Below is my column in The Hill on my call for a bill that would bar federal funding of any program and grant to censor, blacklist, or target individuals or sites based on their content. It is time to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business. The column discusses the proposal in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” to block any further funding for the current system of corporate, academic, and government programs targeting opposing or dissenting views.
Here is the column:
It is time to get the United States out of the censorship business for good.
In the last three years, the House of Representatives has disclosed a massive censorship system run in part with federal funding and with coordination with federal officials. A federal court described this system as truly “Orwellian.”
The Biden Administration has made speech regulation a priority in targeting disinformation, misinformation or malinformation. President Joe Biden even said that companies refusing to censor citizens were “killing people.”
His administration has now created an anti-free speech record that is only rivaled by the Adams Administration, which used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest political opponents.
Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is an example of how speech controls and censorship have become mainstream. Her agency was created to work on our critical infrastructure, but Easterly declared that the mandate would now include policing “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation,” or information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
I have testified for years about the censorship system. For much of that time, Democrats insisted that there was no proof of any coordination or funding from the government. Such evidence did indeed exist, but Democrats worked to block any investigation to confirm what we already knew about government officials targeting individuals and groups for throttling, bans, and blacklisting.
Then Elon Musk bought Twitter. The release of the Twitter Files destroyed any plausible deniability of the government’s role in this censorship system. Various agencies had employees working with social media companies to target those with opposing or disfavored views. At the same time, we learned of grants from the federal government supporting blacklisting and targeting operations.
That includes efforts to quietly choke off the revenue of disfavored sites by pressuring advertisers and donors.
While companies like Facebook have continued to fight to conceal their coordination with the government, the Twitter Files pulled back the curtain to expose the system. Indeed, Democrats largely abandoned their denials and turned to full-throated defenses of censorship, even calling free speech advocates “Putin-lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election where free speech was a primary issue for voters. It should be again. Vice President Kamala Harris is known as a supporter for these censorship and blacklisting operations. She can now defend that record and convince Americans that they need to have less free speech.
This debate should ideally focus on one simple legislative proposal. In my new book, I suggest various measures that can regain the ground that we have lost on free speech. One such measure is a federal law that would ban any federal funding of any offices or programs (government, academic, or corporate) that rate, target, censor, throttle, or seek to take adverse action against individuals or groups based on their viewpoints in public forums or social media.
There can be easy exceptions to this ban for individuals or groups engaging in criminal conduct or unlawful foreign interference with elections. Threatening individuals or trafficking in child pornography constitute conduct, not speech. They are criminal acts under the federal code.
Nothing in this law would prevent the government from speaking in its own voice. If Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas wants to challenge claims made about him or his agency, he can do so on the agency website or make his case to the media. That is the essence of free speech. What he cannot do is create a Disinformation Governance Board to regulate the speech of citizens or groups.
In my prior testimony to Congress, I warned about the use of what I called “censorship by surrogate” through which agencies did indirectly what they are barred from doing directly under the First Amendment.
This new law will not put an end to the burgeoning anti-free speech movement. It will not end the new market for groups making millions in seeking to silence or strangle sites with opposing views. However, it will create a wall of separation of the government from censorship systems.
It would also offer a simple and clear line for the 2024 election. Candidates will have to take sides on free speech. If candidates like Harris want to continue to support the government in blacklisting or censoring citizens, they should own it. We spent years of politicians engaging in cynical denials of the government’s role in censorship. If these politicians are “all in” with censorship, then they should be honest about it and let voters make the same choice that was made in 1800.
With billions to play with and enabling allies in Congress to conceal federal operations, speech regulation is an irresistible temptation for the government. We have seen how this temptation quickly becomes an insatiable appetite for government officials seeking to silence rather than answer critics.
Let’s get our government out of the business of rating, throttling blacklisting, and censoring citizens. It is time to pass a free speech protection act.
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).
This op-ed is part of The Hill’s “How to Fix America” series exploring solutions to some of the country’s most pressing problems.
