subordinates, including Harris. That is not to say that Biden does not share the shame in these measures. He was willing to sacrifice not only free speech but also institutions like the Supreme Court in a desperate effort to rescue his failing nomination.
The substitution of Harris for Biden makes this the second election in which free speech is the key issue for voters. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated Adams, in large part based on his pledge to reverse the anti-free speech policies of the prior administration, including the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his opponents.
With the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries. Both candidates are committed to using disinformation, misinformation and malinformation as justifications for speech controls. The third category has been emphasized by the Biden-Harris administration, which explained that it is information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
Walz has the advantage in joining this anti-free speech ticket without the burden of knowledge of what is protected under the First Amendment.
With the Harris-Walz ticket, we have come full circle to the very debate at the start of this republic. The warnings of the Founders to reject the siren’s call of censorship remain tragically relevant today. Free speech was and remains our “indispensable right.”
As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech….Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man.”
With her selection of Walz, Harris has decided to put free speech on the ballot in this election. It is a debate that our nation should welcome, as it did in 1800.
The Biden-Harris administration has notably toned down its anti-free speech efforts as the election approaches. Leading censorship advocates have also gone mostly silent.
If successful, a Harris-Walz administration is expected to bring back those policies and personalities with a vengeance. That could be radically enhanced if the Democrats take both houses of Congress and once again block investigations into their censorship programs.
The media has worked very hard to present Harris and Walz as the “happy warriors.” Indeed, they may be that and much more. The question is what they are happy about in their war against free speech.
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 and Schuster).
Harris/Walz will be the death of liberty. If they beat Trump/Vance it’s all over and the American people will get the dystopia they deserve for making bad electoral choices. A more likely scenario is a rigged election a la Venezuela, rigged even worse than in 2020.
Misinformation is more common than ever within medical science journals. Not even the journal editors / reviewers have the backbone to question and reject claims by research authors. It often takes the readers of the medical journal to bring misinformation to the attention of medical journals. As an example, the following Psychopharmacology journal article was published in 2020. It was retracted > 4 years later!
Retraction Note: Long-term follow-up outcomes of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for treatment of PTSD: a longitudinal pooled analysis of six phase 2 trials
Retraction Note Published: 10 August 2024
The Original Article was published on 04 June 2020
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-024-06665-y
Here is a list of misinformation (aka predatory) academic journals. Intelligent researchers avoid these at all costs
Beall’s List – of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers
https://beallslist.net/
You don’t realize that you’re arguing against your position. Probably because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Beall says that 95% of journal articles overall are reliable documents in terms of research and author intentions. But, like a good right wing extremist, you make a mountain out of a molehill to try to prove your opinion that everything has gone to hell.
It seems Estovir upset you since the link he provided lists some of the journals that cover your ilk. You really should stick to Reddit instead of commenting on this blog
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Betty Jones & Sisters Publishing
Binary Information Press
Blaze Journals
Brainy Buzz
Did you see what they have done to Tulsi Gabbard? They placed her on a Terror Watch List when she flies. She is a current officer in the National Guard. All because she spoke against Harris’ policies. Now when she flies, she has up to 6 air marshalls following her. Sounds like a communist nation!
It was because of Tulsi’s sex change. He used to not be on a terrorist list.
“It was because of Tulsi’s sex change. He used to not be on a terrorist list.”
Figures. Just more hypocracy from the left. They secretly hate trans people.
Bwahahahahaha Low IQ never sees it coming….Bwahahahahahahaha
Here is what so-called hate speech can lead to:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/us/white-supremacist-power-grid-attacks.html?unlocked_article_code=1.CU4.k3ke.ae1W-gvJldf_&smid=url-share
so that this, at a minimum, hits all of us in the pocketbook.
Jonathan Turley could go over to talk to his colleague about this version of so-called free speech.
In particular, transformers are vulnerable, very expensive and take a long time to build.
No way I am clicking on another link from you. Not after that shit show you posted this weekend.
First you claimed the dude was arrested “for playing the cello, as did the author. When BS was called, you said he was arrested “while playing the cello”. The problem is, we all know its hard to assault someone while playing the cello.
However, VP Harris keeps claiming at her rallies that she will fix the problem with high prices by “going after the large corporations for price gouging”. Predictably she doesnt name these large corporations, nor does she say how or how much they are price gouging, nor what she will do about it and how and how much that will mitigate inflation. Sounds to me like all she is doing is fomenting hate and anger at “large corporations” by deflecting from her own failures.
Hilariously, just a few posts down you will find one of your fellow libturds proclaiming that all of the large corporations are owned by lefties. So let me get this straight. Kamakameleon is going after her donors?
