I previously wrote how a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free speech. Both candidates have shown pronounced anti-free speech values. Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have posted a Harris interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech. I have long argued that Trump and the third-party candidates should make free speech a central issue in this campaign. That has not happened. Kennedy was the only candidate who was substantially and regularly talking about free speech in this election. Yet, Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the chilling potential of a Harris-Walz Administration.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly “Orwellian.”
In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free speech inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not yield to demands for speech regulation.
What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech “has to stop” and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to “directly speak[] to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.”
Harris discussed her view that then-President Trump’s Twitter account should be shut down because the public had to be protected from harmful viewpoints.
“And when you’re talking about Donald Trump, he has 65 million Twitter followers, he has proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice – just ask Bob Mueller. You can look at the manifesto from the shooter in El Paso to know that what Donald Trump says on Twitter impacts peoples’ perceptions about what they should and should not do.”
Harris demanded that Trump’s account “should be taken down” and that there be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens:
“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power… They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”
In other words, free speech should be set to the lowest common denominator of speech regulation to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.
Harris’s views have been echoed by many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton who (after Musk purchased Twitter) called upon European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).
Other Democratic leaders have praised Brazil for banning X after Musk balked at censoring conservatives at the demand of the socialist government. Brazil is where this anti-free speech movement is clearly heading and could prove a critical testing ground for national bans on sites which refuse to engage in comprehensive censorship. As Harris clearly states in the CNN interview, there cannot be “one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.” Rather, everyone must censor or face imminent government shutdowns.
The “joy” being sold by Harris includes the promise of the removal of viewpoints that many on the left feel are intolerable or triggering on social media. Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education.
Harris often speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver.
Trump and the third party candidates are clearly not forcing Harris to address her record on free speech. Yet, polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose censorship and favor free speech.
In my book, I propose various steps to restore free speech in America, including a law that would bar federal funds for censorship, including grants and other funding that target individuals and sites over the content of their views. The government can still speak in its own voice and it can still prosecute those who commit crimes on the Internet or engage in criminal conspiracies. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such legislation.
For free speech advocates, the 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800. One of the greatest villains in our history discussed in my book was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.
It was the only presidential election in our history where free speech was a central issue for voters. It should be again. While democracy is really not on the ballot this election, free speech is.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Outstanding essay Jonathan!
Actually it’s pretty bad.
George is off to his word salad today. Responsible journalism is what? Certainly don’t see that in the Washington Post or the New York Times, or even the LA Times, or Reuters “crusading judge in Brazil is going after X”. All sounds like a judgment call and George has no judgement.
The Free Speech of Americans should always be on the Ballot, if only to remind us of its importance. Without free speech you have no Republic, you have no true progress, you have no real exchange of ideas. Even bad ideas can simply be bad for a certain period and actually work in another era or circumstance but you will never know if they never see of the light of day because “responsible journalists or censors or historians” cull them from the conversation.
For anyone who has lived and worked in any profession or job where preparation, study and practice are required (almost everything qualifies) then you will know that failure is the greatest teacher. Those are the ones that you remembers till you die. I saved a lot of lives in medicine but I don’t remember them all but the ones I failed to save haunt me to this day. It also made me better if a little sadder.
If you suppress speech then you basically wipe out much of the experiences and records of mankind. We are defined by our failures and then what we learn from them so we do better the next time. And often our greatest heroes are those who persist through repeated failure to eventual success.
The Articles of Confederation failed so we improved to the Constitution.
The French Revolution toppled the monarchy and still has not gotten it right but there is still hope after 4-5 republics, return of the King, 2 emperors. Maybe not the best example.
Russia also still working on getting it right. Another work in progress.
The great Pyramid of Giza was not the first you know, many previous ones collapsed.
George Washington lost a lot of battles but won the last one.
We won’t know those things because there is never unanimity on any subject and any can be scratched from the record by “responsible people”.
So we need it all, warts and all. I may be conservative but I am not stupid and I will tolerate so much more in print or internet or TV or other mediums that it would shock our progressive compatriots because it’s all knowledge. We all have the ultimate censor which is “Turn it off”. But that should be our decision alone. No governments allowed.