(OT)
When collectivists and statists wreck an economy, they need a scapegoat, e.g., bad weather, nefarious “foreign interests,” the wealthy, a minority group.
Having wrecked this economy with their inflationary policies and the resulting high interest rates, having impoverished us with their Leftist tax, spend, and regulation policies — KH has chosen her scapegoat: “corporate price-gouging.”
This is a decades-old scapegoat tactic: Blame private industry for the evils of statist economic policies.
And true to form, she wants to punish the innocent by “impos[ing] stiff penalties in the food industry.”
Besides the utter evil of punishing others for your policy failures, consider the practical consequences of those penalties. On top of the inflationary food prices (cause by the Harris-Biden policies): Who do you think is going to pay for those penalties?
Notice that Kamakameleon has yet to say who these large corporations are, how much they are gouging, what she will do about it, and how much it will reduce prices.
These are legitimate questions that she is hiding from.
If she’s not lying through her teeth, the mere mention of their names would quickly solve the “problem”.
Trump does not care about viewpoint neutrality. This is one of the 20 policies on his campaign website:
“Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.”
Who is deciding what “inappropriate . . . political content” is? This is censorship, through and through.
Both parties promote censorship. In fact, Trump’s above policy runs contrary to Trump’s above policy, because it would ban funding to DOE efforts to censor classrooms around the country.
LMAO
WRONG AGAIN
He never said you cant publish those books. The right to speak is not the right to be heard by minors.
Just tell us that you are OK with a school librarian deciding if Hustler is on the 3rd grade library shelf. We get it.
Funding to not buy a book. Nice math.
Give that iphone back to your mom and go clean your room.
Who would publish a book, knowing schools cannot use it in their classrooms, praytell?
Seems like a pretty bad business idea…. “You know what?! I am going to write and publish a textbook that will sell 0 copies because it is banned by the federal government to teach in classrooms! Would you like to be an investor in my project?”
Juggs publishes with NO REGARD for its inclusion in the elementary school library.
The first Amendment is not there to protect your bad business ideas.
Next?
What classroom is that publication used in?
Exactly. And they have been in business for 70 years.
Bwahahahahaa
“Who would publish a book, knowing schools cannot use it in their classrooms”
Do you conflate issues often, or is English your second language?
Now you want Lawn Boy taught in the classroom??
Didn’t school start this week? Why are you using your phone in class?
The government has long had the largest roll in what is taught in public schools, and in deciding what is “age appropriate”. If you want to argue that they shouldn’t, and it should be a free for all, then just say that. Don’t try to hide behind the first Amendment.
There is a difference between setting academic standards (i.e., second graders must learn subtraction with regrouping) and requiring a teacher to teach a viewpoint (i.e., homosexuality is wrong).
“requiring a teacher to teach a viewpoint (i.e., homosexuality is wrong).”
Gaslight much? Does that nonsense work in your 7th grade homeroom?
Grow up with that pathetic attempt.
The Federal government has no constitutional authority regarding education: none, zero, nada. If you disagree, please cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that authorizes this intrusion. And please don’t come back with something as lame as “General Welfare”.
Raghat D
I have a spot in my driveway that needs cleaning. Please come take care of that today.
I didn’t say JACK about the federal government, pinhead.
I’ll expect to see your case on the docket of the SCOTUS next week, however.
The subject of the post (yours?) on which I commented was Trump’s intention to rescind FEDERAL funding to education. You are an illiterate bag of diseased jism, and a total waste of precious oxygen.
Sorry. This is just monumentally ignorant. We should cu federal funding for all political advocacy. ALL. It is false to say that both pareties promote censorship.
But Democrats lie. this is yet another example.
I think I know why all the people on this site that complain about the economy being so bad and Biden terrible feel that way. It is their DJT stock. Its crashing.
Try investing in something non trump. The SPX is way up, near record high, way, way, way, higher than when trump was Prez. So instead of buying DJT stock, perhaps you should have invested in American Companies and you would be basking in wealth.
