We have previously discussed how Australia has eagerly joined the plunge into censorship and speech controls, including a court system that has repeatedly refused to protect free speech. It is now on the verge of enacting a new censorship bill that replicates the abuses under the European Union’s draconian Digital Service Act (DSA).
The new bill, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), will radically expand the powers of the government to crack down on social platforms and citizens accused of ill-defined misinformation and disinformation.
We previously discussed how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign countries to pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. The EU responded aggressively to warn Musk not to allow greater free speech or he will face crippling fines and even potential criminal enforcement.
Like the DSA, the ACMA seeks to force social media companies to censor citizens in other nations like the United States. Failure to comply can result in fines of up to 5% of their global revenue.
The result will likely target X owner Elon Musk who has resisted demands for censorship and voiced his oppositon of the proposal.
Australian Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland is an enthusiastic champion of censorship. She insisted:
“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.”
I have previously called upon Congress to pass a Digital Freedom Act to respond to the threats from the EU to force the censorship of Americans or jail executives like Musk. The move in Australia only magnifies the need for such legislation.
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).
In Other News: “Australia Establishes Penal Colony for Social Media CEOs.”
~+~
Politicians in Australia designated Enderby Land in the Australian Antarctic Territory as the repository for Social Media CEOs sentenced to transportation for allowing third-party users to post alleged misinformation and falsehoods.
“The chief executives of X, FaceBook, and the lot will now think twice about spreading lies and fake news…” claimed the Minister of Information, “… and if the Antarctic is not enough of a deterrant for them, then we will send them to the end of the Earth, where their ship will fall off the edge!”
“The tyrants won”
They did, but not the total victory they were after. Independent researchers and reporters kept publishing blogs showing how masks and distancing were ineffective, how vaccines didn’t really work and caused very serious side-effects in some populations, and how lock-downs caused major, long-term damage to the economy. A well-known Presidential candidate wrote and published two lengthy, very well-researched indictments of this kind of medical fascism. Those blogs and books were not read by anything near to a majority of citizens, but they had sufficient readers (many of whom took the initiative to repeat their findings and conclusions to others) that the government was not able to institute complete control, nor maintain the control that they were able to exercise, to the extent they wanted, and probably planned. The current speech control efforts are all about stopping up those gaps, so that they next time they concoct some crisis to take control, that control will be absolute and permanent.
The old saying; first they take your guns away from you, then they take your rights away from you, always proves true.
In 1996 Australia took their citizen’s right of self defense away with gun bans, and so naturally it follows that now they take away their citizen’s rights of free speech.
Never fails.
There are no “emergency powers” in the Constitution. Congress has no power to “close” anything—not commercial, manufacturing, recreational, education, etc. There is the power of Congress to suspend habeas corpus during a rebellion, not secession, or invasion only. Healthcare is the personal duty of each individual, not a charge of the government. Obamacare and Medicare are unconstitutional. Healthcare is a right and a freedom of providers and consumers. Congress has no power to tax for or regulate healthcare. The only possible response was to remain calm and allow “China Flu, 2019” to “wash over the American people” and subside naturally, which is what ultimately occurred. The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals and severely limits and restricts government. The communists are dictators, tyrants, and despots constantly in search of power, and that is what they did in 2020.
Australia was wild and free, now they’re domesticated and oppressed.
The Soviets claimed (as did Hitler and Mussolini) that censorship and state control of the media are necessary to protect the welfare of citizens. Australia, the UK, and US governments are claiming the need to do the same. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
“Australian Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland is an enthusiastic champion of censorship.” (JT)
In the 19th century, any one of “19 crimes” sent you to the penal colony of Australia. Among them: grand larceny, buying or receiving stolen goods, impersonating an Egyptian (?!).
Now, in Australia’s desire to become a slave colony, add a 20th “crime”: freedom of conscience.
Impersonating an Egyptian, downright dastardly…
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/king-tut/3505914
For those of us old enough to remember the Cold War, this is a replication and implementation of the Iron curtain. Problem I see has always been, free men that have lived free will not bend the knee to any form of tyranny. The Aussies will tire of these bureaucrats imposing upon their freedoms and then it will be done, same as here.
No, it isn’t an iron curtain. That was about paying a debt. The current censorship is about creating a new world order based on unburdening from truth.
The iron curtain was the communists censorship of all foreign information being available to the people. It was a countermeasure for broadcasters on radio free Europe?!
I didn’t say it was a good deal. When was the debt finally paid? 1986?
Jonathan: Boy, you are sure willing to spend a lot of column space defending your friend Elon Musk. From the EU to Brazil and now Australia you seem to think the owner of X is entitled to flaunt the laws of other countries.
When Musk incites rioting in Ireland, refuses to abide by the laws of Brazil that has nothing to do with “free speech.” Or in this country when Musk sets up a fraudulent scheme to prevent citizens from registering to vote that crosses the line from free expression to illegality.
Musk only believes in “free speech” for himself. As pointed out in a previous comment he engages in censorship all the time on his own platform–refusing posts at the request of other countries or taking down posts he doesn’t like. Musk has turned X into his own personal cesspool of hate speech, neo-Nazi propaganda and disinformation.
Musk supports DJT–the authoritarian who would turn censorship into a state enterprise. DJT, if he got back into power, would try to get the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of media companies he thinks are “unfair” to him. Musk and DJT are birds of a feather–and you have joined them on that branch!
Better on the branch of freedom than under the boot of tyranny!
Wow! Dennis IS some sort of weird troll. I will respond once. Pointeless, but required as a matter form.
X still has issues but it is far better than it was pre-Elon and Trump has shown more respect for our federal system than Biden
All Elon needs to do to tell the EU, the Irish and any of the other overreaching, globalist-infiltrated nations to flick off is remove physical operations from those trash areas. Then their citizens can use X if they can get to it. I would recommend a policy of deleting all info tied to user location to thwart the fascists from persecuting their own citizens.
Oh, there is no Constitutional definition of hate speech. That’s made-up crap that comes from those who want to control the narrative by stifling free speech. Furthermore, hate, as you call it, is perfectly legal. 😀
It is extremely common that what those on the left complain about in others is what is true of them.