That sounds an awful lot like disinformation. Shall we allow that? How about some relief for the poor underinformed voter being gaslit by a dishonest public official?
ddc – the link is safe – it is just a typical left wing nut propoganda peice converting inuendo and FBI entrapment into false claims.
The FBI has been doing this for decades – they just change who they target to suit the politics of the moment.
It should be obvious to people today that the only acts of domestic terrorism that we see in the US are thwarted efforts by whatever ideology those in power are targetting at the moment.
The FBI has a 100% record of thwarting homegrown terrorists – because there are no home grown terrorists. Just people the FBI targets, feeds plots to and then arrests.
It should be obvious to people today that the only acts of domestic terrorism that we see in the US are thwarted efforts by whatever ideology those in power are targetting at the moment.
And by octogenarian CalTech PhD graduates who get near an internet computer in their ACLF homes.
John
I didnt suspect that it wasn’t safe. My point was that I wasted time clicking on that idiot’s link this weekend. He propped it up as some sort of assault on free speech. I went there hoping to be informed, but instead I was gaslit by the goofy activist who authored that completely unserious piece of shit.
I posted what I did as a warning to any who might fall for his nonsense.
Fool me once.
Sounds like you’re a naive little boy who doesn’t understand how the world works.
Nice try with that abject propaganda.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) rely on fools and idiots.
I’ve been seein’ somethin’ mighty peculiar goin’ on lately. Some of them Trump supporters are callin’ everyone who don’t agree with ’em a “communist.” Now, I tell ya, there’s somethin’ just plain wrong with that.
First off, it seems like there’s a heap of misunderstanding about what communism really is. Ya see, communism is all about havin’ no private property, sharin’ everything equally, and not havin’ any social classes. It ain’t right to call just anybody with a different opinion a communist. That’s like callin’ a cat a dog just ’cause it don’t bark! Second, slingin’ around names like that don’t do nothin’ but shut down good ol’ fashioned conversation. Our democracy is all about folks talkin’ and sharin’ ideas, even if they don’t always see eye to eye. When folks start throwin’ out labels like “communist,” it just makes it harder to have them important discussions and only serves to pull us apart.
And let me tell ya, this kind of name-callin’ can make folks feel downright attacked for what they believe. It creates an “us versus them” kinda situation, and that’s no good for nobody. We need to find ways to come together and understand each other, not push each other further apart. So let’s all try to be a bit more respectful and thoughtful in our political talk. Listenin’ and learnin’ from each other, even when we disagree, is what makes our democracy strong. Instead of throwin’ out labels, let’s aim for some good, honest conversations.
Shazam! We might just find we have more in common than we thought.
Stay away from my precious bodily fluids.
Here is what so-called hate speech can lead to:
First LIE
No DBB this is not what Hate Speech leads to – this is typical left wing idiocy.
Do you honestly think that no one would do bad things if you were able to control peoples speech ?
Experience teaches us the opposite is true. The inability to say things leads people to DO things.
I would note – as is typical of the left – the Article makes idiotic claims about what might be, rather than what is.
How many ACTUAL acts of political violence have occured in the United states originating in so called right wing groups ?
No one actually kidnapped Gov. Whitmer. The Bundies never actually committed any acts of Violence. David Koresch was not even on the right – regardless he did not initiate any violence against anyone, nor did Randy Witmer.
The whitmer kidnapping plot was hatched by the FBI who paid a bunch of near homeless people who previously had no thoughts of violence.
BTW we have seen the FBI do exactly this so young muslims post 911 – which is why entrappment is illegal – even thouh courts do not enforce that.
Almost all acts of political violence in my life have been perpitrated by those on the LEFT.
In your NYT story – we have more of this FBI nonsense – inflitrating allegedly right wing groups, providing them resources and motivating them to do bad things, and then arresting them for taking the tiniest steps towards advancing the plots that originated with the FBI.
I noted that we saw this with the Whitmer nonsense. We also saw this with young muslims post 9/11, and we saw this with the FBI targeting left wing groups in the 60’s and 70’s.
Atleast in the 60;’s anmd 70’s SOME left wing groups ACTUALLY engaged in political violence.
Please cite a single act of actual political violence in the 21st century that was not carried out by a mentially disturbed individual whose motivations were more nuts than political ?
Can you come up with ONE ?
The FBI typically thwarts the plots they create, and those plots are created by whatever group they decide to target for the moment.
There is no consequential right wing domestic terrorism. There really is no inconsequential right wing domestic terrorism.
Read your article – it is entirely driven by inuendo and claims not supported by the facts.
The real story is once again – the FBI targeted a group, infiltrated them – fed them a plot and then arrested them.
That tells us about the FBI nothing else.
Maybe you could give us an electrical circuits breakdown on transformers professor doctorate of philosophy in engineering, Dr. Benson and Hedges, pHD BS. When you finish you can continue on with your psychological studies supporting your assessment of what hate speech is and who should define it.