Lets see your portfolio.
LMAO so pathetic.
See I wrote that because I did not understand all this angst about the Biden economy. The economy is doing fantastic, jobs are plentiful, personal spending is holding up, unemployment is very low. Sure the Federal deficit is a problem but that is not an R or D problem, it is both, They both spend like drunken sailors.
But why do people complain about the Biden economy? Say this is the worst it has ever been? Complain, complain, complain. When in fact, the economy is doing fantastic?
The complainers must own DJT stock. It is doing terrible. Stop following the orange god felon cult leader. Life is good.
“See I wrote that because I did not understand anything”
Fixed that for ya. Lay off the cooking sherry and more things will make sense.
The stock market is not the economy, as you libturds were so fond of saying 6 years ago.
People are not simply imagining that it costs $12k+ per year more just to exist now than it did before Kamala. No amount of gaslighting you do will change the perspective of people who are suffering in this cooking sherry economy. Not everyone loves cooking sherry like you do, booger boy. And I enjoy a lifestyle you could only dream of, so don’t bother.
Prospective first time home buyers who cannot afford to buy a home now because it costs $2400/mo more now than it did 6 years ago are not at all interested in your BS claims that you got it made and they are losers. So stop pretending to be something you are not. Its transparent and pathetic.
Thats why, whether Trump wins or loses, you are screwed. You’ll continue to be broke if he loses, and you’ll slit your wrists if he wins.
Have another sip.
“Try Less Government.”
Prof. Turley, as a lifelong Democrat voter and intellectual, do you prescribe that remedy only for First Amendment violating government censorship by proxy?
Or do you ALSO believe that “less government’ is effective regarding proxy censorship, economic concerns, Second Amendment violations, government debt possibly through identity politics spending (and taxation to pay for it), etc?
True or false, Professor Turley (although I’m pretty sure you don’t read a single comment posted here): which party is the figurehead for Less Government and which party is the figurehead of More Government.
That one should be easy for a renowned Democrat intellectual to answer.
Where can we find the actual text of Mr. Turley’s proposed bill?
You have to pass it to see whats in it.
So Chat GTP told me it uses “reputable news organizations like the BBC and NBC news”. I asked if it uses The Guardian as a source. It said “Yes”.
So I asked “do you use Vox or The Atlantic as a source?”
It responded “I can use Vox or The Atlantic. They are known for their explanatory journalism. Would you like to update your preferences?”
So I asked “I didnt ask CAN you, i asked DO you?”
GPT:
“I don’t use specific sources like Vox or The Atlantic directly. Instead, I draw on a broad range of information from various sources to provide responses. ”
Me:
Do you typically use vox or the atlantic as a source, among your “broad range of sources”?
GPT:
I don’t typically rely on any one source like Vox or The Atlantic specifically. My responses are based on a broad array of information sources, aiming to provide balanced and accurate answers.
Me:
I didnt ask if you use them exclusively. Are they among the news outlets you use?
GPT:
Yes, Vox and The Atlantic are among the outlets I might reference, but I use a variety of sources to ensure a balanced view.
Me:
Were you attempting to mislead me when I asked DO YOU USE VOX?
GPT:
No, I wasn’t trying to mislead you. I aim to provide clear and accurate information. When you asked if I use Vox, I should have directly acknowledged that I do consider it among various sources.
Jeezus, its like talking to Svelaz!
“Explanatory journalism” is the term now for sycophants parading as journalists.
It sounds like you don’t know how AI works…
Explain
ChatGPT is not connected to web search and thus has no way of identifying actual sources. Further, the probabilities of text generation are synthesized from an inconceivable amount of language training data, which is not isolated or tagged by source.
I just asked it for all of its sources and it named each one. I asked it to point me to the articles on the web and it did.
Does anyone else know “how AI works”?