There are always “what about this?” Talk to someone else, I’m not in the mood to respond.
GEB,
Great comment, especially on the failure part.
Upstate, you are a farmer today, so you understand failure more than most since failure is a part of farming. The left believes in blaming failure on something else or another person. That is the bulk of their arguments where most things are concerned.
GEB, so how is your free speech being suppressed? Are you able to say what is on your mind anytime, anywhere, by any means?
Turley complains there is a massive conspiracy to suppress free speech worldwide because the ‘bad guys’ are demanding accountability and responsibility. The horror.
Free speech does not mean one does not take responsibility for what they say. It does not protect anyone from the consequences of exercising it either. Turley seems to have a one track mind on free speech. Anything more complicated is seen as censorship.
These articles are just long running ads for his book.
I was known for saying exactly what I thought and my patients loved it but not always administration of an occasional other doctor. I never was fired because I had my facts straight and achieved enough of a reputation that taking action against me would have been costly. I have never been afraid of taking responsibility for what I said because, once again, I get my facts straight.
The problem with George and others of his persuasion is they have no concept of what accountability and responsibility really is except they want to apply to everyone who disagrees with them and yet their acolytes should have no such accountability or responsibility applied to them.
If I don’t like what I see or read I turn it off or read something else. I don’t insist that everyone else do the same. That’s for each INDIVIDUAL to decide for themself. Not to be monitored of validated by anyone else.
If you perceive a threat then work through the law to deal with it with both sides represented and in front of an unbiased judge.
GEB, so how is your free speech being suppressed?
Apparently vicious police state fascists like George claim your free speech rights don’t include your right to hear points of view. Like when Facebook and Twitter were acting as Biden government censorship surrogates, censoring the free speech of real journalists wanting to write about the contents of the Biden Bribery Laptop. Or the free speech rights of virologists and epidemiologists who were saying the Biden/Fauci narrative on Wuhan Flu and their government edicts was mostly lies, misdirection, and BS.
George is probably at least smart enough to know that, if others are censored from telling you about current events because their agents are ensuring the censorship of information you don’t know, then your free speech rights are suppressed by that. Can’t think or write/speak about any subject that they’ve ensured you’re completely unaware exists.
As George and Bribery Biden and Round Heels Harris know: if you’re kept in the dark about important facts, you can’t do free speech in any form about something that they’ve ensured you’re completely unaware of. Or lied about instead: like the lie that the Biden Bribery Laptop wasn’t real, but instead was just “Russian election disinformation”.
Free speech – censorship to keep you in the dark regarding news about the Bribery Laptop, led Americans to vote for Bribery Biden who said later they would not have done that if they had known.
This why George is a Cheap Fake Confederate American.
We all have the ultimate censor which is “Turn it off”. But that should be our decision alone. No governments allowed.
That right there, GEB. Whether censorship of speech or destroying historical statues (except for statues of former racist presidents like Woodrow Wilson or FDR).
Well done.
Meanwhile, across the ocean in the U.K. is an interesting case of a former police officer Harry Miller who was accused of a “non-crime crime” for a tweet and the police stopped by his home to “check on his thinking.” He had the fortitude to take it to the high court in a David and Goliath setting and won. Short but interesting and chilling clip.
https://youtu.be/x2MjZVwJOeg
“[T]here is a danger to the country when people are allowed to ‘directly speak[] to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.’”
In other words:
You, an adult, are a helpless child. You cannot think for yourself. You cannot guide your own life. You need a Paternalistic government. For your own protection, of course.
“They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”
When they tell you they are fascists, believe them.
I think the problem we’d have with dishonest government under Harris is much worse than JT presents.
Jonathan, your 1-dimensional “free speech” cause (which I support but think is inadequate to the task) is blinding you to the full toolkit of modern, deceptive political infowarfare in the hands of powerful, media-savvy actors.
When Biden, Blinken, Morrell and the 51 “spies that lie” pushed out their whopper about the laptop “having all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation”, reading between the lines of your recent book, they were exercising their “free speech”. Your current approach to this kind of hyper-manipulative infowarfare is that we should legally allow all forms of speech that bear on a political topic, NOT require it to be factual, and limit ourselves to merely criticizing it (unless defamation has occurred).