The font of hate speech in this country is THE LEFT.
Calling someone a racist – absent clear and compelling evidence, is HATE SPEECH.
The most fascist politics in the US today is that of the left.
If Trump targeted political enemies as president – he would not be doing anything new. We see that now.
Dennis – still off in la la land – Musk is abiding by the Law in Brazil – the Brazilian courts and executive are NOT.
While that is the truth – Your argument is ludicrously stupid – even if it were true.
If Brazillian law Raquired that X only allow NAZI posts – would you be demanding that Musk obey Brazilian law ?
The FACT is that Brazil’s courts and Executive are doing with the Biden/Harris administration have done – only much more openly and brazenly and with the full support of brazillian courts – they are SILENCING political opposition.
And that is REALLY what YOU are advocating – in Brazil, in the EU, in AU and throughout the world.
It is vile, it is immoral, it is ACTUALLY fascist, and it requires a police state to work.
You are here BEGGING Brazil, the EU, AU, … to threaten Musk – or anyone else that opposes govenrment censorship of political opponents with Jail – and actually jail them if necescary for speech that is critical of government.
In Brazil, the EU, the UK we are seeing people go to jail merely for speaking out against government.
And we have seen the Biden?Harris administration TRY to do exactly the same thing – with some SMALL degree of success.
You constantly and falsely rant that J6 was an insurrection. It was not, it was an excercise of the first amendment and as none other than Chris Coumo said of the BLM riots – sometimes that is messy.
You can punish those who actually initiated violence – though that would include many in the CP.
Bujt if you actually supress speech, if you supress protest, if you supress petitioning government, then you RADICALLY increase the odds of VIOLENCE.
Once AGAIN – read the declaration of independence – It is a Justification for the use of VIOLENCE against the existing government.
Many on the right repeatedly state that the 2nd amendment is there for when the first amendment fails.
To an extent that is true. But more importantly – Violence is not generally justified in responses to the abuses of govenrment, So long as other corrective remedies – including and especially those in the first amendment exist.
You say that Musk is causing Violence – the FACT is the opposite is true.
The more censorship you engage in the bigger the power kegg you build up and the more likely you are to trigger a spark to set it off.
The UK – consistent with left wing idiocy beleives that the recent riots over the stabbing of a girl are because of “misinformation” that the perpitrator was an illegal immigrant. While it is True that SOME people held that FALSE beleif.
The FACT is that the UK is on a hair trigger just waiting to go off. Yes Misinformation can set it off. But if you stopped all FALSE information – that will just delay the inevitable. Accross the West there is a great deal of anger as the “natives” see their right, their jobs, their heritage being taken in favor of foreigners. And they are correct – even if they are NOT correct about specific events.
In the US we have a MASSIVE spike of immigrant crime. While we do not trust the FBI crime statistics, even if they are correct – that does not alter the fact of that spike in immigrant violence.
It may well be true that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not criminals. But that does not help those who are victims of those that are. Nor is that restricted to the US – Accross the EU – the illegal immigrant population is significantly more violent than the rest of the country. Sweden has taken in about 10% of its population in immigrants and has seen its rate of violent crime more than double. That means the 1/10 of the country that is immigrants are committing as much crime as the 9/10 who are not.
Across Europe we are seeing the RISE of “the right” – while it is unclear exactly what that means in the left/right terms that the US uses – Le Penn’s national Rally is a SOCIALIST party – but it is also a very Anti-Immigrant party with a fascist history.
In Germany we are seeing the rapid rise of parties that are supposedly “Far Right” – with ties back to actual Nazi’s.
Italy’s government is what was called “far right” until they took power. So far they just seem like US centrists.
Regardless I can not tell you if the backlash against the failures of the left will result in Actual Fascists gaining power in parts of the world. Or if “Far Right” is like in the US what the left calls the half of the country they hate.
But whether the failures of the left are leading to the rise of ACTUAL fascism or just “Far Right” government like that of Trump, the FACT is that across the world – the LEFT is failing, and that failure is resulting in their loss of power to others.
Either you can allow real free speech and the resulting improvement int eh odds that the Failure of the l.eft results in govenrment more like that of Trump, or you can supress free speech and greatly increase the risk that you get actual fascists.
Because the FACT is that the LEFT has FAILED. Absent massive uses of FORCE – the devolution to a police state – which is what YOU are actually advocating, the left WILL be replaced – and even the massive use of FORCE will only function as a delaying tactic, the only Question is what will replace the Left. Will that be leaders across the world more like Trump, or will it be actual Fascists.
The more the left fails and the idiocy of the values and policies of the left ASSURES failure, the more certain that they will be replaced is. Loss of power to others is Certain.
Your effoprts to weapononize the power of govenrment to cling desparately to power for as long as possible accomplishes nothing but increasing the odds that what replaces you will be all the more extreme.
The more force it takes to dislodge a failed ideology, the more likely those that displace the left will be willing to use FORCE after they have succeeded in displacing the left.
Dennis – you do not live in the real world.
Despite the rants of those on the left there is no actual evidence of rising hate speech – outside the left, neo-nazi prooganda, and time and again – it is the LEFT that has been inflicting massive amounts of misinformation on all of us.
The Nazi’s
The USSR
the CCP
Castro,
Pol Pot
What do these all have in common ?
They were all socialists, they were all on the left, and they were all totalitarian police states, they all murdered large numbers of their own people., and they all censored the speech of political opponents.
You do not seem to grasp that the more rigorously you censor, the more people distrust those doing the censoring, and the more what is censored is treated as Truth.
If you want to assure the rise of actual fascism in the EU, in Brazil, in AU, in the UK, in the US, you can not more effectively accomplish that than to heavily engage in censorship and political repression.
It is your very efforts to thwart hate speech, the rise of fascism, that may bring it about – unless you are removed from power quickly.
* why do they do it? Why does a pol pot rise? What is the motive?
To achieve absolute power over the most people possible.
Or we can just end the FCC.
Is Netflix licensed by the FCC ? Hulu ? Twitter/X ? Facebook ?