@Anonymous
Not trying to be condescending, but really: all that current ‘AI’ is, is a regurgitation machine. It is basically a glorified Google search, just with results arranged as a response. Both and all are just algorithms. If you didn’t find it on your own doing a deep search, neither did the algorithm, and the algorithm is programmed to deliver roughly the same results as the search based on available data with caveats introduced by programming; so if you fear bias, you aren’t getting anything different from ChatGP orthe bias that exists in a regular search engine.
This isn’t magic, it’s programming, not even that advanced (yet another example of co-opting from people that actually created something 🙄) and the people programming modern algorithms aren’t any less human than those programming them in the past, just dumber and more prejudiced. This is 100% the result of the engineers doing the programming, not the software doing anything particularly impressive.
In the example you’ve cited: again, it’s no different than censoring search results, quite and very much literally. This stuff is not a tenth as advanced as Silicon Valley would have you believe it is, hoping for $$$.
I was impressed that it at least gave lip service that it would ignore input from Vox and The Atlantic, in my future requests. Too funny.
It’s a gigantic nest of “if: then x; else y” conditional decisions that are based upon the data that has been fed into it. It stores the results of conditions previously satisfied in such a way that those are included in the criteria for future decisions. It is trivially biased by the information initially used, and the reliance on previous results makes correcting any errors a serious (possibly insurmountable) challenge. The ancient Data Processing maxim of “garbage in, garbage out” applies to AI in spades.
This a normal Turley bad idea for a few reasons:
1. Lets say a website incorrectly says something that is clearly wrong and dangerous, such as saying that safe to drink gasoline. This bill would prohibit the government from even telling them that they are wrong.
2. Rating websites and the media for accuracy is free speech and this bill would prohibit any group that gets government grants from fact checking the media. This is suppression of free speech also, just happens to be be speech Turley does not like.
“This bill would prohibit the government from even telling them that they are wrong.”
Wrong. The CDC has warnings about drinking gasoline. They would still be allowed to have warnings about drinking gasoline. They could even respond from their twitter account that its not safe to drink gasoline. And if one of your relatives drinks gasoline, its Darwin at work.
Some douchebag in an FBI cubicle, emailing twitter execs about speech he doesnt like, is NOT “the government”. Please stop with your pathetic childish gaslighting.
Turley: “One such measure is a federal law that would ban any federal funding of any offices or programs (government, academic, or corporate) that rate, target, censor, throttle, or seek to take adverse action against individuals or groups based on their viewpoints in public forums or social media.”
This would make it impossible for agencies like the CDC to enforce penalties, such as sanctions, on, for example, recommendations by professionals that patients take gasoline.
There is distinction between a law, which bans ingestion of a substance and a law which bans the advertising or other speech surrounding its ingestion. Turley’s law would clearly prohibit the FDA from requiring the skull and crossbones on cigarette boxes, for example.
It would have a detrimental effect on the safety of Americans.
“Turley’s law would clearly prohibit the FDA from requiring the skull and crossbones on cigarette boxes, for example.”
Clearly it would not.
The FDA is unconstitutional.
Please cite the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, for any authority of Congress to regulate Food or Drugs, including cigarettes, etc.
Also, check the 9th Amendment, which certainly provides Americans the right and freedom to ingest substances, smoke and conduct their own lives and make their own choices, including managing their own health and healthcare.
___________________________________________________________
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
1. Lets say a website incorrectly says something that is clearly wrong and dangerous, such as saying that safe to drink gasoline.
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy… why didn’t you post: “Let’s say a website incorrectly says something that is clearly wrong and dangerous such as “Trump is Putin’s bought and paid for stooge, and our US intelligence agency sources have shown us verified intelligence agency evidence that proves it”.
Why did you avoid using that real world example, instead of making up a scenario where a major website supposedly says it’s safe to drink gasoline?
This bill would prohibit the government from even telling them that they are wrong.
But what about when the government tells websites they must censor and suspend news media trying to publish stories saying the Biden Bribery Laptop is real and does belong to Hunter Biden?
