Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent interview of Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz defending his record on free speech. The interview with Fox host Shannon Bream only magnified concerns over what I previously described as the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries.
Here is the column:
Roughly five centuries ago, a new dance first reported in Augsburg, Germany was promptly dubbed the “waltz” after the German term for “to roll or revolve.”
Today, there is no more nimble performer of that dizzying dance than Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz.
Indeed, “Walzing” has become the Minnesota governor’s signature political two-step after his controversial statements on his allegedly socialist views, eliminating the electoral college and other topics.
On Sunday, Walz’s dance partner was Fox News host Shannon Bream, who seemed to be fighting vertigo as the candidate tried to deflect his shocking prior statements on free speech.
Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Court decisions.
Walz notably did not deny or retract his statement. Instead, his interview ironically became itself a flagrant example of misinformation.
First of all, misinformation and hate speech are not exceptions to the First Amendment: Whether it is the cross burnings of infamous figures like KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg or the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., hate speech is protected.
Yet both Harris and Walz are true believers in the righteousness of censorship for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.
The Biden administration defines misinformation as “false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm” — meaning it would subject you to censorship even if you are not intending harm.
It defines malinformation as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
So you can post “true facts,” but would still be subject to censorship if you are viewed as misleading others with your pesky truth-telling.
Furthermore, “book bans” are not equivalent to the Harris-Walz censorship policies.
After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting, Democrats are attempting to deflect questions by claiming that the GOP is the greater threat.
“We’re seeing censorship coming in the form of book bannings in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in schools.”
First, a reality check: The Biden-Harris administration has helped fund and actively support the largest censorship system in our history, a system described by one federal court as “Orwellian.”
These are actual and unrelenting efforts to target individuals and groups for opposing views on subjects ranging from gender identity to climate change to COVID to election fraud.
While Walz and others rarely specifically reference the book bans in question, Florida is one state whose laws concern age limits on access to graphic or sexual material in schools.
School districts have always been given wide latitude in making such decisions on curriculum or library policies. Indeed, while rarely mentioned by the media, the left has demanded the banning or alteration of a number of classic books, including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Of Mice and Men,” under diversity or equity rationales.
I have long opposed actual book bans perpetrated by both the left and the right. However, school districts have always made such access and curriculum decisions.
Finally, Walz and others often sell censorship by citing the dangers of child pornography or of threats made against individuals.
Walz on Sunday followed Hillary Clinton’s recent pro-censorship campaign as he employed such misdirection.
“The issue on this was the hate speech and the protected hate speech — speech that’s aimed at creating violence, speech that’s aimed at threats to individuals,” he claimed. “That’s what we’re talking about in this.”
First, he’d said there is no protected hate speech.
Second, the law already provides ample protections against threats toward individuals.
What’s most striking is that, after years of unapologetically embracing censorship (often under the Orwellian term “content moderation”), the left does not seem to want to discuss it in this election.
Democrats in Congress opposed every major effort to investigate the role of the Biden administration in the social-media censorship system it constructed. Many denied any such connection.
Elon Musk ended much of that debate with the release of the Twitter Files showing thousands of emails from the administration targeting individuals and groups with opposing views.
Now the public is being asked to vote for the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries — but neither Harris nor Walz want to talk about it in any detail.
The result may be the largest bait-and-switch in history.
Walz, Clinton and others also falsely claim they are simply trying to stop things like child pornography — which is already covered by existing criminal laws.
But what many on the left want is to regain what Clinton called their loss of “control” over what we are allowed to say or hear on social media.
Make no mistake about it: The “Walzing” of free speech is one dance you would be wise to decline.
Otherwise, do not be surprised if, when the music stops, you find yourself without both your partner and your free speech.
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.”
I’m still reeling over Walz’s misinformed “you can’t yell Fire! in a crowded theater” retort during the VP debate. Yikes.
(There is also the muse that if Vance or Trump had said that, moderator Brennan or O’Donnell would have fact-corrected him.)
