Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent remarks of former Secretary of State John Kerry to the World Economic Forum, the latest in an array of powerful American politicians warning about the dangers of free speech and calling for government controls. He joins his fellow former Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton in reaching out to the global elite for help in censoring their fellow Americans.
Here is the column:
If you want to know how hostile the global elite are to free speech, look no further than John Kerry’s recent speech to the World Economic Forum.
Rather than extol the benefits of democratic liberty versus dictatorships and oligarchs, Kerry called the First Amendment a “major block” to keeping people from believing the “wrong” things.
The former secretary of state and aide to the Biden-Harris administration told the sympathetic audience:
“You know, there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.
“So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”
Free rein on social media
The “freedom” to be won in this election is to liberate officials who like himself can set about controlling what can be said, read or heard. Kerry insisted that the problem with social media is that no one is controlling what they can say or read.
“The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue,” he said.
“It’s really hard to govern today. The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.”
Kerry continued: “Democracies around the world now are struggling with the absence of a sort of truth arbiter, and there’s no one who defines what facts really are.”
It is not clear when in our history we allowed “referees” to “determine what is a fact.”
Since the First Amendment has been in place since 1791, it is hard to imagine when referees were used in conformity with our Constitution.
The Founders would have been repulsed by the idea of a “truth arbiter.”
Yet it was a pitch that clearly went over big with the crowd at the World Economic Forum.
Located in Geneva, Switzerland, it is funded by over 1,000 member companies around the world. It is the perfect body for the selection of our new governing “arbiters.”
The greatest irony was that, after fearmongering about this supposed parade of horribles that comes from free speech, Kerry insisted, “If we could strip away some of the fearmongering that’s taking place and get down to the realities of what’s here for people, this is the biggest economic opportunity.”
It was like Ed Wood denouncing cheesy jump scares in horror movies.
Kerry is only the latest Democratic leader or pundit to denounce the First Amendment.
In my book on free speech, I discuss the growing anti-free speech movement being led by law professors and supported by both politicians and journalists.
They include Michigan law professor and MSNBC commentator Barbara McQuade, who has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”
Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, wrote an op-ed declaring “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.”
He explained that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”
‘Will we break the fever?’
Kerry hit all of the top talking points for the anti-free speech movement.
He portrayed the First Amendment as hopelessly out of date and dangerous.
He argued that citizens would be far better off if an elite could tell them what was information and what was disinformation.
Other political contemporaries are working on the same problem.
Hillary Clinton has called upon Europeans to use the Digital Services Act to force the censoring of Americans.
She has also suggested the arrest of Americans who she views as spreading disinformation.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D.-Mass.) has called for companies like Amazon to use enlightened algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices.
Kerry explained how the true heroes are those poor suffering government officials seeking to protect citizens from unbridled, unregulated thoughts:
“I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough or big enough to deal with the challenges they are facing, and to me, that is part of what this election is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?”
The “fever” of free speech is undeniably hard to break. You have to convince a free people to give up part of their freedom. To do so, they have to be very angry or very afraid.
There is, of course, another possibility: that there is no existential danger of disinformation.
Rather there are powerful figures who want to control speech in the world for their own purposes.
These are the same rationales and the same voices that have been throughout our history for censorship.
Give me liberty
Each generation of government officials insists that they face some unprecedented threat, whether it was the printing press at the start of our republic or social media in this century.
Only the solution remains the same: to hand over control of what we read or hear to a governing elite like Kerry.
In 1860, Frederick Douglass gave a “Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” and warned them that all of their struggles meant nothing if the “freedom of speech is struck down” because “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.”
Douglass denounced those seeking to deny or limit free speech as making their “freedom a mockery.”
Of course, Douglass knew nothing of social media and he certainly never met the likes of John Kerry.
However, if we embrace our new arbiters of truth we deserve to be mocked as a people who held true freedom only to surrender it to a governing elite.
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.”
It’s not that Kerry and his ilk want to keep people from believing the “wrong things’, but that they want people to believe only their things. It must be remembered that what illiberal progressives say is not what they mean.
The Progressive Movement has spent its entire existence making people increasingly dependent on government. They have succeeded so profoundly that people have become almost completely hapless. So ill-fated that they now must depend on government to tell them what to believe.
Dear Mr. Turley, I did not see anything at all regarding this speech on any social media platform. The media is so wrapped up in Mr. Trump that they miss very important speeches like the one mentioned here. I wrote John Kerry off years ago when he threw away his medals from the Viet Nam War. Then again as “Climate Czar”. He flies around the world in a private jet to preach to us poor souls who are destroying the planet. He does this without any shame although he is contributing to “Climate Change” in far greater measures than the people he preaches to.
We remember how John Kerry spent the four years of Trump’s presidency as an American agent for Iran’s ayatolla and mullah’s, helping them to best avoid, mitigate, and survive Trump’s handcuffs of sanctions and shutting down the money stream they were using to fund the IRG helping the Taliban kill American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, fund global Islamic terrorism, and develop a nuclear weapon. Just as he had eagerly helped Obama empower and fund the ayatollah and mullahs do that before Trump unexpectedly got elected and ended that.
Democrats and their compliant media gave Kerry protection for working against America’s national security and interests with “nothing to see here” and said it was just valid “shadow diplomacy”.
Certainly none of them called it a clear FARA felony while working as an agent for a foreign nation. O suggested (as Biden did about Republicans in a White House meeting with the FBI) that it was a Logan Act felony that should be prosecuted.
Kerry has always been eager to help Iran continue not only murdering American citizens through terrorism, but also help Iran to continue killing American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Because that’s how veterans like Kerry and Tim Walz show Americans they’re patriots: supporting Democrat administrations that appease Iran and allow it to attack and kill Americans.