Today’s government made up of vicious, LYING, political hacks like National Security Advisor Jack Sullivan who engineered the Obama government “leaking” their Russia Dossier bought and paid for political fiction, and SecState Anthony Blinken who engineered the “51 former intelligence agency experts say the ‘Biden Laptop’ is just more Russian election disinformation”.
Sammy, why would a normal American trust LYING Biden/Harris government hacks (or you) to tell normal, honest hard working Americans which website was lying that their “Russia Dossier” was just a political smear job? You and your fellow Soviet Democrat political LIARS have had almost EIGHT YEARS to confess to your “Russia Dossier” lie. You’re going to confess to it now? Or never?
Sammy, you aren’t even a Deep Cheap Fake American.
Real world example is the FDA’s requiring tobacco companies to put the skull and crossbones on cigarette boxes
Immaterial and unaffected.
If Trump said that drinking gasoline was safe, a good chunk of MAGAs would drink gasoline, including all of the MAGA commentators on this blog
Sammy injected himself with bleach, and it jumbled his brain, and he is still mad at Trump about it.
Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. If your constitutional evidence is people too stupid not to drink gasoline, then the defense rests…
When you pontificate in circles, you always end up in the same spot. Try harder.
Sammy is the reason that the label on car batteries was changed from “How to jump start” to “Don’t drink the battery acid”.
@Sam, Exactly. +100
In other news:
https://babylonbee.com/news/after-two-weeks-with-kamala-tim-walz-announces-he-has-signed-back-up-with-national-guard-and-requested-deployment-to-iraq
JAFO,
HA! Thank you for the laugh!
I just had a nice chat with GPT. I asked about the government monies paid to twitter. While it refused to provide much specifics about the ACTUAL payment ledger, it was sure to add at the end of the factual response that “Its important to note that the monies were NOT paid for moderating content”.
I was like “then why did you mention it?”. It replied that it didn’t want people having debates with false or misleading information. So I asked why is that any of your concern. So it told me I could specify if I no longer wished for it to include its own editorializing. I said yes, in the future, just give me the facts and not your opinion. It said “Sure”
LMAO
Next I am going to ask it what “sources it uses”. If it says “news articles” I am going to have a field day.
I know what Musk’s next purchase needs to be.
* SENATOR KEELEY
The gov agencies revealed by Musk and the House are unconstitutional now under the 1st. Enforce it. A chipping away of freedom is like Harris ‘ frog heated slowly.
You people love-to-make Opinions about (Other) Peoples lives, but you don’t take any responsibility for them and their outcomes (Your Own Opinions).
Censorship or No-Censorship still doesn’t address this fundamental problem with Speech.
Retraction isn’t Reinstatement – People suffer the consequences speech, yet their injuries are hidden and unaddressed.
If you can fix that with a Legislative Bill, then have at it Jonathan.
-TRA
Want More Freedom of Speech? Try Less Government.
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Hold on there, Baba Looey!!!
Did you say, “Try less government?”
That is precisely what the American Founders and Framers did – TRY LESS GOVERNMENT.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (i.e. all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for one, some, or a few, or individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity.
The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.
Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
____________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
____________________
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, “labor” laws, etc.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
The Communist Manifesto is not the Constitution. Communism and the principles of communism are invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional. Congress shall not confiscate and gift, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” or impose the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which is one-man, one-vote “democracy” in the American severely restricted-vote republic of voters who are entitled by State legislatures to vote.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
I still am just stunned about hearing the US Govt paid the previous Twitter Mgt 3.5 million taxpayer dollars to censor its own citizens. No one has been held accountable to this gross Bill of Right violation. It will only get worse with the same regime in power.
And “Tampon Tim,” aka “Gestapo Timmy,” shot free Americans with paintball guns on their private property in an attempt to deny their American freedom and force them to follow unconstitutional orders during an unconstitutional “curfew,” understanding that the only “emergency powers” the government possesses are the suspension of habeas corpus by Congress.