That two clowns like Giggles and Goofball could actually be put forth as the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of a major political party is proof enough that our political system is hopelessly corrupt. That millions of our fellow citizens will actually vote for them is proof that we have way too many unsophisticated people on the loose.
This would be an ideal time for an ELE but I doubt we’ll get off the hook that easily.
-John Underwood
Tyler, TX
As much as I abhor some of Trump’s personal attacks on his political enemies I understand why. They have attacked him and his family personally at every level. They have used every tool available, misinformation, mal information, outright false information and including attempts on his life. As we see with the Biden-Harris sham of Presidential control, it’s more their administration of unelected bureaucrats steering the ship than they themselves. Harris-Walz will continue the same, Trump will gut them, hopefully hold the worst of them accountable for their actions and reorganize to a much smaller and efficient federal government. Common sense is not so common.
Traveler, you make great observations. Have you noticed most, if not all his attacks are against those who hold power? I also cringe at times.
He is the only President in our history that has not come up through the ranks of political parties. I think that is why they (people in power) fear him, especially now. They are showing their hand. He is not beholden to special interest groups. He has learned (hopefully) some very hard lessons the first time around.
How anyone could defend the current Democratic ticket and their radical ideology is beyond me. But as you pointed out, common sense is not so common.
Traveler, I understand what you say, but an essential part about Trump is he is not a politician and is willing to get his hands dirty legally. Additionally, he is not scared away by suits, insults, defamation, or assassination attempts. We need Trump. He doesn’t need us. If necessary, he will fight them all, even if they are at his party or even if they are his friends. He has no fear and doesn’t need to worry about money, licenses or anything else. Try to find another potential candidate that has all those qualities.
As much as I abhor some of Trump’s personal attacks on his political enemies I understand why.
Traveler, the moment Trump came down the escalator in 2015 was the moment cutsie time was over. He didn’t win in 2016 because the political class was enamored with his style. He won because he spoke the language of the people. The Regime loathes him not because of anything other than he threatens their grip on power. If anyone has earned the right to speak his mind freely, it’s Trump.
Doesn’t censorship infringe our natural right to be dis, mis and malinformed? And if I don’t want to be a victim of that type of information, then it’s my responsibility and not the governments to be intellectually armed against it.
Government’s role should be limited by what we need them to do for us, not by what they want to do against us.
OLLY,
The problem is what they call dis, mis and malinformed are actually facts. That is a dude in a dress, not a woman. The pronoun thing is stupid. Pornography in elementary schools is wrong. 2+2=4, not 5. Math is not racist.
Upstate, that’s not new problem, it’s actually a feature of totalitarian regimes. The problem is many of our citizens are unarmed to know the facts. More importantly, they are ignorant of government’s role regarding in securing their rights.
Here’s a fact that goes largely unreported. There were 93 cases filed involving the handling of the 2020 election. Of those 93, only 32 were decided on the merits. Of those 32, Trump and/or the GOP prevailed in 24. That’s a 75% win rate. But if you relied on the the government, or their propaganda mouthpieces in the media, they could never prove their claims.
https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
Saying Gov. Walz is “in over his head” would be like saying the Titanic is under water.
Great analogy Edward. Knucklehead should have stayed a high school football assistant coach.
Another great column by the good professor.
The Democrats keep saying democracy is on the line this election. Then professor Turley points out how un-democratic they are by their words and actions. Yes, democracy is on the line this election. Just not the way Democrats want you to believe.
Based on this column, I assume that the professor will not be voting for Harris/Walz.
Walz is a dizzying dance of distraction.
This censorship crap is simply another example of how ‘crab mentality’ has metastasized from the inner cities to the entire left nationwide.
You can see right through their lies, their jealousy, their fear of having to assume personal responsibilities. These people hate others that are not afflicted like them and will harm themselves further in order to harm everyone else.
Disgusting and pathetic people peddling garbage to the losers of the nation – I’m not sure who is worse the people afflicted or the people profiting from them, like john kerry, john bolton and dick cheney, the hedge fund aholes, the ngo losers, the CCP and euroweinnies…
Sick, disgusting, lecherous cowards, all of them.