100% agreed with Kerry.
And we can see with this latest Turley push piece, combined with JD Vance’s schtick in the debate the other night, that the right will be hanging their hat on ‘free speech’ as their weapon of obfuscation in the remaining month of campaigning. All while pushing censorship and book banning from their corner….
Tough time to be the absolute rulers in the hypocrisy realm….
Time to talk about Jack Smith’s brief and how it will force the SCOTUS to maintain that the executive branch has the power to choose the next administration in order to keep putting its thumb on the scale for trump.
If the left quit attacking free speech the right couldn’t “hang their hat on it”
If the right weren’t mentally ill, and unable to understand reality, this wouldn’t even be a discussion. Thankfully, you have Turley and his well paid ilk to tell you what lies to believe.
“SCOTUS….putting its thumb on the scale for trump.” ??????
Yeah, I guess that’s why the Trump administration lost so many cases before the Court, especially the Dreamers case.
BTW, Both Trump and Obama have the worst “win” rates before SCOTUS.
“Win rates at the Supreme Court by president.” Sources: Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin Quinn.
Yes, let’s talk about Jack Smith’s novel re-write.
Lin,
So far, legal experts say Smiths case is nothing more than regurgitated word salad of his previous case. Apparently, what Democrats are claiming Trump did, they did in 2016.
Yes, let’s talk about Jack Smith’s novel re-write.
Lin, I remain totally amazed that NOBODY talks about Jack Smith’s record of police state fascist lawfare from the 2012 Obama/Biden re-election campaign. No mention of the damning SCOTUS decision that unanimously threw out Smith’s conviction of Governor Bob McDonnell, a unanimous decision where they took the rare step of naming him “a threat to our separation of powers”.
No mention of that, despite the fact that his current “investigation” and prosecution of Trump is an almost carbon copy of how he took out Governor McDonnell when he was the most dangerous threat to an Obama/Biden reelection.
No mention that at the same time Jack Smith advised Louis Lerner of the IRS that she could shut down GOP get-out-the-vote groups for the duration of the election campaign for “investigation”.
After safely reelected, Obama said “sorry about that, didn’t know anything about it” to Governor McDonnell, leaving him asking “Where do I go to get my reputation and career back?” And Obama’s new DoJ happily doled out at least $16 million taxpayer dollars in punitive damages to multiple GOP groups for violating their First Amendment rights.
Turley never brings that up, even when he features Jack Smith in one of his columns. And certainly the Mainstream Media ignores his history as well (as though they aren’t aware of it).
Jack Smith’s past history of waging lawfare in the service of Democrat presidents facing reelection challenges isn’t relevant in this election?
Truly “nothing to see here in his previous record during the 2012 election campaign; move on”? The only question is if he was properly appointed?
There’s no relevancy on whether a Special Counsel should appear to most Americans to have no ties to the current administration or it’s DoJ? Lisa Monaco, Biden’s Assistant Attorney General, worked with Jack Smith when they prosecuted and convicted Governor McDonnell in the 2012 election campaign. She is probably the one who selected her partner in that prosecution to be named Special Counsel to go after Trump as Biden’s most dangerous GOP opponent in this election.
No relevancy as to whether Americans should get Special Counsels whose records speaks of being free of biases, prejudices, or prosecutions that courts have said are rotten to the core?
If we accept that Jack Smith meets any rational standard for Special Counsel, whether how he was appointed or whether his record shows that he’s the best choice from the tens of thousands of federal prosecutors available to choose from, we pretty much deserve the police state fascism we get as a result of that.
And we can see with this latest Turley push piece, combined with JD Vance’s schtick in the debate the other night
It appears another fan of Stolen Valor Command Sergeant Major Walz is still deep in the throes of a massive Midol Moment after Walz flamed in a couple of days ago.
Despite the assistance of two fellow Democrat “moderators” looking after him like the caretakers for one of Jerry’s Kids.
@Anonymi
I’m sure you do, Comrade. 🙄 Thankfully the rest of us still possess a shred of sanity.
Then Senator John Kerry was guest speaker at the University of Florida during the “Don’t Tase Me Bro” incident.
While the student was being tased, Senator Kerry asked if his reply was sufficient.
Jonathan: It looks like you will do anything to avoid discussing the bombshell that landed on Judge Chutkan’s docket yesterday. It is Jack Smith’s 165-page superseding indictment which lays out ALL his evidence charging DJT with crimes in connection with his attempts to overturn the 2020 election to remain in power. Why would Chutkan put Smith’s filing on her docket?
It was compelled by the SC’s “immunity” decision. On remand Chutkan is charged with determining what acts by DJT were “official acts”, that get absolute immunity, which acts are entitled to presumptive immunity but can be rebutted, and those that were private acts that are not covered by presidential immunity. Smith’s filing sets out in minute detail all his evidence showing that almost all of DJT acts to overturn the election were “private acts” not entitled to immunity.
In pretrial motions DJT and his attorneys were desperate to prevent Smith from filing his redacted indictment on the docket because they claimed it would amount to “election interference”. Chutkan denied their motions. I encourage everyone to read the redacted filing because it sets out in minute the evidence that shows all of DJT’s desperate illegal efforts to overturn the 2020 election–leading up to the J.6 insurrection. A lot of what is in Smith’s filing was not part of the J. 6 House Committee report. In the opening of his filing Smith asserts: “When the defendant lost the 2020 election presidential election, he resorted to crimes to stay in office. with private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in several states that he had lost”.