When your own government (or elective candidates) take up the challenge of duping the public to obtain our “consent”, they are going beyond the bounds of acceptable speech freedom afforded to them under 1A. They are violating the public trust while seeking or holding an “office of trust”. The Madisonian construct of “the consent of the governed” is left in tatters if that consent may legally be obtained through trickery and deceit — meaning that political “free speech” carries with it an obligation for trustworthiness.
The authoritarian impulse driving Kamala Harris has no particular allegiance to honesty and candor. If she wins, full state power will be directed toward manipulative infowarfare, utilizing the most advanced PsyOps capabilities taught at Quantico and Langley. And when criticized, they’ll be hiding behind passages from “The Indispensable Right”, and accuse all of us challenging their official falsehoods as wanting to “censor” them.
JT, you’ve got to step back and take a more nuanced, calibrated approach to the full expanse of speech freedom you are willing to legally cede to your worst antagonists. I encourage you to read up on deceptive infowarfare methodologies as they are currently being deployed around the world by autocracies. It’s evolved way beyond censorship (blocking messages), and now thrives on crafting alternative fake realities. And those deceptive practices cannot be legally challenged under your over-permissive definition of “free speech”.
I beseech you to rethink what limits should apply to the most powerful actors ability to weave fake realities….because, like it or not, this is what’s coming.
You are literally asking for the exact same censorship powers that you accuse the other side of wielding. What makes you think your side would be any better at controlling themselves from abusing it — human nature being what it is?
No, free speech is the only antidote. It’s the sunlight that kills the disease and keeps it in check.
I was asking JT to rethink a definition of “free speech” so idealistic and permissive as to greenlight professional PsyOps practiced by our elected leaders to mind-control the public (to be clear, JT’s strategy is to denounce such manipulation in the “court of public opinion”, whatever little deterrent effect that might achieve.
You could be misperceiving my position. The wanna-be progressive autocrats want GOVT. to decide what facts are true, and arrogate to themselves the power to prosecute thought and speech crimes — a radical jettisoning of the 1st Amendment.
I have proposed something which uses courts of law, rather than the “court of public opinion” (which the powerful manipulate at will), but ruling out govt. prosecution. I suggest confronting your own govt. lying to you by filing “public frauds” lawsuits. The govt. cannot control what goes on in the civil law courtroom to their advantage. A jury of your peers sorts out artful fiction from facts, not some govt. hack, and rules of evidence are strictly upheld, while subpoena pierces the protective veil of privacy behind which the deceitful infowarrior works their tradecraft. I have indicated that Public Frauds lawsuits would require a much quicker pace (“fast due diligence”) in order to produced the deterrent effect sought. The idea is to make the infowarfare shops setup and run by powerful political actors think twice about knowingly pushing out falsehoods and misleading news products.
I’m willing to live under the limitations on my free speech posed by public frauds lawsuits, and come to my proposal without “taking sides” in the current scrum. What I propose only takes sides in the sense of favoring those who are self-regulating in the public square — conforming to norms of candor and civility — and disadvantaging those who view the public square as a battleground among the most compelling liars.
Do you see the difference? Under the radical-progressive idea, there is no absolute truth, only that which you can be led to believe by controlling your news feed (using both censorship and false narratives).
Under my proposal for Public Frauds lawsuits, there is such a thing as truth, and a disciplined, neutral process for discovering it — one fair to honest brokers and unsympathetic to dishonest ones. I trust a random group of 12 Americans to make these calls.
Radical-progressives want govt. hacks to decide who is telling the truth. I want jurors entrusted with that.
Big difference.
the answer is not limiting the speech of the people you allude to. The answer is voting them out of office. until people are made to pay for the lies they tell they’ll just keep doing it
Voting them out of office?….and let them lie the whole time in office? What about the bad decisions that could be prevented by intervening earlier to disrupt their infowarfare?