* Someone must think the way to control her clan is to censor them, confine them or corral them in 15 minute towns . It’s a free form prison, a bew age prison for the depraved. What’s funny is they cheer for their own imprisonment. Quite amazing.
Several weeks ago “Waltz” spoke to a crowd and gave a good example of free speech, he said “We can’t afford four more years of this”, was that misinformation, disinformation or truth? I also think after viewing video of “Waltz” (mis) handling a semi automatic shotgun it’s probably a good thing he never carried an M16 into combat.
Democrats are the SAME Fascists who took Europe by FORCE in 1930’s!
Democrats are fighting a Civil War. The Rule of Law has broken down in the USA
We need to jail Criminal Democrats for THEIR CRIMES! Including Judges, DAs, AGs, Govs, Congress, DOJ, FBI, etc….if you commit conspiracy and crimes…GO TO JAIL
Starter list
Anyone persecuting Trump and his people it is sedition and Treason!
Anyone covering up Bidens(and Democrats) crimes
Anyone helping illegals especially with US Taxpayer money that is sedition and Treason!
Anyone involved in changing Genders of children…including doctors, Medical execs, nurses, parents, social workers, etc
Any family members of US elected officials taking payments from foreign businesses and governments that involved lobbying the government.
Time for a non-compete if you are elected or work for an elected US offical…you can’t work for a foreign entity until the SAME period of your service.
In government for 4 years….4 years till you can work for the Turkish government to lobby the government. Biden family can’t work for any foreign entity for 50 years
Make America Lawful Again!
Oh and I mean jail them by the thousands…and I don’t care how much they CRY!
We are being told that disinformation is killing us by the same people, Biden, Harris, KJP, Walz et al that repeat the “fine folks”hoax, support the 51 intelligence operatives, tell us the border a) was secure, b) wasn’t secure due to Trump and c) needs to be open because we don’t make enough babies. Oh, and the same people that told us that Biden was sharp as a tack and that he runs circles round 30 year old aides.
HullBobby,
Well said.
They are the source of some of the most misinformation and disinformation.
“The Biden administration defines misinformation as ‘false’ . . .”
“False” — as determined by whom?
“It defines malinformation as ‘based on fact, but used out of context . . .'”
Who determines whether a statement is “used out of context?”
To ensure that drugs are “safe,” the FDA compels drug makers to submit them for prior approval. To ensure that statements are “safe” (not “false” or “used out of context”), will we be compelled to submit them for prior approval, say to the FSA — the Federal Speech Administration?
I’m a broken record with you, I know. You are one of the best proponents of free speech this country has had in many years. You are learned, measured, rational and believe deeply in the Constitution and first amendment. But like people who thought we should approach Hitler with reason and and open minds, you and all of us are dealing with fascists who would burn your books, arrest you and others for sedition for what you say. Harris and Walz will do what this administration, what New York has already done, with DC has already done, arrest people and prosecute them because of their political positions, under one cover or another. These are bad people. They must be defeated or our country will not survive it. They will make sure elections are fixed. They will make sure people are afraid to speak out. We cannot, like Europe, like Canada, like other commonwealth countries, turn further to the dark side. Already children are being raised in a Hitler youth fashion, taught to like racism, authoritarianism and other facets of fascism. It’s too late when they win. We are not a country where people will fight, and those who would are too old or unable to do so. I deeply admire the work you do, but say what I’m sure, you believe, or you could not write what you have. Our friends, our family, our country is spiraling in a very dangerous direction. That’s what not voting for Trump or voting for Harris will do to us.
* Actually, it’s the inmates in the free form new age prison that demand depravity. The first things instituted were drugs and perversions.
* Kamala and Walz are just convincing the convicts to jail themselves. How does anyone miss that?
As to programs like the view or msnbc etc, they’re just doing jobs for money. 8 million per year isn’t a bad salary.
Yesterday was Columbo Day on tv. Happy Columbo day belatedly. Columbo is the best!
I’ve asked it many times, but never got an answer: Without Free Speech, how can we tell who the idiots are?