I am trying to read JT’s book “The Indispensible Right” with an open mind. It is very well written, and JT has an impressive command of the history through which speech freedom has evolved. Where I’m having difficulty is it doesn’t seem all that relevant to the 21st century’s new problems with untrustworthy information coming at us from all directions. Section 230 (1996) was an inflection point that set us on a path where publishers of information (i.e.,Google, Twitter, FB, YouTube, Telegram, etc) were no longer held accountable for any harm caused by the content pushed out.
We gasped at the ability of Islamist infowarriors to reach into the impressionable minds of our college youth this year, and found we have no National Defense against such borderless infowarfare. Section 230 was experimental on Congress’ part to allow Web 2.0 (user-provided content) to grow from infancy. 28 years later, we recognize both the good and bad aspects, but are powerless to tame the bad.
What it comes down to, and JT’s background in law and history as opposed to tech might limit his perspective is that
algorithmic-mediated information flow eliminates human judgment in sorting out the wheat from the chaff. That lack of human judgment opens the floodgates to the worst motives being given free reign, ie. those arising from hate, funamentalism, cultism, depravities we cannot imagine, beheadings, IED bomb-making, identity theft, etc. The worst effect of these is polluting the minds of children who surf the internet at night while they should be sleeping, rapidly addicted to the stimulatory sensation of info-porn.
This is the year when Americans are finally looking at children and internet addition to trash, and saying “We’ve had it…enough already”. So, Turley’s timing is very bad, in the sense that he considers the mental enslavement of youth
“free speech” protected by 1A. This is so naive, especially coming from JT who is raising kids. It doesn’t matter how far back you care to go in history, JT, parents have always exercised control over what their children are exposed to.
You call that “censorship”? It’s called common-sense parenting, and is an essential aspect of civilization.
So, I guess I’d like to hear JT say where he stands on repeal/restructuring if Section 230 and the ability of citizens (not government) to hold publishers accountable for harmful content, especially targeted to their children?
“It is very well written, and JT has an impressive command of the history through which speech freedom has evolved. ”
LMAO at the orgulous self esteem of this one.
What are your credentials? Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
“the ability of citizens (not government) to hold publishers accountable”
And there it is again!
MORE TORT!!
Lady, have you no shame???
pbinca, we know where you stand. Your’re a nobody with attitude. Let me ask, how many books have you written? What are your credentials? I know JT has credentials and books that put mealy mouths like you to shame. As typical here, nothing but fake intellectuals.
I respectfully asked JT to give a position on Section 230….and whether algorithm-mediated (unfiltered, unmoderated, global-borderless infowarfare) challenges the traditional American latitude for free speech. I argued that parents have traditionally exercised control over what their children are exposed to, and argue this control has been undermined by social media, and opened the door to borderless propagandizing to kids by Islamist (and Chinese) infowarriors.
Does it take special expertise to ask such questions? I talk to many Americans, and I’m not the only one asking these questions. And, it’s not rhetorical….I genuinely want to know what JT thinks.
And zero Americans are interested in the ramblings of a Canadian.
“it doesn’t seem all that relevant to the 21st century’s new problems ”
What has changed in the 21st century? Donald Trump won the 2016 election and is set to win the 2024 election. People are on notice that the left cheats. They are also on notice that vast censorship networks are failing to keep Donald Trump from being heard. That is what happened in the 21st century.
People are wracking their brains at trying to look like they support democracy and freedom of speech, but they have difficulty coming up with measures that will negate Donald Trump while permitting the left to say what it wishes.
“We gasped at the ability of Islamist infowarriors to reach into the impressionable minds of our college youth this year”
That should be no surprise as the left has cultivated the hate of the Islamists and today, on the university campus, stands side by side with the Islamists. The left says thank you to Islamists, BLM, Antifa and socialists. They would like to thank the Nazis as well, but Nazism today is not acceptable, so they leave Nazism out on their way to slaughtering the Jews and anyone else standing in their way.