So David B. Benson
If a couple of White men sick of the civil rights movement being misused and weaponized against them shoot up some transformers you deride it as White Supremacy, what is it when hordes of black people burn down federal buildings, loot and destroy private property? Is that Black Supremacy David B Benson? If it’s a bunch of LGBTQ trannies is it Queer Supremacy?
More and more, Putin is starting to look like Hitler in the bunker in “Downfall”.
^^ what a moron ^^
Hitler was in a submarine on his way to South America.
Here is an example of the difficulties wrought by so-called disinformation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/12/business/media/2024-election-disinformation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.CU4.cFOB.4HyDq7vbBpgJ&smid=url-share
How about some relief for harassed county clerks and their staffs?
Nice try with that abject propaganda.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) rely on fools and idiots.
Where in your article does it actually reference a real demonstrably false claim ?
Where in your article does it reference anything that actually makes this persons job harder ?
“When she signed on to be director of elections in Cobb County, Ga., last year, she knew she’d be registering voters and recruiting poll workers, maybe fixing up voting machines.”
These things are her job. What other people beleive has no bearing on that job, and does not make her job more difficult.
“She didn’t expect the unending flood of disinformation” it is irrelevant what she expected – it is her job to follow GA election law – that is her ONLY job. It is not to police other peoples views. It is not to persuade people they are wrong. It is just to follow the law of Georgia – whatever that is.
If voters in Georgia choose to beleive that the elections are being altered by little green men from mars – that has no impact on Ms. Tates job.
She is only Harrassed – because she chooses to try to make her job – something it is not.
If people question her – the only correct answer she has is “I am following GA election law” – if that is not the case – she is committing crimes.
To the very limited extent that public officials have any obligations regarding speech – it is to properly inform those who ask of the law. That is all. It is not to debate with them. It is not to correct views they deem to be false.
Conversely it is the publics right – even duty to be distrustful of those in government.
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance ”
and the threat to liberty is almost always from our own government.
Public facing workers in ALL jobs should expect to have to deal with difficult people, even those with false beleifs – that comes with the job.
If you can not deal with it – find another job.
This goes double for govenrment officials – as we should be doubly distrustful.
My wife is a public defender – many of her clients are nuts, nearly all harbor false views of the law, the world and the facts (though quiete often DA’s jury’s and courts) are similarly afflicted. Regardless her job requires dealing with difficult people who beleive things that are false. Or sometimes true but irrelevant.
That comes with the job.
If Ms Tate can not cope – she should seek employment elsewhere.
There is no “dis or misinformation problem that impacts her job – all she needs to do is stick to the actual job.
No job requires you tolerate abuse and constant harassment to the point it affects one’s mental and physical health. Not even government workers or election officials. To say that they should just suck it up because they chose the job is idiotic. Facing death threats and being accosted in public is not part of the job. Not when others are falsely insinuating things about their handling of the job and real threats of harm cannot be dismissed as idle threats. Not when you have nut jobs and the truly convinced. Should justice Kavanaugh simply tolerate harassment and daily threats without the benefit of the U.S. marshals because ‘he knew what he was getting himself into?’
Elections officials do their jobs and it only requires them to oversee elections. Their job is not to put up with death threats and constant harassment that extends to their families.
Perhaps they should arm election officials and be given qualified immunity if they are expected to tolerate such abuses and threats.
I do not know that is Ms. Tates specific jobs – but one legal requirement of elections offices is cleaning up their voter registration databases.
Federal law requires that. Most states have enven stricter requirements than Federal law. Yet in the entire US the only places that do a half way credible job of following the law are republican districts and only some of them.
There are an estimated 75M names on voter registration databases that should not be there.
There range from superman, mickey mouse and Ronald Reagan, to people who have been dead for often more than a century.
In most states if a person shows up at the polls claiming to be someone found in voter registration for that precinct they will be allowed to vote. Accross the country that means that it is possible to cast as much as 75M fraudulent votes.
While Fraud on that scale is inlikely. on the scale of millions is still possible.
Only about half the country has any form of voter ID, and even those states that do have voter ID in practice do not chack mailin ballots. Recent testimony from the Fulton county board of elections was that no t a single mailin ballot had ANY voter ID or signature information checked from 2020. In nearby Cobb county – a substantially more affluent democratic county where fraud is less likely – a random audit of mailin ballots in 2020 found that 6% of those had invalid signatures and should have been discarded, and 0,5% had OBVIOUSLY fraudulent ones. Trump lost GA by 0.25% – so the rate of fraud was nearly tripple the rate needed to flip the election.
Yes Ms Tate should face scrutiny. she should expect skeptical constituents to question her before and after the election – and she had better be able to answer that the law was followed rigorously – anything less would be criminal.