Censorship is the weaker of the two means for manipulating public opinion for political effect. Pushing out an alternative reality (public fraud) is the more effective and sophisticated, lower-cost, faster, and lower blowback.
Strategically, it is a foolish blunder (though well-intentioned) to rail against censorship while blindly championing so wide a definition of “protected free speech” that it greenlights the political use of carefully-crafted whoppers to deceive and distract.
Take Biden-Blinken-Morrell’s Oct. 2020 CIA-assisted PsyOps to cover-up Hunter’s laptop — exactly 4 years ago. Per Jonathan Turley’s framework, that skillful betrayal of public trust belongs in the category “speech I don’t like, but will defend to the death the right to express”. Right! Our own CIA-trained professionals dupe the electorate to “nudge” a Presidential election, and JT (one of our top Constitutional lawyers) says ours is only to gripe about it after the fact. What he’s implying is that the most powerful in society have the right to dupe the public if the objective is seeking or holding onto political power. What’s wrong with that picture?
The infowarfare shops set up by the left are salivating at the right’s 1-dimensional obsession with censorship and defense of speech inauthenticity as a basic freedom. Not being held to the standard of truth and trustworthiness, they are eager to operate under those terms. The CIA teaches the tradecraft well.
Strategically, this misdirection reminds me of fighting “the last war” while the adversary changes the game. Think about it: You’re telling your political adversaries “feel free to push out public frauds, just don’t censor what we’re saying”. That doesn’t strike you as walking into a ginormous trap?
Jeeez, enough with hunter’s laptop. There was no documented chain of custody.
Wally, it has been PROVEN to be authentic by such conservatives as the NY Times and the FBI. You are just an idiot.
That is, Actually, not entirely true. Only a few emails have been authenticated, while the majority of the content has not. Wally is correct about the chain of custody; it is a problem.
George: being respectful toward trying to stay on topic here, I nonetheless quickly note that you left out a few important facts:
(1) Hunter has not denied that the laptop is his;
(2) In Hunter’s very recent gun trial, prosecutors entered it into evidence WITH NO OBJECTION from defense;
(3) Looks like hullbobby is correct.
(4) thanks anyway
Lin, entering the laptop into evidence without objection does not mean it cannot be contested at trial. There is indeed a chain of custody issue. And Biden has not admitted that the entirety of the contents in the laptop are his. Hullbobby is still not entirely correct.
Neither hunter nor anyone else has ever challenged a single specific bit of evidence from the laptop
Nothing that has been presented in court was challenged
Nothing that has been presented in the media has been challenged
You absurd argument is that maybe something no one has seen is an altered bit of Russian disinformation
While false even if true it would not matter
The laptop issue is not as cut and dry as you want to portray it. It never was. It’s use at trial was limited and did not dive into the veracity of the entire contents. In Hunter Biden’s trial witnesses provided more relevant evidence than the laptop.
George you also do not know the difference between verified authentic and chain of custody
The chain of custody for the laptop is hunter to paul mac to the FBI
Giuliani got a 2nd copy Mac made because he did not trust the fbi
Hunters legal team accepted that the laptop received by Mac came from hunter
The chain of custody is rock solid
Is there an absurdly unlikely possibility that Russians broke into Mac’s shop made tiny alterations no one detected snuck out leaving no trace and all this has been undetected to this day ?
Yes and the odds against are over 1 in a trillion
I would note that hackers separately used information from the laptop to get into hunters current iCloud account and download voicemails
This means the cryptography keys on the laptop for hunters iCloud were correct
The odds of the keys being correct on manufactured evidence is many orders of magnitude smaller than 1:1000000000000
“ Hunters legal team accepted that the laptop received by Mac came from hunter
The chain of custody is rock solid”
That is not entirely true either. It has not been fully verified if all the contents were his.
Mac called the FBI after he gave Giuliani a copy which was then disseminated by multiple people.