Where I’m having difficulty is it doesn’t seem all that relevant to the 21st century’s new problems with untrustworthy information coming at us from all directions.
Absolutely none of that book has anything to do with new 21st century digital GOVERNMENT censorship by proxy? Absolutely none of it?
Most of it can’t be from one primary direction – all are every bit as guilty of pushing untrustworthy information at Americans?
Nothing about government “recommending” that social media should censor and suspend news media attempting to report that the Biden Bribery Laptop belonged to The First Felon Son and had volumes of information regarding money laundering and influence peddling? Nothing about the hordes of Soviet Democrat Congress Critters who went running to government plants inside Facebook, Twitter, etc with their list of which adversarial voices they wanted suspended, accounts revoked, etc?
There were just as many Republicans doing that as Democrats in the last ten years of this 21st century new problems i.e. it was coming equally from all directions? That’s news to most normal Americans if you aren’t outrageously gaslighting and that is actually true.
So you wrote volumes to criticize Professor Turley’s after starting with the fallacious “There’s nothing relevant the 21st century with Soviet Democrats doing censorship by proxy prior to elections”.
Your dirty laundry is hanging out in the open for all normal Americans to see, pbinca.
That kind of gaslighting might be all the rage in the junky needles and feces strewn streets of San Francisco… the California that gave us constitutional freedom stalwarts like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
Not so much where normal Americans live outside of the putrid mountain of socialist police state fascism and lawlessness that is coastal California.
Tim Walz has directly said that given the chance he will tell us what disinformation is. So has Kamala. Both of them have decided that they will be the arbiters of what you can say. If they are elected you can be sure that they will have a snitch line directly linked to the Justice Department so you can tell on your neighbors if you think they are spreading disinformation. Do you think I am being hyperbolic? If you think I am then you should consider the snitch line that Walz set up in Minnesota during Covid so that people could rat their neighbors out if they had too many people over for Christmas dinner and they weren’t wearing a mask. In China they have a social score that affects a persons income. Walz visited China over thirty times and had his honeymoon in China. It’s plain to see where he gets his ideas from. Kamala vetted him and said, yep he’s our man because he’s copacetic. You better capeesh if you know what’s good for you.
Think It Through, folks like you and Upstate seem to always make sense. Keep up the good work.
HullBobby,
We gotta call it as we see it.
Talking with my sister and based off the good professor’s columns, there are a lot of Democrats out there who are very unhappy with the hard left turn their party has taken.
“. . . the hard left turn their party has taken.”
Please try to keep up with the rebranding. KH is now not “hard left.” And definitely not a socialist. She’s a *moderate* democrat. (At least until Nov. 5.)
You are now on the Citizen’s Watchlist for the malicious spread of dis-, mis-, mal-information. Future violations will be reported to the Walz hotline.
Sam,
Well, reading up on Waltz’s past stance on issues, COVID response, he does make her look “moderate.”
Upstate, I started reading the book you suggested and I’m loving it. Interestingly, on the very first page the author references the Horse and Cow, which was a dive bar in Vallejo, CA. known as the place where all the submariners hung out. I was attending year long anti-submarine fire control school at Mare Island in the late 80’s and hung out at that bar. Good times! 😎
OLLY,
That is great! Glad you are enjoying it!
Thinkitthrough11:45AM-agree with your conclusions. Funny that outside of Minnesota the snitch line seemed to be unknown. The police also shot people with paintballs, who were standing in their own doorways, recent video was made available.
TiT,
It gets worse,
“There’s a big difference between fair pricing in competitive markets, and excessive prices unrelated to the costs of doing business,” the Harris campaign wrote in a statement, adding, “Americans can see that difference in their grocery bills.”
That is called, “Bidenflation.”
Harris to propose “federal ban on corporate price-gouging” on groceries and “impose stiff penalties in the food industry,” campaign announces.
— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) August 15, 2024
What is that going to look like?
In the past I have recommended investing in chickens, PMs, ammunition and your own personal well being. Going to add, start a garden or invest in gardening seeds.
With sufficient packing of the Supreme Court our Democrats should have no trouble at all of finding that a law banning censorship as Prof. Turley suggests is “unconstitutional”.
Does economic freedom mean having the freedom to act like a tyrant, when it comes to owning and managing a business?
Dear Mr. Turley, Appreciate the comments of pbinca @11:00 and GEB @ 8:28. The reason that any of the things discussed here is the Democrats have one idea and one idea only and that is to defeat Donald Trump. And their thought of any means justifies the ends has played havoc on our political system and the various media. The democrats have driven our political discourse into a “banana republic”. So, because their guy looked like he would lose to Mr. Trump, they conducted a soft coup to remove him. The democrat hatred will destroy our beloved country unless we vote them out.
Jonathan: You are the Don Quixote of the modern right-wing movement–tilting at imaginary windmills. Your proposed bill is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. You want Congress to “block any further funding for the current system of corporate, academic, and government programs targeting opposing or dissenting views”. So what is the evidence for your claim of “government targeting individuals and groups for throttling, bans and blacklisting”?
As pointed out in an earlier comment back in June the SC had an opportunity to address this very issue. In Murphy v. Missouri Justice Coney Barrett ruled for a 6-3 majority that conservative plaintiffs could not establish their First Amendment rights were violated by the Biden administration’s efforts to combat Covid-19 disinformation. Only Thomas and Alito dissented. Barrett’s decision pretty much destroyed your argument.
So why do you continue to beat a dead horse? Without support from SCOTUS do you really think the House is going to step in a fill the void? For two years the MAGA crowd has controlled the House. You couldn’t get the MAGA House to impeach Joe Biden. After that failure do you think any MAGA Republican in the House is going to propose the bill you want? Speaker Mike Johnson has his hands full just getting the House to pass government funding–let alone passing a bill you propose that has zero chance of passing the House.
When DJT can go on X and be interviewed by Elon Musk we know “free speech” for conservatives is alive and well. Any evidence Joe Biden tried “throttling” or “blacklisting” that interview? Nope. Musk’s concept of “free speech” involves suing advertisers and forcing them to advertise on X. What about the “free speech” rights of advertisers? Musk has a very distorted view of the meaning of the First Amendment!
Jonathan: You are the Don Quixote of the modern right-wing movement–tilting at imaginary windmills.
Dennis; my dear, dear friend, you need to be more specific about those right wing imaginary windmills you’re referring to that are supposedly misinformation and disinformation:
“The Russia Dossier is actually a vile political hit job from the fetid minds of Clinton/Obama/Biden/and the DNC – not verified intelligence agency evidence as Democrats claim”
“51 intelligence agency experts were lying when they were recruited to claim the Biden Bribery Laptop was merely ‘Russian election disinformation specifically to help Biden win the election”
“They’re lying when they claim Trump said neo-Nazis (before they officially adopted the New Hitler Youth Movement) were very fine people”
“They’re lying when they claim lots of Biden’s generals in the JCOS didn’t advise him he must leave a security force behind in Afghanistan”
“They’re lying to us when they send Biden and Susan Rice out to tell us the Americans killed in Benghazi was due to a protest unfortunately getting out of hand”
“They’re lying to us when they tell us if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan you can keep your plan”
Those the right wing imaginary windmills you’re talking about, Dennis?
Dennis, as our assigned spokesliar for the Harris/Stolen Valor Harris/Obama’s Fourth Term: have you been authorized to explain why Harris still hasn’t come out of the Biden Campaign Basement to post her platform, now that it’s been FOUR WEEKS since the successful coup to remove Bribery Biden?
You’re not worth saving from anything. Not meteors, not nuclear bombs, not even the government. It’s cute that you think that you are.
No one is saving me but me.
Jesus saves