David, if there were one-day voting, paper ballots, voter ID, and clean voter rolls, there would be few problems. Since the NYTimes gave no verifiable details, what they said is likely the same cr-p the NYT constantly spews. How much disinformation and conspiracy theory is about Russian influence? The Democrats refuse honest elections and love to make claims that they create. The NYT loves to print anything the Democratic establishment wants. Until Jpe’s failed debate, they told us Joe Biden was a genius.
S. Meyer, The New York Times is the newspaper of record in the United States. They are careful to fact-check what is reported and issue corrections promptly upon notification of errors.
The Op-Ed pages are, indeed, opinion. A modestly wide variety of opinion is offered, but only by the sane…
“The New York Times is the newspaper of record.”
Pravda is the newspaper of record in Russia and formerly the Soviet Union. That appeals to you, but I don’t know why.
“They are careful to fact-check what is reported and issue corrections promptly upon notification of errors.”
How did they do with all the very significant lies they made during the Trump administration? They continued lying, and finally, on page 18, when they could no longer deny the truth; they said they were ‘somewhat wrong.’ Who gave them the information? We later found that their sources were not legitimate. How can you trust them after all those lies?
Today, they admittedly are not playing the fact game but creating news that seems fair in their eyes. Do you remember the 1619 project? There were too many lies, but they got a Pulitzer. Why? PC.
Do you remember Walter Duranty and the Pulitzer Prize for Stalin’s Russia? It was a lie known to all, but the NYT refused to give it up.
David, what are you proud of? Are you proud because it has a reputation and you don’t care what is printed? Is that how you handled your computer courses at the university? You showed the students a pretty box, and you didn’t care about the garbage inside?
It would be nice to be the last person on earth after all of you inconsiderate ay-holes have been destroyed by meteors and/or nuclear weapons. It would be heavenly not to you around anymore, making me miserable, angry, and unhappy all of the time by your behavior. I hate your guts.
Turdley is making a stretch today.
From, Devildognorthamptoncc1@yahoo.com. These 2 people are Obamaites, I remember Professor Turkey of Fox news during Obama,s walk to be sworn in as president swooning all over him and his wife. Thus look what he and his colleagues has wrought.
Sorry about your brain damage. Really…
To quote Barry Goldwater: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
When the sublimer feels superior and wishes to direct societies course with admonishments and dictation of thought and speech we venture into a farcical unknown where the doors are wide open to the gates of everlasting damnation.
And ending with a paraphrased quote from Germaine Greer: “We have the inalienable right to invent ourselves, when right is preempted its call brain washing.” Or as a Democrat may say ‘I’m here to save you from yourself’.
God help us ALL!!!
Barry Goldwater is turning in his grave over a sleazy snake oil salesman like Trump pretending to be a conservative, and a bunch of George Wallace Democrats like you pretending to be conservative as well.
^^ Paid DNC troll. Ignore. ^^
Have you bothered to review Trump’s interviews over the last 30 years? He’s quite consistent in his conservatism, unlike most flip flopping Democrats aka Communists.
Does that explain his record breaking deficit spending in his first 2 years in office?
Unfunded wars costs money as does rebuilding a depleted military, still pale in comparison to his Marxist predecessor.
I would not bet that. Goldwater was incredibly libertarian – particularly later, As Republicans go – you have to move to Mike Lee or Rand Paul to find a more libertarian republican.
What parts of Goldaters manifesto – “Consceince of a conservative” are at Odds with Trump’s MAGA ?
George W,
Great comment!
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Shame on Webster’s New World Law dictionary for presenting such a false definition.
Do tell.
“A Harris-Walz Administration Would Be A Nightmare for Free Speech”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Here’s all you need to know.
Oh, and do please pass it on to the Supreme Court of the United States of America after you comprehend and fully grasp that the American Founders and Framers did not define “natural born citizen,” but employed the only definition of the phrase ever created in the history of the world:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Emmerich de Vattel, 1758,
Book 1, Chapter 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
_________________________________
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel.”
“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.”
“Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting,….”
– Ben Franklin Letter to Charles Dumas, Continental Congress, 1775
__________________________________________________________________________
The Founders’ Sources of International Law
During the 17th and 18th centuries, five great scholars forged international law into its modern shape. In 1783, the Confederation Congress empaneled a committee consisting of James Madison of Virginia, Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania, and Hugh Williamson of North Carolina—all of whom were to serve at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. This committee recommended that Congress purchase the works of all five international law scholars.
Emer de Vattel
Of the five, the one the American Founders most frequently consulted was Vattel. Like Grotius, Vattel was both a scholar and diplomat. His principal work, “Le Droit des Gens” (“The Law of Nations”), was published in French in 1758 and translated into English two years later. You can learn more about Vattel’s life at the Online Library of Liberty.