So now the genie is out of the bottle. For the next month, right up to election day, the press will be covering every day of Judge Chutkan’s proceedings–analyzing every bit of evidence against DJT to inform voters in making their decisions. This is DJT worst nightmare as he falls behind in the polls. Already today the WP has a long headline article titled “As rioters stormed the Capitol with Pence inside, Trump allegedly said ‘So what?'” We’ll see a lot more of this in the coming weeks.
DJT mistakenly thought with the SC “immunity” decision in his back pocket he could prevent disclosure of his crimes before election day. Now that’s impossible in Judge Chutkan’s courtroom. In the following “mini-trials” Smith will lay out all of his evidence so Chutkan can make her determinations based on the guidance by the SC. I’m sure DJT is now asking his lawyers: “How did you let this happen?!
Anything? So dismantling the FIRST AMENDMENT is him doing “anything” to avoid talking about another pinheaded attempt to try to keep the best candidate in the race from winning?
The FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITION, is a little more important than you people crapping your pants over 4 more years of Trump.
Seems like you Dennis McIntyre, …fake name that we all know it is, ….seems like YOU will do “anything” to avoid addressing your parties treasonous attack on the people and the very FIRST Amendment in our precious Bill of Rights.
I’m sorry for the obvious accident that left you like this.
Parents sue school district for banning silent protest of transgender sports policy at games
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/parents-sue-school-district-banning-silent-protest-transgender-sports-policy
Melania Trump defends abortion rights in memoir coming out on Tuesday
“Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes,” she wrote
Whether she’s working in the local supermarket, raising her kids next door, or a president’s wife (or husband), she gets to have her opinions on abortion and I have a right to mine.
If she claims the right to end another human life right up to the moment of birth, she has that right. If she says “well no, not quite that far along, that’s not what I mean”, then it isn’t a fundamental right of individual liberty, she/he says they agree the unlimited right to kill an unborn child with an elective abortion ends at some point and citizens can pass laws on when it ends.
Beyond that, I don’t know whether to laugh or weep at “the party of science” saying an unborn child with it’s own unique DNA, unique fingerprints, unique heartbeat and brainwaves is just one more part of that woman’s body, like an unwanted skin blemish that they want equally elective surgery to excise.
And if it’s about “reproductive rights” (odd descriptive word to choose when elective birth control abortions are the opposite), then I want to know where I can go to read what men’s “reproductive rights” are.
Smart or stupid, people are more than capable of coming to positions they cannot defend with logic. This pro-elective birth control abortion stance is one where their proclamations don’t stand scrutiny. I don’t know when life can be deemed to have began, and as an agnostic rather than a Muslim, Jew, or Christian, I don’t have a religious basis for deciding that.
I’m not going to pass judgement on her either or against on the basis of one opinion – and like the vast majority of people, I’ve never met her or had any interactions with what she did either before or after going to the White House.
Ivanka Trump distributes hot meals, supplies and Starlinks to families in NC after Hurricane Helene
https://justthenews.com/government/local/ivanka-trump-distributes-hot-meals-supplies-and-starlinks-families-nc-after
IG Audit: Biden-Harris’ Homeland Security Dept Is A Mess
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_ffcd39a6-80f9-11ef-ada1-539190c706c0.html
Jonathan: It looks like you will do anything to avoid discussing the bombshell that landed on Judge Chutkan’s docket yesterday.
Dennis, you will do anything to deflect and support your fellow police state fascist, Jack Smith that SCOTUS, unanimously, ruled is “a threat to our separation of powers” throwing out his prosecution and conviction of the Republican then threatening the Obama/Biden reelection just 12 years ago.
McDONNELL v. UNITED STATES 792 F. 3d 478
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-474
That’s your police state fascist version of a “bombshell”? Smith’s carbon copy prosecution of Trump, doing the exact same thing he did to McDonnell in 2012 to help Obama get reelected?
Dennis, why are you lying to your good friend Jonathan about the Chutkin/Smith partnership “bombshell”, while Border Czar Harris can’t explain why she’s spent BILLIONS on criminal Illegal Aliens and FEMA only has $750 million to spend on the tens of thousands of Americans devastated by this
“You’re too honest” — Pres. Donald Trump to VP Mike Pence, as Pence shot down Trump’s idea to call the election in Trump’s favor during the J6 Joint Session.
This sums up the moral crisis the United States has entered, where battling partisans have put winning above moral considerations constraining fair competition. Trump’s definition of a free and fair election appeals to the ultimate solipsism — “only one that I win”.
Moralism fell into intense questioning in the 1960s, much of it deserving. The moral code embedded some very serious defects leaning toward unaccounable authority: protecting pedophile priests and other sexual predators in advantaged positions, racial discrimination, holding down women’s ambitions, abject irresponsibility of the Vietnam War’s DOD managers, and others.
Like most societal change, that led to overcorrection. The least ethical took advantage of the loosening of moral strictures, whether sex slavers, drug cartels, immigrant smugglers, birth tourism operators, tobacco interests, opiate drug vendors, environmental polluters. While politicians have always bent the truth to their advantage, at this point, total fabrications for political gain are no longer considered beyond the pale — in fact, legal experts like Turley defend the right to deceive if the liar’s objective is to political effect. That is a shocking renunciation of public morality.
Our Founders were astute realists…they understood that the Constitution and system of law couldn’t by itself guarantee endurance of a free society. That reward would only continue flowing from a culture of moral rectitude, since so many dimensions of freedom carry with them responsibilities. Take away the responsibilities, and those freedoms turn to decadence, hedonism and a multitude of oppressions.
With this election, we have two candidates (and campaigns) who view total authenticity as weakness, and manipulation of public opinion as strength. Whichever one is elected, the American system will be tested to the core — will amorality achieve its final victory? Just to be electing a President who is lying through their teeth is a sickening thought.