You really are clueless
No Mac did not give a copy to Giuliani first the fbi had this since dec 2019
That provides a 2nd problem because the fbi Knew the laptop was hunters when they contacted social media warning them it was possible Russian disinformation
That is not merely censorship it is election fraud
Regardless Giuliani did not get the material until spring 2020
Again you confuse chain of custody with verification
You literally do not have to verify the contents if have have a strong chain of custody
So again the chain of custody is hunter to paul Mac to the fbi
To “verify” the contents you put Mac under oath and ask who gave you this laptop
And/or you verify the signature is hunters and/or you get hunters legal team to stipulate that the laptop was dropped at Mac’s
Regardless there is zero question today that hunter left the laptop with paul Mac
Next you ask Mac did you alter anything ?
You review the shop’s security procedures and who had access
You get every one who had access to provide a affidavit that they did not alter it
Next you put the fbi agent that picked up the laptop on the stand and go through the same questions with him
Having completed all of that you have established beyond a reasonable doubt that EVERYTHING on the laptop is Hunters
Hunters legal team is then able to challenge individual items
Further each individual item introduced as evidence will likely be individually authenticated because that strengthens the case
You should be able to find the reasonable doubt jury instruction online
A paraphrase is it does not mean no doubt at all it does not mean disproving that space aliens altered the contents
I would not that the standard for the media is much lower
In Oct 2020 Glenn greenwald who is just about the pre eminent national security journalist in the world
He broke the Snowden story
He wrote not just what the process is for journalists but then went through it and confirmed that by the standard that journalists use for this type of information
The laptop is authentic and verified
As I noted before many checks of contents allow us to establish what the odds of content being altered are
The odds against that are astronomical
I would further note that even if a bad actor was involved it is virtually impossible to create something that is both damaging as this is
Forged
And undetectable
Not only couldn’t the Russians do it
But the NSA could not
Note that klinesmith altered a single word on a bit of evidence for a fisa warrant and the only reason it took 2 years to find that alteration was because the fbi refused to give anyone the warrant for years
The forgery was readily apararent the moment the evidence was public
All that was necessary was for Carter page to say But CIA would never say that because I was working for them
That does not mean that we must believe page
It just means we subpoena the original memo from cia and the the alteration is glaring
Again there is no specific bit of evidence hunter has ever challenged
If he did then experts would examine photos to establish the location they were taken an time of day
Meta data would be check
Checksums and myriads of other tiny clues would be checked the pixels would be examined for artifacts indicating alterations
People in the photos would be subpoenaed to testify about there presence
And on and on
Absolutely positively I can forge anything today to fool the naked eye for a naive viewer but even the ai deep fakes are detectable in some way
The most trivial way is that what they portray did not happen
A video of trump reading meine kampf can be detected as a forgery a thousand ways
But the easiest is trump was not where the video was made when the video was made
Or there are witnesses and other video to the actual event
Forging reality undetected is incredibly hard and gets exponentially harder either the number of forgery’s you produce
There are likely 100000 photos on hunters laptop and many time more emails
All you need is one tiny mistake on a single one and everyone will doubt them all
I would note that is a logical error
But it does not matter
If hunters team could cast significant doubt on a single file from the laptop even one not used as evidence no jury would convict and the story would have been discredited
While you need not test every single document-only those used as evidence
All you have to do is discredit one and you discredit all
Hunter did not even try
Because he and his lawyers know the content is s true and challenging it makes it stronger to a jury
Obviously you’re not a lawyer. There are two ways to get an exhibit introduced into evidence: First, by laying the foundation, including chain of custody, for its introduction and then moving to have it introduced, or second, by stipulation of both counsel that it be introduced without objection.
Once counsel stipulated to its introduction without objection, it comes in for all purposes without foundation, including objecting to chain of custody.
That is, Actually, not entirely true. Only a few emails have been authenticated, while the majority of the content has not.
Actually, George is here to post mostly lies and insinuations with little regard for the truth. As always. While Wally may be merely another Useful Idiot, George is a calculating, serial pathological liar.
George must hope the infamous Democrat Memory Hole will help hide his lies while Biden’s lawyer did not object to the Biden Bribery Laptop being entered into evidence. Including no objections based on “chain of custody”.