Then, answer this: Autocrats who achieve office by democratic vote use every tool of state-level infowarfare to opinion-shape the electorate to keep themselves in office — in perpetuity.
The people of Venezuela and Russia “vote” what they believe to be the best leadership, their thoughts “nudged” by those in power who cast a powerful infowarfare spell over the public. People who think “that couldn’t possibly happen here” aren’t self-aware of having been duped many times already. Gulf of Tonkin. Iraqi WMDs. Russiagate. Trump’s “stolen election” lie. Biden’s coverup of Hunter’s laptop with CIA-expert help.
It’s only going to get worse. It’s past time to make some calibrated adjustments in media law.
” People who think “that couldn’t possibly happen here” aren’t self-aware of having been duped many times already. Gulf of Tonkin. Iraqi WMDs. Russiagate. Trump’s “stolen election” lie. Biden’s coverup of Hunter’s laptop with CIA-expert help.”
@Pbinca: Which one of the five examples doesn’t belong?
Answer: “Trump’s “stolen election” was Trump’s opinion. He lacked the political position to act on his opinion. Including the example that doesn’t belong hurts your argument and makes it look like you have TDS.
The other examples were lies backed by political power. Might make right, and the Government owns the biggest guns and jails. All people have the right to free speech. The Government should not be given more power by restricting the people’s speech.
So, why
At a Trump rally in Pennsylvania he was demagoguing the media and how bad they were. On of his supporters took it to heart and decided to attack the media set up on a raised platform and try to take a swing at a journalist. He was quickly tased and arrested by hired security. However Trump did not condemn the violence. He coddled it.
“Beautiful, that’s beautiful, that’s alright, that’s okay, no, he’s on our side. We get a little itchy, David, don’t we? No, no, he’s on our side.”—Trump.
He thought it was alright. He was ok with that because “he’s on our side”. That’s the kind of speech Harris was talking about. I’m sure Turley would be aghast if a Harris said something similar and sort of encouraged the behavior as acceptable because “he’s on our side”.
That’s the kind of thing that led to the Jan. 6 violence. He let it happen and. He wanted it to let it happen because they were “all on their side”. That’s exactly what Harris and others criticize. The enabling and sort of encouraging the violence.
Press does need a kick in the ass. It’s gonna get much worse before it gets better.
And you cowards, you have provoked and provoked, and now you hope to get sympathy for the reaction to those provocations – typical cuck move.
Know that those lashings-out at the press there are simply projections of what we would have done to those pushing the press’s buttons – YOU.
Tic-toc Tic-toc…may be time to head to china with some of your other friends who have already left for safety and money, democrat.
Provoked? You are saying Trump supporters have no self control or any ability avoid violence.
Trump is encouraging it. He’s enabling it by coddling and showing approval for it. Inciting violence or encouraging it is not protected speech.
“Know that those lashings-out at the press there are simply projections of what we would have done to those pushing the press’s buttons – YOU.”
No, they are projections of Trump pushing his supporters buttons. He hates the media because they fact-check him. They call out his lies or question his honesty. So he encourages his supporters to attack the media and allows it when they do.
cuck cuck cuck.
Keep your Harris-esque lips puckered and maybe they’ll still throw you a few shekels.
@George: Thank you for confirming your neurosis, disconnection from reality, and intellectual dishonesty. One side of the issue is beyond tired of the other’s constant, orange-deranged assault on truth and sniper shots from a slanted roof. Yeah, those are morally equivalent… if you have no morality at all.
At a Trump rally in Pennsylvania he was demagoguing the media and how bad they were.
George’s pathetic Memory Hole demands that violence only began with the Jan. 6 three hour riot – not the previous YEARS of Soviet Democrat street thugs in Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa rioting, pillaging, looting, burning and murdering after the Soviet Democrats years of demagogued police and Trump. George wishes there was a law saying that you aren’t allowed to remember any of that.
George is enraged that Trump would point out how dishonest the media are – witness the Dana Bash “interview” of VP Harris. Or the four years of “Russia Dossier”. George is demands the media propagandists be given the same protection from the truth that that “news media gives to Obama, Biden, and Harris
But mere weeks after the media and Soviet Democrats like George demagoguing Trump to the point an assassination attempt failed by mere centimeters, leaving Trump wounded… George is here with BBBBUTTTTT….MUH TRUMP! HE’S STILL ALIVE! KILLLLL HIMMMM!