The consent of the governed obtained through trickery and deceit is no consent at all — yet the next President will bombastically claim to have obtained it (while pushing through policies lacking public consensus).
Please tell me what Trump is offering as POTUS that he is tricking me about? Will I lose my Constitutional rights under Trump? if the dnc-ccp candidate is sworn in, how much of the oath, if even taken at that point, will it uphold? It is telling you it won’t uphold it. Which one is lying?
pbinca is either a verified Useful Idiot, or instead, a sentient Trump hating Democrat apparatchik. There is no other option.
The only name that popped into his head leading to his word salad about ‘moral crisis’ with elections was Trump’s rejection of the 2020 election results. Fairest election we’ve ever had, leading to the most transparent administration ever!
Not any of the elections prior to Trump where Democrats rejected the results. Not Democrats flooding to the courts and demanding electors give their votes to Gore because Bush didn’t actually win.
Certainly not Trump’s 2016 election that Clinton and others claimed was Russia fixing the election. pbinca’s finely tuned senses didn’t see any moral crisis in Democrats rejecting those election results. Or he only became sentient enough to recognize the ‘moral crisis’ after Trump rejected the election results.
After all, there was no such ‘moral crisis just two years earlier in 2018 when Stacy Abrams claimed the Georgia governorship was stolen from her in 2018, two years earlier by white racists.
And certainly not back in 2012 when Obama/Biden first dispatching Jack Smith to take out their most feared challenger for reelection, nor their illegally written (and “leaked”) Russia Dossier in 2016.
It’s just Trump, you see, that is the core of pbinca’s word salad about our moral compass. pbinca has never seen that from a single Democrat he happily voted for long before Trump, and ever since Trump. And will for the rest of his totalitarian Democrat fascist life. As long as pbinca doesn’t see himself as personally suffering from what the Democrats he votes for deliver, he’s all good with what he calls a moral crisis.
pbinca is yet another Democrat Cheap Fake American… insulting us with his attempts to cosplay as being a fair minded commentator who consistently applies his morals and standards to all. I prefer the Dennis McIntyres who don’t pretend to be anything other than the totalitarian Marxist liars that they are. At least Dennis is more honest about what he is than bpinca.
* What shoots that argument to Hell is the winner can ask for an authorization of laws were followed, residences checked, identities checked, and more as complete transparency without fear of LOSING. A person authentically interested in free and fair elections is FREE to do so. Biden did not.
pbinca… putting his tunnel vision sophistry on display: This sums up the moral crisis the United States has entered, where battling partisans have put winning above moral considerations constraining fair competition. Trump’s definition of a free and fair election appeals to the ultimate solipsism — “only one that I win”.
That the best BBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!! you have for today?
Or you’re so young you forget your fellow Democrats raging about MULTIPLE elections won by Republicans long before Trump ran for office. No moral crisis then, before Trump? Or after Trump?
The only name that came to mind was Trump. And of course, the J6 Committee that is just as impartial and fair minded as you!
You’re so young that you have forgotten that Obama and Biden sent Jack Smith out to take out the potential GOP nominee they feared most, Governor Bob McDonnell? So young that after Smith convicted McDonnell and Obama won against the much weaker Romney, SCOTUS threw out the convictions and called Jack Smith “a threat to our separation of powers”. You claim you aren’t aware of that, pbinca?
No moral crisis then, four years before Trump, pbinca?
Surely you’re old enough to remember the 2016 Clinton/Obama/Biden/DNC “Russia Dossier” after Trump became the nominee – illegally written and paid for, and then Obama Attorney Generals and FBI Directors dispatched to perjure themselves to FISA courts for spy warrants, with “leaks” to media that there was proof Trump was a Russian stooge.
No felonies there, pbinca? No moral crisis, pbinca?
Only Trump you say – the only name and the only election that comes into your Kalifornia Democrat mind? Too young, our just too narrow minded bigoted?
How long have you been attempting to convince yourself that you’re an impartial commenter that applies the same standards to all despite political party? You aren’t convincing us.
You remind me of Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer telling Americans “nobody is above the law” – while they had been concealing the criminality of the Bidens and their apparatchiks for years.
Perhaps Kerry is so motivated to control information because it has taken him years to live down the anger rallied against him by his fellow Swift Boat veterans serving in Vietnam, who disagreed with his recollection of events (Kerry lost his bid to become the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee):
(apologies in advance for the length herein, but these are quotes from persons who knew/know John Kerry.
“During [] Kerry’s tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families…Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you’d hear is ‘requires constant supervision.'”— Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
“…If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, ‘war crimes,’ he was obligated to report them. -That he did not, until later when it suited his political purposes, strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief.” — Jeffrey Wainscott
“We look at Vietnam… after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry’s legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry’s using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions.”— Barnard Wolff
“Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don’t intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less.”— Andrew Horne
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swift-justice/
And this doesn’t even touch upon the voluminous feedback from fellow veterans (mostly from veterans who received serious injuries) regarding Kerry’s questionable receipt of three military medals.
Turley has been pushing the “anti-free speech” narrative for the wrong reasons. His supposed expertise in free speech gives him the authority to declare that holding anyone accountable for what they say is anti-free speech, which is absurd.
Kerry is not arguing for curbing free speech. Instead, he is highlighting the need to address a specific problem, particularly concerning the impact of social media on public discourse. The rapid and widespread influence of social media platforms has raised concerns about the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and the polarization of public opinion. Kerry’s focus is on finding ways to mitigate these negative effects while upholding the principles of free speech and open dialogue.