Hunter Biden’s Infamous Laptop Admitted as Evidence During Gun Trial
While presenting their case against Hunter Biden at his gun trial, prosecutors entered the first son’s “laptop from hell” with no objections from the defense.
Biden’s lead defense attorney Abbe Lowell looked at Judge Maryellen Noreika and said he did not object to the government entering it into evidence.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/hunter-bidens-infamous-laptop-admitted-as-evidence-during-gun-trial/ar-BB1nGPRh
George seems to have some deep seated mental health issue that leads him to believe if he insults the audience here every single day by blatantly and openly lying to everyone’s face, that will convince them to agree with what he posts.
No he is not
This is absurd the contents have been admitted as evidence in court
Hunters legal team has accepted it authenticity
I would further note that you claim is idiotic
So there are millions of files on the laptop
Your argument is that someone must authenticate each file before anything can be used ?
When manufacturing widgets
A factory will pull at random a small number and test them
Based on those tests the manufacturer can establish with a small margin of error the failure rate of the entire batch
The goal is an error rate below 3 in a million
Six sigma
Statistically if you test a sufficient portion of the whole you can know the characteristics of the whole with a small margin of error
Many docs from the laptop have been authenticated and made public
Not a single document has ever been established as a fraud or Russian disinformation
The probability that even a single document is inauthentic is minuscule
Further it would not matter if 100% of documents you have not seen are frauds if everyone that has been used as evidence is authentic which is the case
What is it you think is false ?
Photos of hunter freebasing coke while boning a prostitute ?
You left wing nuts bought the entire Steele dossier as true and are still trying to pretend bits like the mythical pee tape are real
Despite the authors admission under oath that it is all fabricated
While nothing from hunters laptop has ever been challenged as a fraud yet you are sure that most of it is Russian disinformation
Even though no Russian was near the laptop
There is no chain of custody for literally millions of ballots in 2020
Can we throw them out ?
“There is no chain of custody for literally millions of ballots in 2020
Can we throw them out ?”
Bingo! You have proven George-Svelaz a hypocrite.
Jeeez, enough with hunter’s laptop. There was no documented chain of custody.
Jeeez Wally… don’t end there! Tell everyone how you think that claim you posted actually means something. If you think posting that makes a point, you probably claim a baseball has corners.
Prosecutors introduced it into the trial and conviction of Hunter Biden; everyone but you knows that.
Biden’s lawyers didn’t dispute it being Biden’s laptop; everybody but you knows that. Didn’t dispute it being entered into evidence by using your claim “there was no documented chain of custody”, etc.
Biden’s lawyers admitted it was his laptop while filing lawsuits against various media for reporting on the contents; everybody but you knows that.
You’re here to post that like you’re having a Joe Biden Moment?
Wally not only was the chain of custody proven in court but hunters legal team accepted it as authentic
This debate was totally over years ago
What ? Documented by whom ? The FBI has a documented chain of custody.
Owner to the FBI.
What is wrong with you people ? We have Hunter’s signature, we have the man who cloned the drive, and we have the forensic EVIDENCE.
Don’t BS a master technician, son.
Wally, what you say isn’t intelligent and demonstrates that you are not well-informed. 100% proof of custody doesn’t exist. Instead, we use legal parameters to determine the admissibility of evidence, so we assess the legal parameters to determine the value and admissibility of evidence. In Hunter’s case, the laptop was proven his for more reasons than necessary to admit it into evidence.
Nothing was used from the laptop that has been denied or proven wrong. We don’t need to deal with the entire laptop any longer. We only need to deal with the parts used as proof.
Wally –
I don’t think you know what chain of custody means (your statement proves you don’t, or maybe you’re fooling all of us and being sarcastic, which would be really funny). Chain of custody DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING IS REAL! It only means that something has not been tampered with once in came into the custody of law enforcement. This is a rule of evidence, not proof of what it is. Evidentiary value must still be proven.
This is COMPLETELY SEPERATE from whether something is authentic. Law enforcement must still authenticate it (think ballistics or fingerprints).