There were four reasons why Vattel was so congenial to the American Founders: First, he was the most recent of the five great authorities. Second, his book was comprehensive and readable. Third, he was a strong advocate for individual liberty. And fourth, he discussed issues that, while not always part of the “law of nations,” were very important to the Founders: the nature of confederations, the superiority of constitutions to legislatures, the need for one and only one person to supervise the executive branch, and so forth.
Vattel was referenced at the Constitutional Convention, primarily in a speech by Luther Martin of Maryland. He also showed up during the ratification debates. For example, at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued about Vattel with an Antifederalist delegate. In the South Carolina legislature, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney also debated Vattel with an Antifederalist. In New York, Gov. George Clinton relied on Vattel in a speech to his state’s ratifying convention.
– Rob Natelson, Independence Institute . org
Dear Mr. Turley, GEB always has great thoughts and I sure appreciate him. I believe that it is the social media climate that suppresses our free speech. They have taken their marching orders from the left and without Mr. Musk, we would not know the difference. For years the left has called for actual physical attacks against conservatives and to silence them at every turn. I still have not heard of one single policy from Harris/Walz, only terrible things said about Trump/Vance.
“Dear Mr. Turley,…”
How cute.
Trump falling behind on the polls it seems. Harris is up by four points in three swing states. Looks like Trump has to work to get back in the lead. He can no longer coast on his “charm”.
Wrong
Check RCP, dum dum. Harris still behind in 5/7 swing states.
No, RCP has Harris ahead of Trump by 3 points in the general.
As of Saturday Harris is ahead in the majority of swing states. It shows Trump’s lead shrinking. Not by much, but shrinking still.
Unprecedented
Jonathan: Now that it appears the Harris/Walz ticket poses a serious threat to DJT’s chances of getting re-elected you have joined his campaign by falsely claiming the Democratic ticket “could be a nightmare for free speech”. Even your fantastical claim that “with the addition of Walz, Democrats now have arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries”. Is there any basis for you hyperbolic claim? Don’t think so.
In your column you cite the interview Tim Walz gave to MSNBC in which the discussion centered around voting rights. Walz pointed out the attempts by the DJT campaign to suppress the vote–filing numerous lawsuits in swing states challenging mail-in voting by claiming votes, postmarked before Nov. 5 but not actually received until a few days after the election, should not be counted. Fortunately, these spurious legal challenges have been rebuffed by the courts. But DJT used other methods to suppress the vote. In 2022 he got the conservative Wisconsin SC to abolish secure voter drop boxes because they were used more frequently by liberal voters. That changed this year when the composition of the Wisconsin SC changed and now drop boxes are once again legal.
Voting is the quintessential form of “free speech”. It’s one of the few ways citizens have of expressing their candidate preferences and how government should work. DJT’s campaign is built on disinformation and other attempts to suppress the vote. That’s because DJT knows that the more voters that go to the polls it’s less likely he will win.
Elon Musk in now part of DJT’s campaign. Musk set up a new “America PAC” with the ostensible purpose of signing up new voters. Musk did the exact opposite. Any prospective voter who he thought would vote Democratic was not signed up. That served the intended purpose–a voter who tried to vote would be denied that right because they were not registered (See my comment 8/5@1:31pm). AGs in Michigan and other states where Musk used this attempt to suppress are now investigating whether Musk’s PAC violated state election laws.
The Harris/Walz campaign is built on getting out the vote. Their volunteers are flooding the country signing up new voters. That’s the essence of how our Democratic system should work. The real threat to “free speech” is DJT’s effort to suppress the vote. So the reality is that the DJT/”Shady” JD Vance ticket is “arguably the most anti-free speech ticket of a major party in more than two centuries”. Strange you could get it so backwards!
@Dennis
Like many leftist adherents, you have a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. College, if you went, didn’t seem to make a single mark on you. Let the grownups talk, Dennis. Your chatter is like 5 year-olds playing in the pool. It makes meaningful conversation difficult, and we can’t castigate you for that which you cannot help – being a child.
James,
Just scroll past. He does not say anything of interest or of significance like all the anonys.
Besides, he pees in the pool.
@Upstate
Ordinarily, I do. Guess I felt it was important to express this particular time. The lies are *so* off the hook at present, I guess I feel it’s important to represent reality.
James,
Ah! Reality! That is something of an anathema to our leftists friends. Good point in calling them out with it.
Did he say “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” or didn’t he say it?
If he said it, no matter the context, shows his ignorance of the First Amendment which Prof Turley exposed.
I remember a time Democrats were defenders of the Bill of Rights, unfortunately those times are long past.
*SENATOR KEELEY
That Harris and Walz actually have any following at all in a USA is delusional. It’s psyop.