Bruh! What are you babbling about? You’re not making any sense.
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
🙂
Hear hear!
Elon seems bent on keeping account holders and advertisers away from his platform. All he has to do is get a representative in Brazil to argue his case. He kept ignoring this and continued to defy Brazil’s Supreme Court justice and it seems he had enough. He gave Elon 24 hrs to get a legal representative he if he refused he would order a block on the x app. Sure people can still use VPN’s but they also cost money, free ones are not very reliable and those who choose to use one risk being fined up to $8,900 dollars. To many it may not be worth the risk and already many have migrated to other platforms like threads and Bluesky. Elon shut down X and effectively alienated 20 million account holders. That’s pretty bad. All because he does not want to take responsibility for getting a legal representative. WhatsApp ran into the same issue a couple of years ago and was threatened with the same. They complied and things were resolved.
Wrong thread spastic
Same issue. Turley mentions it in this column. It’s still a free speech issue. Keep up.
Amazing you can speak freely about censoring X all the while having your Harris-hole stuffed for a few dollars.
Same issue.
True enough George: police state fascism targeting Musk (or Trump) from either Brazil or Harris and your fellow Soviet Democrats is the same issue.
And you keep pitching for police state fascism, straight out of the years in the 60’s when the pre-Soviet Democrats were using police state fascism and police dogs in attempts to block black Americans that you hate with the heat of a thousand suns from voting.
This George, is why you’re not just a liar, but overall a Cheap Fake Soviet Democrat Police State Fascist American.
Give being a decent human being a try for a few hours; you might find that it isn’t as painful as you think it will be.
You’re insane. Seriously.
How about I give you 24 seconds to get a legal representative here where I am or else I block you? Seem OK? Those others next to you doing the same as you, except posting good things about me – they needn’t bother.
Democrats are cucks, plain and simple – they will sell out to an alpha or in this case a poser simply to preserve a bit of money.
Apparently you’re not that well informed about the issue.
Elon had weeks, to get a legal representative. The 24hr deadline was AFTER Elon ignored prior orders. It was his last chance.
“Apparently you’re not that well informed [sic] about the issue.”
Show us how well-informed you are.
What did the Brazilian government do to X’s previous attorney?
I promise to consider your comment with good “reading comprehension.”
Sam, it’s not an attorney they are asking for. Pay attention. They are asking him to name a legal representative because the previous one resigned a month ago.
The previous representative resigned because she was allegedly threatened with imprisonment and had her bank accounts frozen, but that is Elon’s claim which has not been verified.
He still needed a representative in the country. Brazilian law requires foreign companies to have representation in the country so they can be notified when there are legal cases against them.
The full bench supports the justice imposing the block and the order.
Elon is not being completely honest about the situation and he is deliberately thumbing is nose at the Brazilian Supreme Court.
The Brazilian constitution gives the court this power. See section 12,
https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf
Apparently you’re not that well informed about the issue.
George, you’re operating under the apparent belief that normal Americans don’t notice that you’re a pathetic two standards of justice/civil rights police state fascist Soviet Democrat – that Confederate Democrat Kluxxer blood still courses through your putrid body.
George, your lies and misdirection don’t pass the smell test of supposedly being “well informed”.
This is why you’re a vile, disgusting Cheap Fake American.
Who cares what the timeline was…see, you don’t get it. You bend over whenever you’re told and hate that others don’t, which is why you hate Trump and MAGA.
Stand-up on your own, you Harris-hole stuffing cuck.
George, you’re the only one bent. Bent over and taking it for a few more dollars. You are a Harris-ho
Elon seems bent on keeping account holders and advertisers away from his platform.
George, you’ll never get over your outrage that Elon Musk put an end to the Soviet Democrats using Twitter to spread Soviet Democrat lies – and censor anyone wanting to report on the lies that you and your fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascists spread.