These terrible television shows are causing everyone to be a keyboard lawyer. Although I see actual lawyers (and a judge or 2) who make these same brain-dead arguments, so maybe it’s all of us.
If YOU knew Spooks Inc. was conducting psyops on The People in October 2020, why didn’t you tell the media so they’d tell those who believed the spy-vs-spy lies?
“Not being held to the standard of truth and trustworthiness, they are eager to operate under those terms. “
In other words, Pbianca, freedom of speech only occurs when one is held to the standard of truth created by others. If science were to adopt your principle, it would immediately cease to a halt.
The advancement of science is based on outliers that disagree with present truths created by the consensus. If you can’t understand that, you should remove yourself from all discussions about speech.
The state of Florida has ruled that some sexually explicit books should not be available to children in public schools. When De Santis showed sample illustrations from some of the ‘banned books’ to television journalists, they declined to show the contents to their audiences because the books in question suggested that children explore various types of sexual relations with older children and adults, and provided illustrations to help them do so.
You do not have to be a religious fanatic to understand that if Walz & cpy. are okay with distributing such books to children in public schools, they are not defending free speech; they are supporting the sexualization of children. All you have to be is a parent who understands the difference between a young child, a curious adolescent, and a mature adult. Even if you are not a parent, it still should be obvious that parents send their children and adolescents to school to learn the values and skills they will need to function as mature adults, not to be groomed and exploited by adults.
“We’re seeing censorship coming in the form of book bannings in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in schools.”
Like we’ve been telling fishy and svelz, you can get your kiddie gay porn outside of schools, so there is no censorship. Similarly, Hustler magazine is not considered censored or an example of censorship simply because you cannot read it while stalking 7-year olds in the elementary school library. Strange you don’t see straight people trying to force Hustler into schools, but the left seems to want to do that with kiddie gay porn…perverts.
Just eliminate public schools and the problem goes away
I library particularly a school library can not have infinite books
Therefore it is always necessary to say no to some
Those that do not contribute to the purpose of schools- getting the basis of reading wiring and arithmetic into children are expendable
The choices are made by librarians
Answerable to the administration
Answerable to parents
Not the whim of teachers who know little or nothing about the world
“ Therefore it is always necessary to say no to some‘
Who says? Why do a couple of parents get to decide for the entire school incuding parents who may be ok with certain books?
Those parents opposed to certain books can demand the librarian not allow their children to check out the books they don’t like. Why deny access to everyone?
“ Not the whim of teachers who know little or nothing about the world”
Then why bother having teachers. According to yout childrent should be educated by the ignorance of the parents instead.
Those seeking bans on certain books want to deny a certain group of people relevance. That’s all they care about. By denying access to everyone by banning the books instead of requiring librarians to deny books to children of parents who don’t want their kids to have them is a better alternative. They don’t get to dictate to everyone what they can or cannot read.
George –
Come on man! Make a rational argument. Books in a school library are accessible to all children, not just those who check them out. Further, do a “couple of parents” have the right to advocate that certain books remain when the majority oppose it?
And seriously, no one is banning children from reading these books. Your ignorant ranting suggest that the parents are too stupid or lazy to use Amazon or simply a local bookstore. Any parent can find the books for their children. Just like they could buy them a beer if they’re under 21.
A parent has authority for their child, but not someone else’s.
I bet you’re one of those people who argue that voter ID laws discriminate against minorities because minorities somehow “struggle to get IDs.” That argument is so shockingly racist that it’s amazing any minority still votes for a democrat.
Do better George. Do better.
George as usual your argument is nuts
It is parents that get to decide about their children
If I allow my children to visit your children in your home under your supervision
That does not mean I have given you permission to impose your ideas about sex on my kids
Kids are not miniature adults
They do not have the self autonomy of adults
Parents place their kids in the care of other adults
They are entitled to reasonable expectations and limits regarding that care
A parent should not have to vet adults caring for their kids on their views regarding kids access to guns or knives or hazardous chemicals or being left unsupervised near pools
The expectations for schools are even higher
Just because the state requires me to send my child school does not mean it can substitute indoctrination on myriads of subjects or subject my child to unusual risks.