Do you know ANYONE who receives broadcast TV or Radio ?
If the FCC revoked the license of MSNBC, ABC, CNN – would anyone notice ?
Did you watch the Debate broadcast over the airwaves ? Or did you watch it on the internet ?
The FCC is irrelevant.
Yes, Musk is picking and chosing when and where he will fight against Censorship.
I presume that you support X censoring Child Porn ?
I would prefer X censorship worldwide be limited to what the US government is permitted to censor.
But I am open to Musk censoring in Iran and China if X’s presence in China and Iran improves the information available to those people. I suspect Musk is making the same decisons.
In the past Trump has not been this great advocate of Free Speech – though he certainly not anywhere near the censor that You and the left are.
LOOK ARROUND – YOU have made Trump increasingly Pro First amendment.
YOU have made the US right increasingly pro individual liberty – including the first amendment.
While Turley has generally been a first amendment advocate – YOU have pushed him to essentially going to war over Free Speech. While he has not endorsed Trump – he has specifically noted the massive problem that Biden/Harris are and made clear that this election SHOULD be a free speech election – there is no doubt he is NOT voting Harris.
Dershowitz has left the democratic party, as has Garbbard, and Sienama, and Manchin, and RFK jr.
RFK Jr. and Nichole Shananhan have Made Free Speech more of an Issue than Trump and have attacked Democrats for lawfare atleast as much as Trump.
And Shanahan’s Trump Derangement Syndrome Add is fantastic.
All of these are people who would have been solid democrats BEFORE your woke censorious nonsense.
Trump and RFK jr. are strange and uneasy bedfellows. But RFK Jr. and Shanahan view YOU as so dangerous that they are endorsing Trump.
Standing up for freedom and freedom of speech is a great and honorable act. So glad we have people like Jonathan Turley, Musk President Trump and so many others on our side. People like McIntyre should visit the holocaust museums and death chambers and imagine themselves in the place of those who died there.
The name of Ireland will soon be changed to ‘Irelandistan”.
Brits out, everyone else in!
Collins and Devalera would be turning in their graves.
Maybe you support a “ministry of truth” to protect people from “disinformation”.
I would respect you more if would just admit it. You won’t of course, you’ll just call me a slur.
antonio
BTW Dennis I actually looked into the Issac Hayes the III lawsuit.
Hayes Lost 3 of 4 claims against Trump in preliminary motions.
The remaining count was not dismissed because a motion to dismiss requires treating all facts in despite as proven to the benefit of the non-moving party – that Would be Hayes III.
Those facts include –
Does Hayes III own the copyright – or atleast sufficient of the copyright to rescind permission to use – there are allegedly multiple owners of this copyright and Trump has the permission of atleast open of them.
Does Hayes III qualify under the claw back provision of US copyright law that would allow him to reclaim publishing rights for the copyright.
Did Hayess III provide proper notice.
How long did Trump continue to used the song after receiving proper notice,
Did Trump’s use of the song meet the fair use provisions of copyright law.
These and many other things are questions of FACT and whether there is a violation of the ONE remaining claim that Hayes III has made are dependent on ALL of those facts being found in his favor.
Further under the worst of circumstances for Trump there are only a handful of violations – the court has already ruled that uses prior to Hayes III notice on June 6 are barred, and that clips of Trump rallies with the song that are NOT published by the Trump campaign are not violations.
The most that Hayes III is going to get is far less than the legal fees for the lawsuit.
Worse for you – the lawsuit points out all the problems that ANYONE else trying to sue will have.
Hayes III has only managed to get into court because there is a provision in current US copyright law that allows the authors of a copyrighted work to claw back publishing rights after 56 Years. That means anything Trump is using that was published after 1968 is covered by the licenses the Trump campaign has purchased from the recording industry. Nor is being published prior to 1968 sufficient for a successful lawsuit. The author of the work MUST have demanded the return of their publishing rights – which ends their getting royalties from the recording industry, and they must have provided the Trump campaign proper notice.
I just can’t understand what’s taking Musk so long to position his orbiting Superweapon and get it targeted. Could we get the lead out please?
“I just can’t understand what’s taking Musk so long to position his orbiting Superweapon and get it targeted”
You write in jest, but in all seriousness, I believe he could leverage his wealth and SpaceX technology to do just that sort of thing, in at least a small way. I wonder if that thought has occurred to any of the benighted bureaucrats attacking him and X. Maybe someone should send him a copy of Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.
I do not know exactly what is going on right now with Muck in Brazil.
But he can shutdown Starlink offices in Brazil – and conduct all sales etc from outside of Brazil.
Only accept payment into accounts outside of Brazil.
Or he can just make Starlink free in Brazil for now and completely get arround the brazillian govenrment.
I would further note that shutting down Musk accomplishes NOTHING.
Do you think the people opposed to government are just going away ?
The USSR and GDR had far more control of information than the AU, UK, EU and Brazil,
yet ultimately they were brought down because the people came to understand that the govenrment was lying to them.
This nonsense does not work – we KNOW it.
There are practical solutions to complex problems, but when zealots move in, you can forget about finding the sweet spot because rage completely shuts down dispassionate consideration of options. People become boxed into “taking sides” as voiced by the most committed, fanatical polemicists (the dichotomization trap). As the middle ground evaporates into stubborn “for or against” rigidity, minds close to creative problem-solving.
It might not be that hard to get liberals to agree that civil lawsuits, not government prosecution, is the better tool for countering deceitful, manipulative infowarfare. To do so at least admits that such abuses of the public square have a corrosive effect — or that inauthenticity should not stand on the same moral plateau as authenticity.
Waging an “us vs. them” battle for “free speech”, where “them” are:
• people who earnestly care about the public infospace becoming untrustworthy
and “us” inadvertently includes:
• self-righteous activists who view authenticity, civility and decorum as “weakening the message”
• self-entertaining mischief-makers
• foreign-intelligence and terrorist infowarriors seeking to destroy America from the inside
• sex-predators hoping to groom children via direct internet outreach to them
• serpentine cowards and bullies who intimidate perceived foes from behind a veil of anonymity
• AND people who are authentic, respectful and caring and just wish to express an alternative to the conventional wisdom,
does it start to make sense that the productive middle ground is getting lost?