Free speech is a fundamental right, but it’s important to remember that it does have its limits. Despite what Turley may want to imply, the professor has consistently emphasized the importance of civility in exercising free speech. This call for civility can be seen as a form of moderation, ensuring that discourse remains respectful and constructive. In any debate or discussion, there are standards and rules in place to prevent the spread of misinformation. Fact-checking and challenging assertions or claims are crucial for holding individuals accountable for spreading false information. Turley claims this is censorship. These measures help maintain the integrity of public discourse and ensure that information is accurate and reliable. Turley falsely portrays accountability for intentional spread of falsehoods as censorship. It’s important to hold those individuals responsible for their actions.
Exercising the right to free speech also entails acknowledging the responsibility for the impact of words on others. It’s equivalent to asserting the right to shoot a gun indiscriminately without being held accountable for where the bullets land or whom they injure. Turley’s argument is akin to saying, ‘I merely pulled the trigger; I cannot be held responsible for the bullet’s trajectory after it leaves the barrel.’ He contends that labeling the act of pulling the trigger as censorship is a direct assault on free speech, disregarding the potential harm and recklessness it may bring about. Kerry is insisting that even gun owners should be held accountable for pulling the trigger. Turley argues that there is no need to acknowledge who pulled the trigger when everyone is pointing it out because pointing it out is censorship and anti-free speech.
George says, “His [Turley’s] supposed expertise in free speech gives him the authority to….”
Please tell us about your own expertise in free speech which informs of your authority to denounce him everyday.
I respectfully wait with bated/baited breath.
My expertise isn’t “I’m a well paid right wing media shill who has consistently tanked GWs Law School rank since I got tenure” so I’m one up on Turley…
Ahhhh. Now we have a motive for the sour grapes over Turley’s success….
It can be argued that Turley may not be considered an authoritative expert on free speech based on the content of his articles. He claims he is not a free speech absolutist, but his articles and views say otherwise.
Just as with my gun owner analogy, Turley is essentially arguing that it amounts to censorship when we highlight the potential harm caused by a gun owner shooting indiscriminately.It’s troubling to see how the focus seems to be solely on the gun owner’s right to bear arms, while the responsibility of pulling the trigger is often overlooked. Any effort to hold a gun owner responsible for their actions is quickly dismissed as ‘anti-free speech’ or ‘censorship’. He labels those who seek accountability and responsiblity anti-free speech advocates and calling for censorship and I believe he is wrong.
Turley’s argument extends beyond public officials to include private entities, such as social media platforms. He claims that these entities should not be in the business of determining what is true or false. There are no laws prohibiting them from doing so, and certainly, the constitution does not prevent them from doing so. Public officials advocating for increased moderation or challenging misinformation are not acting unconstitutionally or against free speech. They are entitled to their opinions and to express their views just like everyone else. Turley’s assertion that such actions amount to censorship and anti-free speech is erroneous.
Holding others accountable is not censorship or anti-free speech; it is, in fact, a demonstration of free speech. He criticizes private companies for ranking his blog based on their own criteria, claiming that this amounts to censorship and forces self-censorship. The contention is that companies of this nature should be subject to regulation due to their dissemination of negative content about conservative platforms or spreading of false information, which adversely affects conservative-leaning websites. While these companies are within their rights to exercise free speech, his criticism is directed at the influence they exert on conservative platforms, giving him the excuse to call for heightened governmental scrutiny of said companies. This illustrates a clear contradiction of Turley’s stance, revealing that his arguments on free speech are rooted in political expediency rather than steadfast principle.
well, as expected, you wrote seven or eight long paragraphs without once, as requested, explaining or even mentioning the basis for your “expertise” in free speech, georgie.
When did I ever say I was an expert on free speech? I posted my opinion about Turley’s article and why I think he is wrong about his assertions. It’s okay to criticize Turley’s superficial expertise. When he contradicts himself in the most disingenuous ways, it’s especially noticeable.
did you know the word “disingenuous” before you ever visited this blog site and were impressed, before incorporating it into your own index-card file box of words you like to use on a daily basis?
To further support my point, let’s recall Turley’s article on NewsGuard. He was highly critical of their methods and claims, labeling it as “white listing” or “black listing” conservative sites based on credibility, honesty, and other criteria. He expressed concern about the emphasis on conservative sites and how they were ranked for credibility and relevance, likening it to censorship. Turley highlighted how ranking sites like his could discourage people from visiting them.
He pointed out that in his book he offered several ‘reforms’, legislation to regulate or ‘correct’ the problem.
“This is why my book calls for a number of reforms, including barring federal funds for groups engaged in censoring, rating or blacklisting sites.
NewsGuard shows that such legislation cannot come soon enough.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4795501-newsguard-censorship-conservative-speech/amp/
He was unequivocally in favor of government regulation and scrutiny in such companies, as he believed they were misusing their right to free speech to manipulate rankings and make unsubstantiated claims about conservative sites based on their own criteria. Which is comparable to what he’s accusing Kerry of doing. Turley wanted to hold these ranking companies accountable for being biased against conservative sites. According to his own principles, they absolutely shouldn’t be, as it constitutes censorship and goes against free speech.
Wrong again george. What Turley proposes is EXPOSING the ulterior intentions of those who were “blacklisting” or censoring sites. As in, “barring” funds for those who claim impartiality but in reality aim to suppress counter-information that questions their agenda. Can you expand your brain to understand context, george?
It doesn’t matter what ulterior motives are. What matters is that Turley is against the notion of them judging conservative websites or downgrade their credibility based on a single government grant or some link to some unrelated government program. They are exercising their free speech rights. He argues that such actions constitute censorship because they dissuade others from visiting or taking conservative websites seriously.