Public schools are inherently least common denominator
Frankly all government requires supermajority consensus
Only an idiot does not understand that government by simple majority is actually tyrany
The majority of the country support the ability of a woman to have an abortion
The majority of the country oppose abortion for nearly all reasons in the third trimester
The reality is there is no actual majority for any specific abortion policy
We can go through this on issue after issue
Until Bidens disastrous border policies you could likely get a majority supporting more legal immigration
Now you can probably get a majority for mass deportation
Majorities only exist for most things as an expression of general values not as specific policies
This is also why the many versions of
Government that governs least governs best
Which is historically proveable and demonstrable with data
Yet we can always find a majority driven by some charasmatic leader demanding that government do more about some hot button issue
Often followed by decades of opposition after this hot button policy is implimented
So no schools do not get to decide everything about the kids in their care with parents who object being required to do so formally with their kid being independently restricted
As a parent if you wish to provide your child with hustler at home that is up to you
At school the focus is on the fundamentals of education everything else is least common denominator
Why bother having mechanics when you can repair your car yourself?
This is another of your stupid ill thought through arguments
The fact that it is a more productive use of my time to spend 8 hours a day making money than teaching my children does not mean I lose control of the education of my kids any more than that if I send my car for an oil change the mechanic is free too rebuild the engine
Schools exist to deliver a specific service the basic non controversial education of kids
Something they are doing an increasingly poor job at due to left wing nut driven mission creep
If you wish to sexually indoctrinate your kid you have 18hrs a day to inflict whatever nonsense you wish on them
At school the focus is basic education
Not left wing nut luxury goods
Must I demand that my child not be given access to machetes at school because some other parents might want their kids trained in combat ?
Regardless you are not denying access to everyone
You are denying access at school to students
Everywhere else the parents decide
Constantly trying to reframe this as
There is a broad right of teachers or government to indoctrinate
And that parents must opt out is a false choice
Liberty is the right to what you can provide for yourself
It is not an entitlement to be given what you want
Government is not obligated or empowered to give us what we want
Not even what we have a right to
It is merely enjoined from interfering
In your home you may educate you child as you please
Some green haired 20 something incel who is barely an adult herself does not get to decide how she will shape the values of your child
A teachers job is to teach the fundamentals
When they are back to demonstrating that they can do that well
We can talk about whether to expand their responsibilities
You are a disaster out combination of arrogance and stupidity
Why do you presume parents are ignorant
I would bet that the average parent knows more about sex and children than the average 20 something incel teacher ?
At the core to your argument is that children have the same rights as adults
Do I need to explain to you why that is not true ?
All but the most extreme 2A advocates grasp that children can not have access to guns
We fight over what age children under adult supervision can acces guns
But no one thinks any kid of any age that wants one should have a Glock
Children do not have the same rights as adults
Choices you are free to make as an adult
You are free to restrict for your child
And in
Many cases you are reckless and negligent if you do not
Parents are the worst choice for making decisions for a child EXCEPT all others
Until a parent has fairly significantly failed no one not even government gets to override their choices regarding their children
If your ok with a book
Buy it for your kid
Jonathan, I love your blog and click on it several times a day 🙂
But I must just point out something …
The WALTZ is a 3-step dance, not 2-step. Remember learning to count the steps out? 1, 2, 3, turn – 1, 2, 3, turn – 1, 2, 3, turn
Best regards,
Janice
PS: I also hate it when the forks are placed in the knife slot 😱😂🤣
I too love reading the Profs. opinions, what I find annoying are the very stupid,nay, idiotic comments from readers who think they are interesting, or just commenting to harass and insult. This wesbite needs a moderator.
You mean a censor.
One. Two.Three. Misinformation.
Disinformation.
Malinformation.
The MAGA play book.
“The MAGA play book.”
Lying: the Obama/Biden/Harris/Walz/Wally playbook. And that playbook is full of Schiff.
It can’t be said oft enough: “Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.”