Is there a point of agreement between the liberal and conservative factions on “free speech”?…..centered on
the concept of authenticity when speaking in the public arena? If we could signal that meeting point, then
the conversation could turn to how best to discourage inauthenticity — what style of deterrence?
And that gives “us” a chance to explain how prosecution at the hands of the current government can backfire horribly into an information police-state. Most reasonable, open-minded liberals will concede this point.
And that leaves civil lawsuits as the tool the Constitution gives to the People for challenging the misuse of
the public infospace. And, reasonable liberals will find common cause in this concept — because it admits that
the public square is a place where the moral fabric of society is either upheld or slowly torn to pieces.
If we cannot find common ground with liberals on what we want the public square to be ( a place where respectful disagreement takes place among authentic voices ), then we risk ceding the public square to leftist authoritarianism.
There is a core to what you are saying that I agree with.
But the problem – as is always the problem with the left, is implementation.
There are only a few Constitutional civil suits that can legitimately constrain free speech.
The Tort of defamation – which is narrow and hopefully we be narrowed even further.
As a practical matter the tort of defamation has become more like the lottery, than a reasonable means of regulating bad speech. I expect you will see the courts – particularly SCOTUS narrowing defamation, few realize that NYT vs. Sulivan was a 5-4 decision – with 4 votes to go much further and eliminate defamation altogether.
The other means to civily restrict free speech is tortuous interference in contract. That is what Musk is using to go after Media Matters in Texas, and he is likely to prevail. but that requires specific and narrow facts.
I do NOT support replacing govenrment censorship with broad civil causes of action – moving the lawfare to the civil domain does not change the FACT that we are still using the power of government to FORCE censorship.
The only legitimate response to bad speech is more speech.
It is always a pleasure to read John Say….one of the meritocratic thinkers posting on this site.
As far as “The only legitimate response to bad speech is more speech”, this is a quaint viewpoint shaped
by Justice John Harlan in the pre-Internet era. It ignores the timing of when inauthentic speech has a hold on opinion before finally being discredited. Yes, I agree that most lies, cons and dupes are eventually exposed.
But what takes place in the interim? That is what Harlan’s mantra naively overlooks
If nothing important had to be decided in the interim –during the deceitful infowarrior’s temporary hold on opinion, then Harlan’s approach would be totally correct.
But that’s not reality. Public decisions (e.g., who to vote into power, whether to go to war or not) cannot be delayed, nor can be reversed — even if found later to have been decided swayed by deceptions. Two consequential cases come to mind….fighting the unnecessary and costly 8-year Iraq War, and the Biden campaign’s success in submerging Hunter’s laptop scandal until after his 2021 Inauguration. Truth-valuing people now know that the public was duped by skilled infowarriors in both cases, involving our own CIA. Knowing the truth after it no longer matters to consequential decisions?….Harlan’s dictum appears flaccid and ineffective.
To repair and rescue Harlan’s dictum for the modern era of instant, unmoderated, borderless communication, it would have to say:
“The antidote to bad speech is good speech, but only if the latter emerges fast enough to influence the course of relevant public decisionmaking”. (Updated Harlan Principle)
This updated logic about the infospace has yet to be systematically applied in areas of law. Defamation — yes, this is the one area where deceitful infowarfare can be legally challenged — and it shrewdly avoids prosecution, instead using a civil action where one citizen can challenge another citizen’s dishonesty, with even-handed, fact-based proceedings, and the outcome decided by a Jury of 12 ordinary Americans.
Granted, expanding Defamation law to allow citizens to confront Public Frauds pushed out for political effect —
it leaves key problems to be solved — the main one being the snail’s pace of litigation. How many years did it take the Sandy Hook parents to force Alex Jones to cease and desist from his disgusting, opportunistic (money-making) claims that those mass murders were all a hoax? Would you believe a decade? So Public Frauds lawsuits would require fast due diligence, so that official truth can emerge while it still matters.
Is there a fairer system for sorting out intentional deceptions from fact in the political realm? The “court of public opinion” (which is what John Say and Justice Harlan are relying on to correct disinformation) has shown itself to be worthless in times of political distemper, willingly going along with infowarfare campaigns it deems “unharmful”.
The force of law, with its decided preference for truth over premeditated inauthenticity, must be brought to bear on the worst offenders now operating in the infospace. And it must be done in a smart fashion, where crooked people in political campaigns AND in government offices fear being hauled into Public Frauds Court by their citizens. There is a narrow lane in the Constitution for this type of action, and we ought to be seriously considering it….while convincing liberals that govt. prosecution of disinformation only invites an informational police-state. I think liberals can be persuaded to use the right tools, if conservatives are willing to draw the line on speech freedom to NOT include deliberate, conniving inauthenticity.
I agree with what you’re saying, but unfortunately there is no common ground anymore with the Kamala Harris wing of the Democratic party. The days of liberals Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley having great academic discussions of major issues is rapidly evaporating and being replaced by the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the criminalizing of free speech in the United States. At the rate we’re going, we’ll have the Cheka in a few years if Harris is elected. Just my two cents from the bottom of the Coke bottle looking up. Greg
In my community, an EV charging station was installed for the benefit of non-resident golf guests. Before long, it was found that self-entitled residents were using the facility. Administration has instituted a severe fine for unauthorized use of the service. Sadly, in human nature, we have found that abuse of a ;thing’ by some, to the disadvantage of others has always been a consequence of having it. Where free speech is concerned tolerance has worn thin as the former has overtaken the latter. In this as well, it depends upon whose ox is being gored.
We’re getting a whole new understanding of “democracy.” Apparently it works like this: We elect people, who then pass laws that restrict our freedoms. Got it!
Dear Mr. Turley, I am thankful for “Upstate Farmer” and “GEB”. As long as there are folks out there, like these two fine individuals, who can offer reason to the Left’s antics, I believe there is still hope for our nation. I wonder if these two might consider running for office in their respective states? It would be great to support them.