Calling for the withholding of funds because they express anti-conservative views is essentially advocating for censorship through financial means. Not only is this a call to cut off funds, but it also involves proposing legislation to regulate these companies or to rank them in a way that is more favorable to conservative websites. This essentially amounts to advocating for the regulation of private companies’ speech.
Private companies have the freedom to express their opinions and viewpoints. They are not obligated to be impartial or objective. They can openly criticize conservative sites and discourage their visitation. Merely receiving a one-time government grant for a different purpose does not bind them to uphold free speech principles. Turley’s portrayal of NewsGuard as censoring conservative sites is a mischaracterization. He is using the ‘government involvement’ as a pretext to undermine a private company’s right to express its views on conservative sites or assign them lower rankings.
“Suppressing counter-information” is simply another way of promoting “more speech,” according to Turley. Presenting alternative information and allowing individuals to decide its credibility is the true essence of exercising free speech. This is exactly what Turley consistently supports.
your comments are so vacuous, don’t you think it would be important to understand, george, what premises, and on what basis the “funds” were granted? We doubt very much that the funds were granted to an entity whose purpose was to focus on the quashing and discrediting of conservative websites. Do you get it?
George, you seem to not understand the concept of free speech at all.
There is no person fit to tell me, or to control in any way, what I may or may not say, think, write, or read.
Any who presume to do so, well, I will hate them and I will say so because hate speech, as you call it, is my right.
LOL, so you’re voting for the guy threatening to suspend the Constitution and prosecute Google…Whose party bans books by the trunkful.
Context Fishdip context
The fact you have a trunkful of kiddie porn that no one, except you and your degenerate ilk, wants in elementary schools does not constitute a ban on those books. Rest assured you will be availed to all the kiddie porn you are under the biden-harris administration, you simply need to leave the elementary schools, if you can, to get it.
Suspending the Constitution – like habeas corpus? Or infringing on it, like gun registries and scary gun bans? How about government censorship and the 1st? You could care less as long as degeneracy reigns. ROT degenerate, we have work to do and your wanking habits are not germane.
Oldfish,
“There is no person fit to tell me, or to control in any way, what I may or may not say, think, write, or read.”
You are missing the concept of free speech, and so is Turley. Free speech means that others will express their opinions on how to control what you say, write, or read and that is also exercising free speech. They have the right and freedom to express their views, but that doesn’t mean they can force you to comply. It’s important to understand that just because someone says something you disagree with or dislike, it doesn’t make them anti-free speech. Turley seems to turn the concept of freedom of speech on its head by labeling calls for accountability or statements such as “people should not be reading or saying things that are not true, hateful, or telling others how to think” as anti-free speech.
It would be like saying that Turley accusing others of being anti-free speech is an act of anti-free speech.
Thank you for displaying the useful idiot rationale for our own subjugation.
Exercising the right to free speech also entails acknowledging the responsibility for the impact of words on others.
George didn’t say that while denying that the words of Bernie Sanders and Obama would impact others while they were claiming that Trump repealing Obamacare would kill people. Especially after one of their campaign workers attempted the mass murder of Republican House members, and died in the resulting shootout screaming that those Republicans were going to kill people.
George didn’t say that after Obama’s lectures on how cops were systemically racist and hunting young black men resulted in a BLM/Black Panthers member murdered five Dallas police officers from ambush. Also died screaming the words of Obama that cops were racist killers and he wanted them all to die.
And George and his partners in the Mainstream Media didn’t say that after TWO failed murder attempts against Trump in the last couple of months. Instead, it was Trump’s words that were to blame (apparently he’s been calling himself literally Hitler, a threat to democracy, etc for years).
But now… now George wants to try throwing more vacuous word salad against the wall in hopes that some of it might stick to defense of his fellow fascist John Kerry. Word salad of the quality that would make Harris envious.
And in that George Word Salad, George wants us to believe that he can explain and interprete what Turley is ACTUALLY saying. Because according to George, Turley is incapable of doing that for himself in what he wrote.
Kerry is George’s hero, and thus he must come to the defense of his fellow police state fascist, John Kerry.
Perhaps the best argument against having the “elite” make decisions on our behalf allegedly for our own good is that they don’t have the intellect to make those kind of decisions. Not one of those making the pitch for asking for the power to censor and shut down dissent has a record that isn’t littered by both horrible decisions and outright lies.
Those advocating this aren’t people with the intellectual capabilities of a Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Victor David Hanson, Dr. Walter Williams, etc. These totalitarian “elite” (many of whom are self-appointed) are mental midgets compared to individuals like these. The other trait these actual demonstrated intellectuals share is that all of have argued the opposite. They are unequivocally opposed to government being given any kind of power to make decisions for citizens’ own good on what you can say, hear, read, what you can buy, etc .
The handsome appearance of their flag bearers for party control of the citizenry, a young Obama or a Kerry, is only skin deep while providing them an avenue for becoming millionaires – but their abject stupidity goes right to their core. They are smart enough, however, to ensure that they are shielded from the consequences of their decisions. The Kerrys and Obamas of the world would scream with outrage if told “You’re not allowed to say that”.
No republican or democratic country recognizes the idea that the likes of Kerry, or Schumer, or Pelosi, or Obama, or Clinton should be empowered to tell you what you can and cannot say, whether you can disagree, whether you condemn their words, policies and actions. And in order to do so, empower them to use the levers of power up to the point of armed employees of the state enforcing their edicts.
Why so many people in so many countries that can vote these people into power do so against their own self interest is something historians will perhaps one day write “After people knew the history of Germany, Venezuela, etc voting in those who became dictators and destroyed their country… we did it again. In America, the UK, etc.”
Old Airborn Dog: Nice comment.