It’s all for money and can anyone imagine socialism? Socialism removing effort and industry from an individual person and that individual must work for those showing no effort nor industry at all.
Delusional.
Have a great day and Mr Turley, thank you for the amusements.
“The real threat to “free speech” is DJT’s effort to suppress the vote.”
Thos eof you on the left constantly use this childish vague langue like “supress the vote”
What does that mean ?
Is precluding`Russians from voting – “supressing the vote” ?
This is a constant problem with those on the left – you spray these nebulous dark undefined claims as if they are meaningful.
But when the details are provided they are not dark and things that nearly everyone supports.
Most of the country wants everyone who is a citizen of this country to be able to vote if they want and ONLY those who are citizens to vote.
A part of accomplishing that is voter ID. Do you have a better way of making sure that Citizens and only citizens vote ?
Hopefully all of the country wants only real people to vote. They do not want boiler rooms producing fake ballots for non-existent people – or fake ballots for real people.
How is it that YOU plan on making that impossible ?
The way that we prevent conduct that we do not want – such as non-citizens voting, or the manufacture of ballots for real or immaginary people is through laws.
All laws provide some minimal burden on people – in this case voters.
Contra those on the left it is actually quite hard – as a practical matter nearly impossible to make voting incredibly easy without opening the door to large scale Fraud.
Those of you on the left have repeatedly claimed there was no consequential fraud in 2020.
EVEN if you are actually right – it is with absolute certainty that if this country continues the negligent and reckless and lawless voting that we are now doing that we will have MASSIVE fraud soon enough.
Mailin voting CAN NOT be conducted without the possibility of large scale fraud. We have been fortunate in those states that have had mailin voting for a decade or more – that those states are not politically competitive – because election fraud is inconsequential in elections where it is well known who the winner will be long before voting starts.
You can bet that voters will be extremely suspicious if a candidate polling with 60% support looses and election by !%.;
Everyone will be crying foul and looking for fraud.
The likelyhood of getting away with fraud where the fraud is greater than half a perfect of the vote is small.
But we have a large number of swing states – and counties and …
Any time you have elections that we know ahead of time will be decided by razor thin margins, those elections just BEG for fraud.
“If you build it they will come”.
If you conduct mailin elections in a close state – you WILL eventually have massive fraud.
If you allow ballots to leave the polling place – YOU WILL HAVE MASSIVE FRAUD. The only question is when.
Mailin voting – no matter how well conducted – and in much of the US it is badly conducted – will eventually have large scale fraud.
Any means of voting that allows a voter to demonstrate to a third party how they voted – is just begging for people to induce of coerce votes.
We have laws that make it illegal to try to influence a voter at the polls – how do those laws work when the vote is cast from your couch at home ?
My Grandfather spent weeks before an election telling my Grandmother how to vote. She listened dutifully and went to the polls and voted as she pleased. Telling grandfather she had done as he asked, and he was never the wiser and even if he suspected otherwise there was nothing he could do about it.
This is one of many reasons why 38 US states have requirements in their elections for secret ballot elections.
The requirements for a secret ballot election are:
1). an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear
2). being distributed only at the polling place and
3). being marked in secret.
These are not some right wing plot – this is the means of conducting elections that were devised as a consequence of large scael fraud in the 19th century. This is the voting method that until recently for most of the past century the entire western world – in fact most of the world has used.
How is it that mailin voting – now widespread meets those requirements ?
Even today – of advanced nations – ONLY the US uses mailin voting.
The french vote only in person and only on election day. There is no mailin voting. no absentee voting., no early voting.
They vote on paper ballots counted by hand and results are usually available by midnight after the election.
In austrailia all voting is done on election day.
In Canada all voting is done on election day.
This is true in most of the west.
One of the massive advantages of voting onl;y on election day at the polls is that the press conducting exit polling provides a massive third party check against election fraud. This is not possible for early voting or mailin voting or no excuse absentee voting.
So apartently according to you – nearly all the world – including nations run by the left engage in voter supression.
John, you fail to understand that the right to vote is so sacred that it is better to allow thousands (millions?) of phoney votes to be cast than make it hard for a single voter to exercise that franchise. To obtain and produce ID at voting time is a burden. No? Please understand that. That the rest of the world does not value the right to vote as highly as we do is irrelevant.
Dear god I hope this is sarcasm.
“it is better to allow thousands (millions?) of phoney votes to be cast than make it hard for a single voter to exercise that franchise.”
WTF???
You leave out the fact that other countries don’t have 50 different states with different voting rules and huge populations to contend with. Other countries may have universal voting rules that apply everywhere uniformly. Not here. Other countries may have national voter ID card enabling voters to dispense with cumbersome registration requirements every time they move. We don’t do that.