^LOL ‘Upstate’ posting as ‘Anonymous’ again
brown-nosing not just ‘the good professor’
but himself and GEB this time, too
That would be a neat trick.
I was test driving a Ford, F250 XLT diesel at that time.
Loser.
I note John Say’s memo. My answer is “when were people or governments ever truly rational?” Is it not the usual government response that when something goes wrong that you just push more money towards it. I remember the absolutely 1984 like restrictions that Australia had during COVID and thought that this insanity would pass but obviously it has not. The government liked the power and the people responded poorly enough that the government felt emboldened and thus you have this new law. Joe Biden and the Democrats have tried the same thing.
Only a 200+ year old committment to free speech and constitutional law has saved us. And the Robust federal system. An undermentioned part of our structure. Where else can states and groups of states force court and law changes on the federal government when in other nations those miscreant laws of the federal government go unchallenged. Most of the world and even English Speaking countries fail to understand the power of the states and their governors and attorneys general and their resources that can hinder DC.
We more and more see federalism in full flower..
“I previously called for legislation to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business domestically.” (from one of Turley’s articles that he linked to here.
That is 100% redundant with restrictions on Federal government contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution. I am adamantly opposed to legislation that does this kind of duplication; I do not believe it strengthens the Constitution at all, on the contrary, I think its effect is to dilute, detract from, and thereby weaken it. The only possible effective solution is, through voting and advocacy, to force our governmental institutions to honor the restraints already placed upon them by the founding document of the nation. Regarding actions by foreign governments such as those taken against Musk, I think that legislation that simply states that the U. S. will not engage in any economic or diplomatic activity (possibly up to the point of specifying the severance of diplomatic relations) with nations that take actions against U. S. citizens that would be violations of the First Amendment should those actions be taken by the U. S. government would suffice. Again, just how in the devil can Turley expect the Federal government to honor restrictions in legislation that duplicate Constitutional restraints, when those original restraints are themselves ignored? At best, this would result in nothing but cheap political theater. To me, the proposed approach is completely irrational.
Trouble is that if the left gets into power and packs the Supreme Court, they will find a way around the 1st Amendment.
“Trouble is that if the left gets into power and packs the Supreme Court, they will find a way around the 1st Amendment.”
And if that should happen, are you of the opinion that legislation of the kind Turley proposes would resolve the issue?
The legislation Turley advocates would stop the Federal Government from engaging in, or funding NGOs or businesses who engage in, censorship or related conduct. Given the difficulties of enforcing 1A rights, as evidenced by the recent SCOTUS decisions, this could be helpful.
I like your idea about how to deal with foreign censorship.
I am not sure what Turley is advocating, But a simple amendment to the DMCA that states that any business that benefits from special Section 302 protections must also conform to the same first amendment requirements as the Government.
The DMCA should have had that requirement from the start.
-not sure why someone “liked” you as the DMCA has no Section 302 affording protections, what are you even talking about?
Daniel and Anonymous: “Regarding actions by foreign governments….”
I am immediately reminded of the law(s) of international comity (and the necessity thereof).
(harkening to the age-old, non-legal and simplistic advice: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do…”) and the Charmin’ Betsy canon.
While I do not necessarily disagree with your views and sympathies, such action could certainly spiral the U.S. into unforeseen consequences. It would be my measured opinion that retaliatory efforts such as economic/diplomatic severance would result in escalated activity very similar to/commensurate with the threat of back-and-forth retaliatory “tariffs.”
IMHO, Musk would be better off in a litigation showdown there (Australia), -and taking up the opportunity in the courtroom to show Australians the true benefit of free speech.
It is likely that Musk will end up in a litigation showdown in AU – and he stands an excellent chance of prevailing.
Musk tried that route in Brazil – but De Moreas made litigation impossible – threatening Brazillian lawyers to took Musk cases and other tactics to prevent any case from moving forward – not to mention that De Moreas already controls the Brazillian supreme court
“Given the difficulties of enforcing 1A rights, as evidenced by the recent SCOTUS decisions, this could be helpful. ”
Again. if the government does not respect the restrictions imposed by it by the Constitution, what additional incentive would be provided my mere legislation repeating those restrictions? Do you really think that evading that would be more difficult? If so, please explain how.
(I don’t think you were addressing your comment to me, but if you will allow, I am inclined to agree with you, -in the sense that more legislation invites the principle of statutory construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (if some things are expressly mentioned, others of the same [class] are excluded).
The easiest way to manifest this idea is by statutory or case law equivocally or vaguely categorizing what is or is not censorable.
“I don’t think you were addressing your comment to me”
No, it was directed to Daniel and his comment supporting Turley’s suggestion. IANAL, so some details of what you wrote are beyond my ken. My objection is very simple, and just what I stated: if the government can ignore and evade restrictions placed upon it at the highest level of authority, what reason is there to suppose that very similar restrictions enacted at a lower level will not be ignored and evaded with at least equal alacrity?
People misconstrue the Murty decision. In an earlier decision writing by Sotomayor this Term the court ruled 9-0 that Government can not directly or indirectly censor.
The only thing different with Murty is that the plantif was a state AG – while I beleive that State AG’s should be free to sue the federal govenment for violating the rights of that states citizens and therefore SCOTUS got the standing issue wrong.
What too many do NOT understand is that Murty did NOT say “this conduct by the federal govenrment is acceptable”.
Murty just said that State AG’s do not have standing to sue the federal government over this.
The first amendment already bars direct government censorship AS WELL as indirect government censorship.
What we need law for is to impose a CONSEQUENCE
“What we need law for is to impose a CONSEQUENCE”
Why not a general purpose law imposing penalties for manifest violation of any part of the Constitution? If that would be too unwieldy (possible) or have unintended negative consequences for Liberty (also possible) limit it to the Articles and the first Ten Amendments. Penalties could begin with a lifetime bar from Federal public office or employment. Execution might be excessive, but I personally would not shed any tears over it.
After nearly half a century in the law the phrase I have come to fear the most, whether from the courts or some disgruntled client complaining that something is ‘unfair,’ is:
There ought to be a law . . .
Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!
The constitution recognizes natural rights. Laws impose punishment for violations of those rights.