That’s pretty bad. But then George, you’re a contemptible Cheap Fake American who wants a version of Brazil fascism and their supreme court here in America.
Oh boy, so much to unpack.
“Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have released the interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech.”
“Released the interview”? Did they do an interview? If he’s talking about the CNN interview he mentions further down in the column then ‘releasing it’ doesn’t make sense because that interview is everywhere. Weird.
“Harris demanded that Trump’s account “should be taken down” and that there be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens:
“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power… They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”
In other words, free speech should be set to the lowest common denominator of speech regulation to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints.”
Why did Turley post only part of the discussion? He has a nasty habit of posting half the story to push a false narrative.
Harris is not ‘demanding’ Trump’s account be shut down. She’s calling for responsible moderation of content. Suggesting social media be more responsible for moderation of content or comments is as normal as it gets. Even Trump’s administration did this. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional or illegal for a government official or a candidate to suggest or call for greater responsibility to moderate speech that incites violence or has the potential to cause harm to others. Inciting violence is not protected speech and X has been allowing it on its platform. This is why Elon has been warned by the EU and the UK. His platform was used to coordinate attacks and incite violence on immigrants in the UK and by their laws that is a crime. Turley conveniently leaves this particular fact out of the discussion and implies Harris and Walz are anti-free speech for calling for responsible moderation.
Turley moderates this blog, barely, but he does not allow openly racists comments or foul language and that is despite the fact that both ARE protected forms of speech. He’s all for civility and orderly discussion and that is just fine. But he can’t have it both ways. He’s constantly criticizing others of “attacking” free speech when all that is being done is regulating it like he does on his own blog.
Weirdly, Harris and Walz are also exercising theirs free speech right to call for greater responsibility from social media because they do have a big influence on society. The government can pressure them, call them out, suggest, chastise, and even expose their lack responsibility on some issues.
Turley chafes at the idea of being “graded” by a third party and calls it censorship because it provides information that others can use to decide whether to read, his columns or not. That’s an exercise of free speech and Turley weirdly claims it’s censorship an demands they be shut down. He’s engaging in anti-free speech because he doesn’t like the idea of a third party telling others his blog is bad or not to read it. It’s ironic in a bad way and quite hypocritical.
Free speech is complicated and definitely not absolute. This is the point Harris and others are always trying to tell Turley and Elon, but they seem to have this odd and often hypocritical position on free speech. Government CAN regulate speech, time, place and manner restrictions have always been found to be legal and constitutionally permissible according to SCOTUS and even republicans.
The professor just doesn’t seem to like the idea that certain speech does indeed need off be moderated or regulated because it can cause harm or incite others to violence. It’s what Harris and others keep saying. The right to free speech has never been absolute and Turley seems to believe it is, just like Elon does, but only when it benefits them.
YAWN
When I want to watch a third grader unpack something, I will give my granddaughter my suitcase.
Harris wouldn’t know what a responsible amount of moderation is beyond what she can wrap her lips around.
Go be a cuck somewhere else, sell-out.
Harris wouldn’t know a reasonable amount of moderation beyond what she can wrap her lips around.
Go be a sell-out somewhere else, cuckboy
George once again demonstrates his reading comprehension issues
^^^ said the guy with full blown reading comprehension problems.
Harris wouldn’t know a reasonable amount of moderation beyond what she can wrap her lips around.
Democrats will sell-out for a few sheckles every time. Losers
“because it can cause harm or incite others to violence”
Prove that part. Now, show me the AOK palestinian rally, or the Ted Wheeler approved antifa rally, or the criminal Baltimore government-approved blm riots…
But call Carmela a knob-gobbler and there will be real violence…
What Professor Turley writes:
“Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have ***posted**** a Harris interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech. “
What Svelaz (George) quotes:
“Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have ***released*** the interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech.”
This error occurred because Svelaz relied on others to create his ideas and sometimes copied them verbatim, which likely happened here.
Svelaz continues: “Released the interview”? Did they do an interview? If he’s talking about the CNN interview he mentions further down in the column, then ‘releasing it’ doesn’t make sense because that interview is everywhere. Weird.”