“The Harris/Walz campaign is built on” democrat leaders disenfranchising 14 million of their own voters. Then coronating Harris.
Now that statement reflects reality.
Interestingly, it appears i am no longer able to put a “likes” on Jonathan’s posts… my avatar did not appear, and I am not on the list of likers… I guess the administrators of the site have been Coup d’Étated by Canada or canadians are hacking the site.
Denys, where did you put “likes” on Jonathan’s posts? Jonathan Turley does not write comments on his own blog..
David,
Unless I am mistaken, Denys is referring to the “like” button under a posters comments.
I use an ad blocker, so I cannot see the like button.
A Harris-Walz administration would be an absolute nightmare for too many reasons to list, but the 1A being first and foremost. The dems have sunk to a new low, which I honestly thought was impossible after 2020 (and again, I am an Independent, used to vote for dems, voted for Obama the first time – no longer). the 1A, the 2A, banning meat – you can pretty much use Britain under Labour for all of two weeks or the Olympics this year to see what is going on. Kamala doesn’t have policy on her website because the dems/globalists don’t have policy: what they have is an agenda, and willing participation is not an option with them, they will force you to comply. This is what they are going to do if ‘elected’, whether you like it or not. If we do not have safeguards against fraud this election, things could get very interesting very quickly. I am voting for the convicted felon. Have said it before but here it is again: voting a straight red ticket, and I am an independent voter that voted for Obama in 2008. This has gone on long enough, modern dems are a part of a globalist regime of unelected aristocrats, and the time to stand up is now. may the fates be kind and we do it without violence, given the dems have already stated in so many ways that they will not cede power regardless of outcome.
James,
Well said.
Voting for Trump is a big FU to the unelected aristocrats.
Because voting for the guy with the
gold toilets
will really show those ‘aristocrats’.
Throughout american history there have been those -sometimes on the right, mostly on the left, who have tried to use government power to silence speech in various forms – whether political speech or anything else.
But iot has been very rare that the willingness to do so extended to the oval office, that significant portions of the judicial system ignored the constitution and supported this, and that after being put down by the Supreme court – those in power CONTINUED to engage in political supression.
It was wholely unsuprising to learn that Tulsi Gabbard is on the domestic Terror watchlist – she exposed Hillaries efforts to rig the DNC and the 2016 election against Sanders, and she very effectively took down Harris in the 2020 primary.
Of course she is on the domestic terror watchlist – she has pissed off those on the left with power – and they absolutely will abuse that power to punish political enemies.
@John
Throughout at least American history, most of ALL attempts to circumvent autonomy and personal freedom have been from the left, sadly. Great comment, great point, but none of this is new, it’s just on steroids in 2024. And for voters: it is precisely what our young and uneducated want. Do not underestimate the importance of voting for literally everything and demanding accountability this election. We are teetering on the precipice of Western Europe, Canada, or South America. WE decide if we would like to continue to be a free country, and that is going to require more effort than most are accustomed to these days. The time for party pettiness is gone. Vote AGAINST this. In record numbers. Because I guarantee you, many freshly minted 18 year-olds are blindly voting blue, and there are more of them than you. This WILL make a difference, and it does not even take into account the number of undocumented that have been surreptitiously been gifted with voting rights by the left. This is absolutely, THE most important election in our country’s history, and cynicism has no place. Vote. Vote. VOTE. In opposition, for everything.
I am not ‘poor’, but I sure as heck am not wealthy enough to have anything resembling a quality of life if we do not reverse course. I have already had to move states. The time to stop this s right the hell now.
History teaches you can fool most of the people most of the time, and at least enough of the people enough of the time. When I first learned Lincoln’s speech when 14 years old, I immediately thought this. The passing of six decades since has shown my adolescent insight prescient.
That was taken from Barnum and Bailey ..fyi
Trump has said the media is disgusting and the enemy of the people. And Trump has openly threatened retribution on the press showing no regard for the First Amendment. Trump’s rhetoric against journalists is outrageous, and yet, Turley writes the Harris administration would be a nightmare. This is why Turley is not taken seriously anymore about the law or the truth.
Fishstick, Trump was not wrong. MSM lies to the American public almost daily. They push DNC talking points which are anti-American and anti-Constitution. Harris/Waltz are anti-American and anti-Constitution namely the 1stA.
The good professor is taken quite seriously. So much so, his book is #4 on Amazon’s best seller list and on its fourth printing.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead” Thomas Paine
How ironic given that it is you and the left that have renounced reason.
John Say,
Well said!
Irony has no meaning when the IQ is double digit like fishysmell
If you are referring to the Democrat party, then the quote would apply. After all, the Democrat party has lost all reason. They cannot define what a woman is. They think pornography in elementary schools is a good idea. They think the removal of healthy organs and chemical castration is health care. They promote DEI policies, causing more hate and division. They promote mediocrity for the sake of making everyone equal, bringing down society. They promote censorship.