While the president has some power to do this unilaterally – as we see with the Biden/Harris administration rather than punishing foreign nations for violating US citizens rights, the President can actually encourage foreign nations to violate US citizens rights – both are arguably constitutional – or at the very least the latter is not currently impeded.
Congress can pass law forbidding he president from capitulating to foreign censorship efforts, and empowering or even requiring consequences for foreign censorship of US citizens.
The US is unarguably the most powerful economy in the world. Further our fiscal and monetary policies constrain the entire world.
There are many things congress can do here that go beyond the constitution. The constitution defines the right – but laws passed by congress empower and can even require the executive to punish foreign nations that infringe on that right.
There are many things the US can do. And I am merely offering an example and not necescarily the best example,
But an escalating sequences of tarriffs against nations that seek to censor US citizens is ONE response.
Another would be to declare that All companies operating under the DMCA in the US are subject to the same constraints on censorship as the US government. That efforts to impose foreign law on content created and distributed in the US are NULL and void. That the US will no recognize foreign law applying to US content or distribution. That wouyld prevent extradition, and nullify any efforts to collect fines or judgements through the US legal system.
The constitution does not do that for us.
Goebbels would be proud.
I just wrote this, thoughts?
5 to 0 and 3 Against 1
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/5-to-0-and-3-against-1
Dogon Priest: I took you up on it and reviewed your article. No softballing, it hits some good home runs. Thanks for the link, and for your honest thoughts/assessment. (Don’t want to go into discussing particulars as this is OT).
I would address the debate in a different way – like you I prefer REAL debates – this was not one.
This was little more that both candidates showing up to be interviewed by ABC at the same time and place.
Regardless, at this time Public appearances, speeches, debates, and interviews of Trump are irrelevant – that is not a negative about Trump. It is just an observation that the vast majority of the electorate know or think they Know Trump and his positions and are unlikely to form a different opinion of him.
Conversely the same is True of attacks on Trump. Most of us KNOW Trump pretty accurately. While a small portion of us beleive utter nonsense about Trump. Neither group is going to be changed by a debate, or interview.
The Big question for the next 60 days is “Who is Kamala Harris ?”
While there is the constant risk that Harris can fold in a public appearance – as Joe Biden did – though likely in a different fashion, the more important questions still is “Who is Kamala Harris ?”
The debate only gave us small clues.
It is not important whether Harris won the debate on points,
It is not important whether ABC ganged up on Trump.
I would further note – there is a reason that the Harris campaign works HARD to avoid almost anything with respect to policy.
That is because regardless of whatever policies Harris offers – any answer will cost her votes.
Tack towards the center and she will lose votes on the left. Tack left and she will lose votes on the center.
At this time Trump’s base is rock solid. They are going nowhere. There are no votes for Trump to lose.
He is a KNOWN commodity – like him or not.
But between now and the election undecided voters and even weak Harris can decide they can not vote for Harris.
Or they can decide to vote for Trump
No one is moving from Trump to Harris.
Harris can not define herself – or she will lose.
Nor can she fail to define herself – people will only tolerate this campaign without substance for so long.
I would further note that while this is my personal speculation – I do not think this election is close.
We saw President Trump kick our NATO allies in the fanny to bring their wallets to pay for their treaty obligations. Successfully. We could use what Jonathon recommends from Congress that national policy is the remedy of speech combatting speech, nothing less. Ought we not also push that policy as international policy? Ought we focus on our treaties in the United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN treaties) and others to see if our national speech values are being served? What’s the relationship between those speech values and our help to Australia to get them an updated nuclear submarine fleet? Maybe it’s time for some more fanny kicking.
“We saw President Trump kick our NATO allies in the fanny to bring their wallets to pay for their treaty obligations. Successfully.“
My, my. Trump has repeatedly mischaracterized how NATO countries “fail to pay their bills & owe us a tremendous amount of money.” Contrary to what Trump relentlessly claims, NATO countries don’t pay us money for their defense. In reality, NATO countries have pledged to spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP for their military & defense budget.
As of last year, 11 of the 23 NATO countries were spending 2% of their GDP on defense. Non-US NATO members increased their defense spending by 2.8% in 2021 and an estimated 2.0% in 2022, then by an estimated 8.3% in 2023.
Mike gilmore, feel free to reveal your sources which supports any of Trump’s claims about NATO countries & their defense budget obligations. Cheers.
As of last year…
Perhaps YOU should review what NATO countries were spending BEFORE President Trump kicked them in the arse. Every item you reference is AFTER Trump.
“Trump has repeatedly mischaracterized . . .”
Usually what follows the introduction to a comment is *support* for that introduction.
In your case, not so much.
There are 32 NATO member nations, not 23.
ATS – while your facts are likely accurate – NATO – especially during the Ukraine war has been increasing its defense spending dramatically and now many NATO nations are meeting their NATO obligations,
It is ALSO true that US presure on NATO countries to increase defense spending started under Obama – not Trump.
Trump merely brought it out front and center and threatened to do so something.
Those FACTs do NOT falsify what Trump has said.
When NATO fails to provide for its own Defense – that means that the US IS Paying for the defense of Europe.
Even in the current Ukraine war – though all of europe is kicking in – the main funding is still the US.
Despite the fact that Russia is far more of a threat to Europe than the US.
Trump’s claims ARE accurate – even using YOUR FACTS.
As we saw in the ABC debate – Fact Checks of Trump tend to degenerate to word games and spin.
BTW Europe has Failed to pay their bills and owe the US a great deal of money. While that is an aside to the NATO debate – there are still European war debts from WWII outstanding to the tune of hundreds of Billions of dollars.
Regardless, one of the reasons that the “FACT CHECKS” on Trump have no power anymore is because the left has engaged in too much lying.
Recently we heard Garland start another “Russia, Russia, Russia” rant.
Most peoples eyes glazed over said “not these lies again” and ignored it all.
Regardless for those who paid attention – the ACTUAL allegations are a giant nothing burger.
The US interferes in elections across the world.
As a rule there is only one election that any nation can not try to influence – Their own.
Putin can endorse Harris – which he has done,. and/or he can have oligarchs fund right wing influencers.