Lin, I forgot to add that these same “elite” like Obama, Clinton, and Kerry would not only drop their guts in outrage if government used that power of censorship they demand to censor their speech. But their one way street demands go to other issues.
These are the same people pushing Global Warming and it’s regulations and spending down our throats that would scream in outrage if they were told they could no longer buy an indulgence for traveling the world for fun in opulent private jets, no longer confined to airline schedules and seats beside the common herd on those flights.
Just as they would be outraged if told they couldn’t buy indulgences to justify their multiple carbon spewing mansions that sit empty but always ready for them to show up at a moments notice.
It’s not just free speech where they demand the power to inflict restrictions on American taxpayers who have funded all of them living like royalty for much of their life. It’s so many other issues, whether it’s how big a “carbon footprint” they have the freedom to have, or whether they can handguns and other weapons (in the hands of others to do the dirty work of course) at their side to defend themselves from violent criminals where the police aren’t present. It’s a long list of what they want to inflict on the deplorables (for their own good, of course) while being shielded from the consequences of that would theoretically also be for their own good.
They ensure they’re ALWAYS protected from the consequences of what they demand the power to inflict on normal Americans.
John Kerry is a card carrying member of the Global Elite/Davos crowd, trying to act important as he Jets around talking about Green new deal, pollution and how to restrict freedoms. Soon he will pop up in the Middle East due to his friendship with some Iranians who he has negotiated with in the past. John Kerry is a fool. If Trump is elected he needs to audit Kerry’s office and what he did on behalf of Biden Admin in his negotiations on Global restrictions on pollution and his travel expenses????????
The only benefit of the dnc-ccp completely taking over will be watching Xi line-up those davos m’fers and mow them down.
“However, if we embrace our new arbiters of truth we deserve to be mocked as a people who held true freedom only to surrender it to a governing elite.”
Best line of the post. Thanks. Beyond frightening.
Someone woke john kerry up and Israel is getting bombed and censorship is accelerating – the only real surprise is that beto isn’t trying to claim the top kept man glory for the dems anymore.
Instead of going the censorship route, why don’t they compete with better ideas?
Imagine going to buy a product and when the salesperson fails to convince you to buy their product, you’re prevented from learning about and choosing a different option.
I approach everything from the security of rights first and government as a permanent threat to that security. I will never give them the benefit of the doubt.
OLLY,
Their ideas, policies, are all either bad or failures.
We are not buying what they are selling and that has them upset. That is why they are so desperate to censor any alternative to their failed narrative.
“Instead of going the censorship route, why don’t they compete with better ideas?”
Because what they consider better ideas are not what we consider better ideas. Censorship IS what they consider a good idea. I am just so shocked at how the country is fast going down the toilet. Never thought I’d see an authoritarian political elite like those of the Soviet era and 1930s Germany be so entrenched in America.
Danger, Will Robinson!
I think Matt Taibbi had the best idea: the government has a lot of taxpayer money….why don’t they hire the best PR firm in the country and let them espouse their policies, thoughts, ideas, etc to the public…who then could decide if what they are hearing is believalbe/true/worth listening to.
They have hired the best PR firm. Hollywood.
Besides the fact they already have PR (Propaganda) outlets doing just that, the public only needs to recognize the results of their policies, thoughts and ideas are absolute failures. The government would not need to censor if they had evidence to prove their policies actually work.
All Dunceocrats bosses hate free speech that doesn’t comport with their false narratives and lies.
All Dunceocrats are deranged, depraved, and degenerate.
John Kerry is a Dunceocrat boss.
The axiomatic conclusion is that John Kerry hates free speech and is deranged, depraved, and degenerate. The logic is ineluctible. (You Dunceocrats can look up that word.)
The most dangerous group of people to our constitution and the freedoms it offers but the more dangerous are those who believe and support them. Their ignorance blinds them to the fact that after all said and done they will be equally affected.
“It is not clear when in our history we allowed “referees” to “determine what is a fact.”” Actually professor, the collective ‘we’ did allow legacy media to ‘referee’ which facts they would relay to The People for all but the past generation or so of this country’s existence. ‘We’ trusted people like Cronkite and Brinkly because they stuck with ‘Just the facts,’ and nearly always kept their personal views to themselves while on the air. It’s only been recently that our collective eyes were open to other facts, ones that we weren’t allowed to see or hear due to legacy media’s near monopoly on what ‘they say’ and called ‘facts’.
Kerry and his friends, the rest of the oligarch-class, along with their underwear-sniffing media lapdogs, are being easily stifled by people who no longer believe what they say. Seems to me a better approach might be to first stop with their insufferable, “do as I say, not as a do” attitudes and try to ‘win’ by actually living their own lives and lifestyles in the same manner they wish to impose by force onto everyone who isn’t ‘them’. Leaders lead by example. Tyrants oppress because they really don’t know how to lead.
Denying ‘free speech’ is always the first step to every societies eventual demise. What Kerry and his ilk haven’t yet figured out is that ‘we’ know their endgame. ‘We’ simply disagree on willingly participating in our own demise and we have the means, by way of lots and lots of arms, to resist them should they choose to push The People too far. They know we know that – and THAT really irritates them the most.
JAFO,
Great comment.
IIRC, the late Senator Fienstein was caught on a hot mic complaining about if it were not for the Constitution being in their way, they could do as they pleased. Awww!
PS – Thank you Mr. Gore for inventing the internet. Without it we may have never known to what degree you’re willing to project your kind’s schmuck.
We’ trusted people like Cronkite and Brinkly because they stuck with ‘Just the facts,’ and nearly always kept their personal views to themselves while on the air. It’s only been recently that our collective eyes were open to other facts, ones that we weren’t allowed to see or hear due to legacy media’s near monopoly on what ‘they say’ and called ‘facts’.