It is a failure of reason to fear words more than deeds.
The media and the press are two different things. Nice attempt to gaslight you spastic, moron.
Does that explain why Trump has hour-long press conferences and Vance goes on three Sunday talk shows while Harris has not answered a single question in over three weeks?
So? It seems like a good strategy. Let Trump shoot his mouth off in interviews and let himself get into a mess of his own. Questions could be answered during the debates.
It’s up to Trump keep his ego from getting him into trouble and that is not going to happen.
The Harris/Walz campaign is deliberately goading Trump into saying stupid things and they are succeeding.
“The Harris/Walz campaign is deliberately goading Trump into saying stupid things and they are succeeding.”
According to you, the admittedly uninformed voter who wishes to remain such.
“Trump has said the media is disgusting and the enemy of the people.”
In many many cases true – your point ?
There are journalists like Taibbi, Shellenberger, Greenwald, Weiss that seek the truth wherever it lies – regardless of the politics or optics.
These people are courageous heros regardless of their politics.
And there are the larger numbers of Journalists who see their job as advancing an ideology, as casting those they disagree with in a bad light and those they agree with in a good lige – often with who is good and who is not shifting with the political tides.
These people are disgusting and enemies of the people.
” And Trump has openly threatened retribution on the press showing no regard for the First Amendment.”
False for the most part – Trump has made Vague request that bad jounralists should get fired or similar references.
But whenever he has had the power to do so – he has not.
Conversely though the leaders on the left rarely speak openly about silencing their political enemies – when they have power they have rused to do exactly that. Again – It is Tulsi Gabbard on the domestic Terrorist watchlist – not the members of the Squad.
“Trump’s rhetoric against journalists is outrageous”
No mostly it is just giving back what he he gets from them. They malign him mercilessly (and pretty badly) and he rhetorically lambastes them back.
If you are going to be nasty and rude – you get nasty and rude back. That is actual free speech.
Turley is wise enough to grasp that mean speech is protected speech. Each of us get to judge it – When judged by its truth or falsity – it is the left that is disgusting and “the enemy of the people”.
Regardless, speaking outrageously is protected speach, it is ACTING outrageously that is unconstitutional and immoral.
Trump has not done that – Biden Harris and Walz have.
“Turley writes the Harris administration would be a nightmare.”
Because they would be. Just as the Biden administration has been – Just as Harris was as DA and later AG, and just as Walz was as governor.
Each of them has used public power to silence views they did not like.
Trump has not.
“This is why Turley is not taken seriously anymore about the law”
By those on the left who have no respect for free speech or the constitution – correct.
To the rest of us – Turley is taken VERY SERIOUSLY.
Though honestly he has been behind the curve.
It has been a very slow Journey for Turley to grasp the significant danger posed by the left.
As well as to understand that Trump – regardless of his rhetoric has never posed any danger to anyone’s actual liberty.
Elsewhere you refer top the fruitlessness of arguing with those who have abandoned reason – look in the mirror.
Core to the first amendment and free speech is the understanding that outrageous rhetoric is not dangerous, is not violence is not harm
While the supression of speech by government is ALWAYS FORCE, is often violence, and is nearly always harmful.
The supression of False speech – is actually harmful.
The supression of misinformation, disinformation – is actually harmful.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
@Fishpoo
I also say the media is disgusting and should just let themselves die. But I say that as someone that stopped listening to the media literally decades ago. You are ridiculous, you actually epitomize ridiculous, and you give all of us a good laugh every day. And you do post, every. Bloody. Day. Ad nauseam. You are either very bored and privileged or very paid and privileged. Nobody takes you seriously. You are one of the annoyances that makes free speech so brilliant. Enjoy your top level upper east side bullsheet. Blue mayors and governors are doing their level best to ensure that your elitist behind will hate your life very shortly.
Would a ban against flag burning make Trump a nightmare for free speech, too?
Would a ban against flag burning make Trump a nightmare for free speech, too?
No. Because he doesn’t have the power to do that as President.
Shall we stick with reality, or play stupid ass hypothetical games?
If Trump were to become president, would he have the power to ban flag-burning?
No, and Biden/Harris Harris Walz would not have the power to ban any of what they seek to ban.
The differences is that Trump would not try, and Democrats who are thoroughly enthralled by the left – would try, too many of the judges that have lost the constitution or the american principle of individual liberty that created it would go along and it would take the Supreme court to fix the problem – and even they would under react.
*SENATOR KEELEY
Congress can pass a law signed by the president that prevents flag burning. It’s nonsense. I can’t burn garbage without a permit either.
Is defamatory free speech actionable?
Defamatory flag burning is actionable.
No, to both