That is not election interferance – any more than George Sorros contributing to the Democratic party.
Democrats are free to Rant that Timcast is getting money from RT, just as Republicans can rant that Harris is getting Money from Sorros.
All this is STILL legal. And our government wasting resources to try to make our elections safe from perfectly legal conduct while ignoring actually illegal conduct, is more evidence of the failures of the left.
My point is that YOU – the LEFT have lost credibility. No one outside your bubble is listening to you anymore.
The FACT that as a result of the Ukraine war – 11 NATO nations are atleast temporarily meeting their treaty obligations, does not falsify Trump[‘s remarks. There are 32 countries in NATO – not 11, and no one knows how long those 11 will continue to meet obligations. And Ultimately the cost of defending Europe if necessary will fall mostly to the US.
Regardless of whatever some City controller in Springfield might say – there are illegal immigrants in Springfield eating pets.
Even the FBI data – under Biden lots of government data has been found highly untrustworthy – often by the govenrments own admissions and corrections, shows a large spike in crime as a result of illegal immigrants in many US cities. Is Crime nationwide going down ? That depends on whether you trust FBI data. Is there a significant wave of violent crime as a result of illegal immigrants – undeniably.
As is typical of so called left wing rebutals – often two things that do not on the surface appear compatible can BOTH be true.
But then the left is absurd – they are engaged in a holy war over mass shootings as a means to impliment gun control – despite the fact that mass shootings are not even noise in our violent crime statistics. More people die in a year in Chicago from gang shootings than die from mass shootings nationwide in a decade. While I disagree with the repulblican approach to Drugs, there is still ZERO doubt that drugs are responsible for twice the deaths than guns per year in the US, and the vast majority of all violent crime – including most gun deaths.
Trump speaks broadly in generalizations. As generalizations, his remarks are close to universally correct.
Left wing nut fact checks attempt to find tangential details that confict. Sometimes they even do so correctly.
Most of the time the left wing FACT checks are potentially True statements, that do NOT actually conflict.
Trump got the State of the Governor that advocated for killing infants after birth incorrect, But Northam advocated just as Trump said – nor is he alone. Further 9 States – including Walz’s minesota allow Abortion right up to the instant of Birth, and the murder of a fetus that is completely indistinguishable from a Born infant.
Nearly all of Europe and much of the world – places were there is an absolute right to abortion – do NOT allow abortion after 15 weeks. Generally it is the US that has the most liberal abortion laws in the world – not the most restrictive.
Today 7 month premies routinely survive – while requiring a great deal of expensive medical care – they do NOT suffer lifelong health issues anymore – and that is one of the reasons the US has very high infant mortality rates – because no other place in the world counts as live births premies as young as the US.
As an excellent rule of thumb you can pretty much count on the fact that a left wing FACT CHECK pretty much always – even if actually correct is NOT on point and does not directly address the claim it challenges and drowns in spin.
And this is not lost on people outside the left wing bubble.
Anonymous, the stats you gave about better NATO allies’ meeting their 2% contributions is the success. The head of NATO recently praised Trump for that success. If error lies in the discussion of what happened after Trump told the delinquent NATO members they have to pay their bills, pray do point it out.
Australia was among the most restrictive during COVID, especially allowing anyone into the country. I have family there. We were not allowed to apply for some time for a travel visa. When we could, it took numerous documents, approximately 600 dollars for visa processing and months and months of waiting to get an emergency family travel visa. We had to have proof of all our COVID vaccinations and had to have a COVID test that was less than 24 hours old. In the U.S. expedited tests came at a premium. If you arrived without these documents, you could be fined 11,000 dollars and you would be quarantined in a government approved facility. For a period of time, mandatory quarantining was required and it was cost prohibitive. The traveler had to sign documentation that their cell phone could be tracked. The government required that another COVID test be given within 24 hours upon arrival and the results uploaded to the government app.
The last two trips over, the airline scans your face before boarding the flight. This is compared to the current photo and scanned passport you are required to provide for your travel visa. You check in at the kiosk once arrived and scan your passport. Then your face is scanned again before you are allowed in the baggage area. If you have mud on your feet, have any food containers that are not favorite sealed, they must be discarded(shoes cleaned). They also want to know your profession and if you are gainfully employed.
Then, you can enter the country.
The international section of the airport was decimated and only one sole kiosk was selling coffe. It’s like a ghost town. Their economy suffered greatly. Now, it is closer to normal and domestic travel is easy. There is no sense of restrictions to the tourist and one might think they are in America. However, at the heart of the matter, there is a difference.
It is a wonderful place to visit. However, getting into the country incognito is virtually impossible. But what isn’t? Thanks to Facebook and other apps. Our face is in databases everywhere.
“Thanks to Facebook and other apps. Our face is in databases everywhere”
My photo has never been in my FB profile, nor on my account for any other internet service, going back to 1995. Of course, I cannot guarantee that no photo of me appears on any “friended” account identified in such a way that correlation with my profile could not be inferred. But such correlation requires more processing resources, is at least significantly less direct, and, as long as some rule of law re personal privacy remains, more difficult to take any official action on.
“It is a wonderful place to visit.”
That may be so. But I have no relatives there, and no desire or intention to visit a wannabe completely authoritarian destination no matter what attractions exist. I’m sure there are plenty of interesting places and commanding views to see in Communist China, as well. It doesn’t sound like Australia lags China much for travel restrictions at this point. Until the political climate of those nations changes dramatically for the better, I couldn’t be bothered touring either one.
Your whining and complaining about entry requirements to Australia are what can best be described as a SECURE BORDER.
You MAGA morons are constantly whining about the “insecure border” in this country, but when another country actually implements a SECURE BORDER policy that works, you whine about that because it is an affront to your privacy.
Australia has a SECURE BORDER policy that you demand of this country.
Can’t you understand the contradiction in your complaints.
It seems that you want a high security border policy for foreigners entering the USA, but you think that such security policies in other countries are an affront. You don’t seem to realize that as far as Australia is concerned you are a foreigner. Americans seem to think that they have an absolute right to enter other countries without security precautions.