Those of us who fled Communist govts distrusted the likes of Cronkite, Brinkly (sic), CBS, NBC, NYT, Miami Herald, et al. In our eyes they were all communist sympathizers, e.g. Walter Duranty saintly portrayal of Joseph Stalin, heroic stories of Mao Zedong, benevolent portrayal of Fidel Castro vis a vis “free education & medical health care”, etc
You have to know first hand, the boot of Communism on your back, the firing squads, unjust criminal charges and imprisonments, kangaroo courts, torturous prison sentences, the rationing of food, the nationalization of private businesses, censorship, atheism as a de facto religion, confiscating guns from the people, indoctrinating children,….the list is endless!, that the American news has always been sympathetic to Leftist propaganda. When South Africa was denounced vociferously for apartheid, political refugees from Communist govts collectively rolled their eyes because never was Communism rebuked so thunderously as South Africa. Now its Israel.
No, the American press has always been manipulators, propagandists, extensions of atheistic clap trap, e.g. Ted Turner and CNN, as they dressed in their expensive suits, drank the best liquors and ate the finest meats, walked freely in public to express their morally bankrupt views, traveled to exotic lands to “report” the foreign news, while those of us who knelt before God had our churches shuttered, our Faith ridiculed and religious leaders expelled.
Youre only noticing the corruption of the news industry now but it didnt take Donald Trump to educate you. You could have asked an immigrant 30-40 years ago
The demise of this country has nothing to do with the Left slowly, stealthily, cunningly subverting the people. They did it brazenly. Americans enabled them, nay voted them into political office and patronized their news media corporations.
All valid points, Estovir. I was only responding to the professors inquiry…when did we ever ‘allow’ others to decide facts? The People are waking up, perhaps a little slowly, to the realization their government and media care not one whit about them personally, but that’s a good thing! (The waking up part) Better late than never. Problem is, their goverment and media have a 50+ year head start on demoralizing them via the public education process. It will take time correct. It may take a generation or two to turn this ship around. Maybe longer. And maybe not without another ‘shot heard ’round the world.’ But it will happen. Have Faith my friend.
Denying ‘free speech’ is always the first step to every societies eventual demise.
All they need to do is provide evidence from world history when government control of the flow of information provided the best security of the rights of all the people. Right now, the evidence that is available proves exactly the opposite. After all, the security of the people’s rights is legitimate purpose for any government.
Surely it can’t be that difficult to respect your fellow human’s Rights, right? Yet, Leftists continue to double-down on, ‘hold my beer’. One would think the eventual hangover at least a few of them know must be coming would add at least the possibility of self-reflection. Alas, most will only figure it out when it comes back ten-fold. Start Redenbachering. It’s gonna be a spectacular show, Olly!
John Adams wrote, “And the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country. It is even of more consequence to the rich themselves, and to their posterity. The only question is, whether it is a public emolument; and if it is, the rich ought undoubtedly to contribute, in the same proportion as to all other public burdens, — that is, in proportion to their wealth, which is secured by public expenses. But none of the means of information are more sacred, or have been cherished with more tenderness and care by the settlers of America, than the press. Care has been taken that the art of printing should be encouraged, and that it should be easy and cheap and safe for any person to communicate his thoughts to the public. And you, Messieurs printers, 3whatever the tyrants of the earth may say of your paper, have done important service to your country by your readiness and freedom in publishing the speculations of the curious. The stale, impudent insinuations of slander and sedition, with which the gormandizers of power have endeavored to discredit your paper, are so much the more to your honor; for the jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. And if the public interest, liberty, and happiness have been in danger from the ambition or avarice of any great man, whatever may be his politeness, address, learning, ingenuity, and, in other respects, integrity and humanity, you have done yourselves honor and your country service by publishing and pointing out that avarice and ambition. These vices are so much the more dangerous and pernicious for the virtues with which they may be accompanied in the same character, and with so much the more watchful jealousy to be guarded against.”
I love how honest some journalists can be…
liberal Times columnist, Jamelle Bouie, said, “It’s a pretty straightforward verdict: Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes.”
I love how honest some journalists can be… liberal Times columnist, Jamelle Bouie, said…
I don’t love, but mock and jeer instead at Anonymous Democrat racist and race baiters calling this “journalist” honest when he provides a description of Vance’s life that pretends it only started when he was wealthy. With no mention of his childhood in poverty with a drug addict mother, with service in the Marine Corps and actual deployments to combat zones (while Walz repeatedly deployed to Communist China), etc. Yep, Vance’s life only began AFTER he finished his law degree and AFTER he became a successful entrepeneur.
Before that point, Vance did not exist! Certainly nothing the American people should know about!
Jamelle Bouie, BTW, made his bones as a racist apparatchik in Obama’s Ferguson riots, claiming Michael Brown was murdered by a white cop while on his knees with his hands up pleading for his life saying “Please don’t shoot”.
Clearly, the hoped-for Democrat Memory Hole has extinguished memories of who Obama’s fellow racist and racie baiter,Jamelle Bouie, was long before Trump and while Vance was deployed to war and Bouie was deployed to advance black racist hatred.
These Democrats and “journalists” like Jamelle Bouie lie even more easily than they breath. If there’s a difference between them and Biden… I’d like to see one of them explain it to us.
And in the meantime, their lying, race baiting asses should be mocked and jeered, while exposing who they are and their history to public view.
Picture this: A fox, a chicken and John Kerry sit at a table trying to decide what to eat for lunch. Kerry wants to impose his will on the minority, which, in my jargon, means he and the fox will eat the chicken. Is the fox foxy enough to realize he is next on the menu?