Musk and Kennedy posted, not released (as Svelaz writes) the interview. This is the problem when a person who is not intelligent tries to prove he is. That is weird.
I cannot comment on the rest of this wordy response because what Svelaz writes is a waste of time.
—–
In a previous post, he made all sorts of comments but didn’t know what he was talking about. I gave him a chance to match what he said to the following. As usual, he ran away from the facts. Svelaz is like a parrot who memorizes whatever his owner teaches him. The parrot is ignorant of what the phrase means.
When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
S. Meyer,
An astute observation.
George your typical nonsense fixating falsely and often wrongly on details is irrelevant
No there should not be content moderation
Because it will always be abused
On of the reasons for narrow rigid objective bright line standards for the constitution and law is because those with power will always seek to expand and abuse it
All efforts at content moderation by government
No matter how allegedly well intentioned will be weaponized politically
The question always asked when censorship is discussed is “who decides”
And the answer is that there is no one that can be trusted to censor others
Did you learn nothing from the mess so called experts made with Covid
John Say, details matter. We are not talking about content moderation from the government. We are talking about content moderation from private social media companies.
When people willingly choose to join any social media platform they agree to the terms of service. That agreement includes the right of the platform to delete, suspend, remove, and report to authorities when certain content may be illegal. They decide. Trump was kicked off Twitter because he violated the terms of service.
Government can flag content or information using a platform’s reporting systems like anyone else. Because ultimately, it’s the platform’s decision to remove content or revoke posting privileges. Not the government. In Murthy vs. United States Justice Barrett pointed out the plaintiffs failed to show the government coerced or threatened punishment if posts or content was not removed. The lower court was wrong in using allegations as evidence.
George
When ever has either the left or right followed uniform standards ?
The list of egregious lies by the left over the past decades dwarfs anything by the right
And those lies have been used as the truth reference to censor the actual truth
Nearly all the censoring of Covid information
Was censorship of information closer to the truth than anything from our government
Nearl all political censorship has been censorship of the truth
Many of us here tolerate your constant lies
Because that is the price we must pay to be sure that the truth gets spoken
“The list of egregious lies by the left over the past decades dwarfs anything by the right
And those lies have been used as the truth reference to censor the actual truth”
That’s quite an overstatement.
Trump outdid the right in just four years and continues to set records every day. Of course he has had help from his enablers, opportunists, sycophants, and cronies. Trump and the right has been lying so much people are starting to get tired of it. His rallies are growing stale.
You can cheer yourself up by immersing in denial and self delusions. But reality is not going to be kind in the end.
No George that is false
Trump overgeneralizes
He exaggerates
As do you
But he rarely lies
All of the things I mentioned are knowing lies
Not overgeneralizations
Not exaggerations
Not opinions
This is not about taking something litterally to be able to call it a lie
It is about things that can not in any permutation be true
I disagree with Turley on his view that “Trump and the third-party candidates should make free speech a central issue in this campaign.” Many people do not understand the historic significance of this constitutional right and if they think of it at all, it’s to protect their ideas and expressions, not those with which they differ. Nations of the world that do not guarantee free speech – think Canada and the U.K. – are not exactly tyrannical or despotic. The progression of the Internet will force some of these nations to confront their denial of free speech. I think in the end, free speech will win out but we may have to go through the silliness we are now seeing in Scotland and the U.K. The notion that one cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre without breaking the law seems unfair when one, instead, may burn an American flag as an expression of free speech. No, Trump and his party should mention the value of free speech and then move on. It is too nuanced a subject and can easily be manipulated. Turley used an entire book to make his point in favor of free speech. Politicians talk in bumper sticker language where something like this would get mangled by the wokesters who seek to control not just our speech but everything else in our lives according to their rules.
jjc posted Nations of the world that do not guarantee free speech – think Canada and the U.K. – are not exactly tyrannical or despotic.
The warning that seems to be missed here is that Canada’s constitution DOES include a right to freedom of speech:
Fundamental freedoms
2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)…
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Canadians have already lost their constitutional right to bear arms, found in their other constitutional documents, and they currently have had their right to freedom of speech removed in a similar manner. A few strokes from the pen of the elected leader is all it took.