All you ever do is whine and complain. It has become a way of life for the MAGA cult to whine and complain about anything and everything. It has become a default position to complain about everything and you are totally oblivious to the fact that you are always contradicting yourselves.
I am an Aussie by the way.
“I am an Aussie by the way.”
Wow, Oliver Reed, I thought you claimed to be a Brit…
How quickly we forgot Mary Poppins and the Disinformation Board in the US. Now she’s running The American Sunlight Project. Your always one vote away from tyranny.
Once again, the face of censorship is female. I suspect there is a difference of opinion between the sexes on the desirability of government censorship.
Not for this broad! Government censorship is evil. Only tyrannical governments censor their citizens, and/or enable others to do so.
All this censorship legislation is a direct result of COVID 19 restrictions, which can be regarded as an obedience marker for a country or people. Europe, Australia, and New Zealand passed the test as “highly obedient” people. Of course, China, the masters of compelling obedience, led the way. Their leaders recognized they could make any laws whatever and expect obedience, and now they legislating censorship. Expect more restrictive laws to come.
Which is weird because it is obvious that all the covid restriction FAILED that wee would have been better off to do NOTHING
John Say,
I think that is the driving force behind all these calls for censorship. All their decisions they made during COVID were wrong. Their experts were wrong. They have lost the trust of the people and that has them in a panic. Trust in MSM is at an all time low. People are getting real news from alternative media, which the government does not control. They are desperate as their grip on power continues to slip. They need censorship powers to silence all those who would question them.
“I think that is the driving force behind all these calls for censorship. All their decisions they made during COVID were wrong.”
Respectfully disagree. I don’t think the wannabe dictators cared one bit about whether the mandates they issued were ineffective, or downright destructive; I am not even convinced that they didn’t know the true nature of most or all of them at the time they were issued. The main purpose of the COVID edicts were about controlling minds, not disease, and the failure to completely achieve that objective has stimulated the thugs to go back to the drawing board and try again, this time using the tactic of clamping down on all speech, rather than specific selected behavior.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
(A good and appreciative smile from me.)
Two things can both be true.
The elites expected Covid to be a victory for them – not because their policies would work, but because they KNEW that Covid would pass and the hope and expectation is that they could do a bunch of totalitarian things and then later claim to have saved the world.
Today, here and now – there are LOTS of those on the left who despite the evidence beleive exactly that.
Regardless I agree the response to Covid by those in power was NOT to beat Covid. It was to use it gain power.
WE saw much the same thing post 9/11 with overlapping players.
As Rahm Emanuel said – never let an emergency go to waste.
That said – outside the left wing bubble all of this FAILED.
Peak woke was 2020. The left is NOT ceding power without a fight – so the destruction of the woke left will be painful and likely involve violence, as well as acts of desparation. But for this cycle the outcome is predetermined.
Upstate doubles down again.
They’re not desperate, or in a panic.
They’re clamping down. Part of the plan.
Two things can be true at the same time.
They are desperate,
they are clamping down.
It is their plan to gain and hold power by any means necescary
That does not mean things are going according to plan,
only that plans change.
USF – agreed.
The left is desperate. While it is easy to fall into despair – the left IS failing, Not every time with every attempt, but often enough that the trend is against them.
Peter Thiel believes we hit Peak Woke in 2020 – and I think he is right.
That does not mean that we have not seen WORSE efforts since – just that those are signs of desperation.
The left is red pilling people across the world left and right.
We live in dangerous times for many reasons. Trump did an excellent job as president of moderating those dangers.
Trumps claims that no new wars started under him is important in many ways – not just that Every President after Ford has started some new global conflict.
The messes in Israel and Ukraine were AVOIDABLE.
Russia, China, Iran are for different reasons failing states. They are unlikely to last much longer.
But failing states are incredibly dangerous. Each of them is going to implode in the next decade.
The US needs to both prepare for that implosion, and to prepare to deal with acts of desparation as those nations come closer to failure.
Biden/Harris not merely failed at that with respect to Russia and Iran but they actively provoked bad conduct.
There is no guarantee that everything will go well under Trump. But it is certaint hat Trump makes better decisions than Biden/Harris. In fact it is certaint hat Trump makes better decions than NeoCons like the Chenney’s or Bolton.
That he makes better decsions that “The Generals”. Some – not all of these are well intentioned people.
But that does not matter – ideologically or otherwise they make dangerous decisions.
With the fall of the USSR the US should have been seeking to get Russia into Europe/the west.
Instead our “deep state”
did everything in its power to preserve the cold war great powers conflict – to sustain their own power rather than the interests of the nation or the world.
We do not have a good name for Trump[‘s foreign policy -t is NOT the isolationism of pre Eisenhower Republicans.
It is not NeoCon. It is an engaged foreign policy that puts America first and seeks to avoid war through shows of strength and good decisions. It also seeks to get the rest of the world to do their share of providing for their own and the defense of the world.
Regardless, I think this election is already over and that Trump will win it handily. Both in the Electoral college and the popular vote. I think there will be SOME of the fraud that occured in 2020 (and 2022) – it is going to take a long time to return to trustworthy elections, but fraud on the scale necescary to defeat Trump in 2024 is not possible without being obvious, and nothing would be more damaging to the left than getting caught red handed.
My concern about Trump is that he will NOT do a good enough job of cleaning house. That he will NOT destroy the federal censorship regime.
But lets say I am wrong and Harris wins. Do you expect 4 years of Harris to go any better than 4 years of Biden ?
Trump won in 2016 because voters rejected 4 more years of Obama. While there are always lots of factors – that is the major theme. Obama was the worst US president prior to Biden. Now he almost looks good.
I am not sure the democratic party will survive 4 more years if Harris is elected.
Sometimes the God’s punish us by giving us what we want. Biden was a punishment to democrats for failing to realize why Hillary lost.
Democrats are busy trying to concoct a winning coalition of the far left in the US – with independents by terrifying them of a far right boggie man. That only goes so far.
The tyrants do not view that as a failure. For the most part, Americans acted like sheep and obeyed. The tyrants won. We can expect more and we only have ourselves to blame.