Americans who care about things like this should take note that having your free speech rights, 2nd Amendment rights, etc enumerated in constitutional documents doesn’t mean that a government can’t simply just go around those documents – or flat out ignore them.
No Canadian court has said to Canada’s Prime Minister Racist Black Face “You can’t pass a law making that section of the Canadian Constitution guaranteeing freedom of thought and expression null and void”.
Why do so many Americans continue to believe “that couldn’t happen to our Constitutional rights like it happened to Canada and the U.K.’s constitutional rights”?
Maybe because so many still believe that it was King George oppressing and then making war on the British colonials here in America – rather than the Parliament freely elected by their fellow Englishman who passed those laws and prosecuted that war, while King George simply fulfilled the role of what is now our Secretary of State.
Elected politicians like Obama, Biden and Harris can ignore your constitutional rights today, just like the politicians elected by the colonists fellow Englishmen ignored their constitutional rights in the 1700’s, three centuries ago.
And Harris intends to deliver Obama’s Fourth Term, doing exactly that.
How can someone whose views change on a day-to-day basis censor speech? Everything will be censored within a couple of months.
(Of course, it will not be K. Harris censoring anyone. She is merely a figurehead. The Politburo hiding behind the facade of the Democratic Party wlll be doing the censorship on a daily basis, based on who is an effective critic of socialism.)
“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.”
I genuinely have no clue what rule she imagines applies to Facebook that does not also apply to Twitter.
My interpretation of her statement, which very well may be wrong, is that Democrats successfully bullied Facebook into acquiescing to their demands to censor stuff Democrats don’t like, but Twitter – after Musk’s acquisition – refuses to be bullied. And she wants both firms to acquiesce to equally to Democrat demands.
Is that the “rule” she is referring to?
Kamala – and many of her cohorts – do not seem to mind free, unfettered irresponsible and violent speech on college campuses
The thought of allowing a Government, run by anyone, much less Kamala Harris and Tim Walz would shock even Winston Smith (George Orwell’s main protagonist in his classic and prophetic novel, “1984”).
Don’t forget the Left Wing Radical DEM’s, Washington Elite, Uniparty are Saving Democracy, their version of Democracy, Shut Up do as I say and never question their wisdom. They call Trump a tyrant? All corrupt?
Autocrats of all stripes–left, right and center–favor control of speech beyond forbidding what is patently illegal. To ascribe the tendency only to one faction is a mistake. The category of “totalitarian” regimes was created after 1945 in order to tar the Soviet regime with the same brush as the Italian Fascist and German Nazi regimes, all of which suppressed speech and other civil liberties, as did the United States and NATO members during the 1950s. Censorship is simply the way that people in power avoid criticism, whether a university administrator or a United States Senator. HUAC was one of the policemen through the early 1960s, when the Free Speech Movement began to chip away at the government’s use of censorship and propaganda to defend its actions in places like Vietnam. So it is not surprising to see contemporary politicians embrace censorship to shut up their critics.
Unfortunately, while the United States is a country whose Constitution guarantees free speech and other civil liberties, most Americans spend most of their lives working for institutions, from large corporations, small businesses, local governments to police departments, elementary and high schools, and universities, with top-down hierarchies where free speech can get you fired and make it difficult to find work afterward. Perhaps that is why so many Americans and Europeans are indifferent to the sort of measures that were used to ‘rig’ the U.S. election in 2020 and Harris and Walz would like to codify as law.
The apathetic, ignorant, and those who go along to get along are as much to be feared as demagogues and autocrats because the latter can only succeed due to the mental sloth and moral flexibility of the former
Yes, free speech is on the ballot, insofar as the Democrats want to change the definition. However, democracy is also on the ballot in the same sense. Democrats have a different vision of democracy – even to the point of “reimagining the constitution.”
P.S. I hate the word, “reimagine.” It sounds warm and fuzzy, but it means a radical change in the minds of those who utter it.
And here I thought most politicians went to law school. Are they not required to take at least one class in Constitutional Law?
The operative word there is “politician.”